By Eva Gregersen, Ryan Smith, and Sigurd Arild
Since some criticisms have been leveled at our use of functions and the model we employ, some discussion of the use of functions may be in order.
Criticisms of Functions and Function Models That Are Discussed in This Article:
1. The Standard Model is of dubious scholarly origin.
1.1 Jung didn’t endorse it.
1.2 Myers didn’t endorse it.
1.3 The proprietors of the MBTI have not endorsed it.
Overview of Terminology
Before we proceed to discuss the specific criticisms, some brief definitions may be helpful. Readers already familiar with these terms may skip to the next heading.
- Function Dynamics refers to the view of types as determined by the interplay of functions, as well as (or rather than) by the four dichotomies.
- The Standard Model refers to the arrangement of functions according to a scheme of EIEI (for extroverts) and IEIE (for introverts). An INFP would thus have the functions Fi-Ne-Si-Te.
- The Nucleus Model refers to the arrangement of functions according to a scheme of EEII (for extroverts) and IIEE (for introverts). An INFP would thus have the functions Fi-Ni-Se-Te.
- The One-Three Model refers to the arrangement of functions according to a scheme of EIII (for extroverts) and IEEE (for introverts). An INFP would thus have the functions Fi-Ne-Se-Te.
With these definitions in place, we will now proceed to address the criticisms.
1 The Standard Model is of dubious scholarly origin
Possible. Some critics and commentators like to call the Standard Model the “Harold Grant Model,” since it allegedly originated with Harold Grant’s book From Image to Likeness (Paulist Press 1983). Collateral criticisms tend to include observations that Grant was not part of the mainstream type community and that his book fused typology with a Christian worldview in which the preferences were gifts from God.
In responding to these criticisms, we should note that the origin of an idea is separate from whatever truth it may hold. For example, the first person to have discovered that two and two equals four might have been deranged in many other respects. That does not subtract from the claim that two and two are four. Conversely, Jung believed in many curious things, such as poltergeists and extra-sensory perception, that most modern-day typologists do not believe in, but these idiosyncrasies do not invalidate Jung’s contributions to typology itself.[1] In both cases we evaluate ideas as ideas and not on the basis of what the specific people who coined them otherwise believed. We should extend the same courtesy to Grant.
Next, it is important to note that we do not actually know whether the Standard Model originated with Grant. For his part, Grant claimed to have learned the model from Myers, and as we shall see, Myers had allegedly shown some support for the standard model sometime before her death in 1980 (three years before Grant’s book hit print).[2] Likewise, operating off an independent line of research, the American typologist John Beebe ended up positing a similar function model at a conference in 1983 and published findings similar to Grant’s in 1984.[3]
In fact, during the 1980s and early 1990s, a whole range of other typologists (like Brownsword, Kroeger, Thuesen, and Jefferies) also spoke up in support of the Standard Model (although some were writing off the basis of Grant and not off independent theorizing like Beebe). Hence even if the Standard Model was Grant’s idea, and even if Grant was an outsider, his idea has nevertheless been recognized as meritorious by Myers and other researchers besides. Thus, the “dubious scholarly origins” critique really has very little going for it once properly examined.
1.1 Jung didn’t endorse the Standard Model
True. It is not clear what type of function model Jung envisaged when he wrote Psychological Types. In several places, he appears to support the One-Three Model as defined above. For example, describing the Ti types, Jung says that they have “counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation [which] are comparatively unconscious and inferior, and therefore have a primitive extraverted character” which suggests that he viewed the function order as IEEE.[4] It was from this passage, and others like it, that Myers derived what she took to be Jung’s support for the One-Three Model, although orthodox Jungians tended to prefer the Nucleus Model (IIEE) instead.[5]
With regards to the One-Three model, the contention is sometimes voiced that Myers was the only theorist to interpret Jung in such a way, but this is far from correct. Orthodox Jungians, such as Edward Whitmont, have read Jung as advancing such a model as well.[6] Beebe reads Jung to say much the same thing, although he does not agree with the One-Three model.[7]
However, elsewhere in Psychological Types, Jung appeared to support the Nucleus Model instead. For example, speaking of Nietzsche’s type, Jung says that: “He must surely be reckoned as an intuitive type with an inclination towards the side of introversion. … His aphoristic writings are expressive of his introverted intellectual side.”[8] With the implication being that “intellect” is often used as a synonym for Thinking in Psychological Types. The Nucleus Model has traditionally been the most popular conception among classical Jungians, with theorists like van der Hoop and C.A. Meier explicitly supporting it.[9] But as we said, it is not entirely clear whether this was really what Jung meant. He certainly seemed to speak of the One-Three Model in more than one place.
Hence the One-Three or Nucleus Model appear to be the closest to what Jung would have envisaged, had he cared to commit to a specific function model. It is thus true, as the critics allege, that Jung did not use the Standard Model.
1.2 Myers didn’t endorse the Standard Model
True and false. As we have seen, Myers originally read Jung as supporting the One-Three model (so that accounts for the true). On the other hand, several sources report that prior to her death in 1980 (three years before Grant’s book) Myers had allegedly changed her stance so that she was now agnostic with regards to the merits of the One-Three model when compared to the Standard model.[10] She knew that she didn’t believe in the Nucleus Model, but found it harder to decide between the Standard and One-Three Models.
However, when critics allege that Myers did not support the Standard Model, they are not simply making a historical comment. They are using her alleged divergence from it as a proxy for how to judge its merits. As we said above, ideas should ideally be judged on the basis of their content, not on their history. But if we play along, the fact that Myers eventually amended her system to accommodate the Standard Model constitutes an act of endorsement. So insofar as our sources are correct that Myers revised her views, the critics’ claim that Myers did not endorse the Standard Model is more false than true.
1.3 The proprietors of the MBTI have not endorsed the Standard Model
True and false. As mentioned, Myers originally supported the One-Three Model, thinking that it had its basis in Jung. But as we also noted, Myers allegedly changed her view so as to allow for either the One-Three Model or the Standard Model in her system. It is true that the MBTI Manual seems to give preference to the One-Three Model, but the last edition of the Manual was published in 1998 and is no longer up-to-date. Get your hands on a modern-day piece of MBTI training material, and you will most likely see that those resources purposefully avoid defining the orientation of the tertiary function because the proprietors of the MBTI, like Myers herself, moved from supporting the One-Three Model to giving the respondent the choice between the One-Three and Standard Models. In her guide to the MBTI instrument, one of the authors who helped pen the last edition of the Manual sums up the matter as follows:
“Myers and Briggs assumed it [i.e. the tertiary function] was opposite to that of the dominant function, as were the auxiliary and inferior functions. This convention was followed in all three MBTI manuals, although there are alternative views regarding the issue. Because there is relatively little theoretical or empirical evidence favoring one attitude or the other as habitual for the tertiary function, its attitude is not specified in this book.”[11]
Thus, while the proprietors of the MBTI do not endorse the Standard Model as the sine qua non of function models, they nevertheless do endorse it. They are not saying that anything goes, but giving the respondent a choice between two very specific function models. And the Standard Model is one of them.
Concluding Remarks to Part 1
All of the criticisms examined in this article take the form of “Authority X didn’t believe in the Standard Model.” While some readers would undoubtedly prefer to just waive the words “appeal to authority is a fallacy!” around as a wand that magically neutralizes 100 years of theorizing by experts, we would not be quite so daring ourselves. The authorities may be wrong, of course. But as a rule, irreverent one-liners are not the kind of contributions that will show it. Since the theory of functions is quite complex and has only a minuscule amount of empirical content, that means that this is exactly the kind of theory where the words of experts will weigh in the strongest.[12]
Of all the experts examined, the only one who can positively be said not to have used the Standard Model is C.G. Jung himself. This is hardly surprising, as Jung most likely had no function model at all when he wrote Psychological Types.[13] Thus, while the litany of accusations against the Standard Model may sound impressive at first glance, almost all of the points turn out to be misleading when examined in their proper contexts.
Finally, it is important to note that what we’re doing on this site is not “Myers-Briggs,” but a function-based rendition of Jung’s typology in the tradition of Jung, van der Hoop, von Franz, and Myers. The Myers-Briggs is a specific psychometric instrument and operationalization of Jung’s typology, and probably the most well-validated “Jung Type Test” in existence. It is, however, also a subset of the field and not the field itself.
***
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc.
CelebrityTypes.com is an independent research venture, which has no affiliation with the MBTI Trust, Inc.
NOTES
[1] Jaffe: Jung’s Last Years (Spring Publications 1984) p. 102, 109
[2] Geyer: Developing Models and Beliefs (Personal Website 2004) p. 8
[3] Personal communications with Beebe, 2015
[4] Jung: Psychological Types §637
[5] Jung: Psychological Types §575
[6] Whitmont: The Symbolic Quest (Princeton University Press 1979)
[7] Beebe: Analytical Psychology (Routledge 2004) p. 100
[8] Jung: Psychological Types §242
[9] Meier: Personality (Daimon 1995) p. 13 cf. van der Hoop: Conscious Orientation (Kegan Paul & Co. 1939) p. 286
[10] Geyer: Developing Models and Beliefs p. 8, cf. Katharine D. Myers: Determining the Function Hierarchy for the 16 MBTI Types (Personal Website 2008) p. 2
[11] Quenk: Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (Wiley 2009) p. 15
[12] Jung: Psychological Types §3
[13] Von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology (Spring Publications 1984) p. 1