Complexity and Type

Most of my typological reflections are rooted directly in Carl Jung's discussion of type even though I have made free use of the MBTI shorthand. I finally decided I ought to look a little more closely at the MBTI discussions proper, and realized I had developed a way of framing it in opposition to it. My typology works according to triangulation and developed in close proximity to my own self-reflection and on reflections about my wife. MBTI developed with the explicit assumption that your inferior function is always the opposite of your dominant function.

But what I am almost 100% sure about is that this picture is wrong, that the structure presumed by the MBTI is not necessarily the case. I am sure that it described some people, that it accurately captures one possible set of relations. However, I am also sure that it is not the only way in which these functions can develop.

June Singer, in Boundaries of the Soul, talks about how she felt typology stymied rather than facilitated her analysis--that, despite being a 'Thinker' she had a robust Feeling function. This doesn't make sense in the standard MBTI structure, we would have to say that if she does have a strong Feeling function, she cannot be a Thinker. My model does not require this--instead, you get a primary function which may develop through its auxiliary function into one of two distinct styles. In the standard situation, the person develops in the standard Dyadic fashion. However, there is another option--in which the person develops their 'contrary' function by way of their of auxiliary, allowing it to serve as a messenger between the two.

Which all goes to question the validity of the MBTI questionnaire, requiring that most typing properly belongs to an analytic-personal encounter, where the individual's life history is discussed and not reduced to a battery of yes/no, maye so questions.

And, yes, this is a bit outside the scope of what I usually post here. Since it did emerge from this discussion, it feels right, though.