A Youtuber who calls himself INTJ has released a video explaining why he no longer wants to have anything to do with typology. We don’t know his name, but he seems to be from Arizona, so we’ll call him ArizonaINTJ.
He makes three points that we’ll address in a minute. But first, let us point out that Michael Pierce already did a response to his video, which can be found here.
ArizonaINTJ makes three points:
- Typology is not as accurate as he once believed.
- Typology poisons people’s perceptions.
- Typology is based on the occult.
First, typology can be broken down into two main strands: Dichotomy-based and function-based. Dichotomy-based typology is empirical, while function-based typology is not.
ArizonaINTJ says that he has studied and read extensively on Jungian typology. However, he does not seem to distinguish between dichotomy-based and function-based typology.
With regards to dichotomy-based typology, there are several known problems with its empirical validity. Its scientific validity is acceptable, but not great. The interesting thing here, however, is that this has been known for decades. There is no big reveal here. Even the state of the art in the field of empirical personality studies is not very good by the standard ArizonaINTJ seems to expect from typology. So you could ask: Is the problem with typology? Or is the problem with the expectations that certain people have of typology and of personality psychology more broadly?
Then there is the question of function-based typology. It is true that this take on typology is not empirical, which, again, has been known for years. Now, you could argue that you will only accept things that are empirically validated. And we certainly live in an empirical age, so that position would not be out of bounds. However, as the philosopher Owen Flanagan has pointed out, not even in theory do we know of any series of empirical experiments that can prove that empiricism is exhaustive. So just because something cannot be proven empirically, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It simply means that – insofar as it exists – it has its own more elusive logic. On our website, we’ve tried to explore that logic through meta-frameworks that might make sense of it, such as Platonism, or the Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek’s theory of epistemology in the social sciences. These frameworks seem unfamiliar to ArizonaINTJ. However, to give just one example, both F.A. Hayek and the Polish mathematician Alfred Korzybski have argued that if something that cannot be validated empirically truly exists, experts will tend to converge on the veracity of observations concerning that thing over time. ArizonaINTJ gives the example that many leading typologists used to believe that the tertiary function was orientated differently from the dominant one – for example, that INTJs have Fe. But now almost everyone believes that INTJs have Fi. This is actually a sign that – as opposed to say, astrology – there is something that is actually there. The fact that typologists have identified a mistake made in the early theory and converged on a new axiom about the orientation of the tertiary function suggests that there is some truth to the functions, even though they can’t be validated empirically.
So to sum up, the empirical problems with typology have been known for decades. The standard that ArizonaINTJ expects of typology would cause even the Big Five to fail. And there are actually ulterior modes of logic meant to gauge whether the functions are “true,” yet ArizonaINTJ seems unfamiliar with these devices.
***
ArizonaINTJ’s second point is that typology poisons people’s perceptions. On this point, we actually agree with ArizonaINTJ. By and large, typology is the invention of some very intuitive, Platonically orientated people. In the scope of Western history, every time a Platonic mode of thought has come to dominate, it has always immediately been challenged by more empirically orientated natures who could not (or would not) follow that mode of thinking. This is why Aristotle left Plato’s academy, and this is why Platonism was even ousted from Plato’s academy itself after his death.
As we have argued on our website, Platonism is the best meta-framework for making sense of typology. All of Jung’s metaphysics could in some sense be said to be Platonic. But in reality, only a very small subset of people are naturally at home with the very abstract levels of thinking that Platonically orientated systems require. This inevitably leads to problems when typology becomes as popular as it is, and a wealth of different natures attempt to appropriate it to fit with their own cognitive dispositions.
In practice, this means that people will inevitably use typology for things it shouldn’t be used for. It also means that they will warp and distort typology to fit their personal outlook on the world, their preferred conclusions, the things that make the most sense to them, and so on.
ArizonaINTJ gives the example that typology fuels people’s narcissism. We agree with him on that. Narcissists tend to be strongly attracted to typology, but, narcissists do not tend to make good typologists. This is also why, in Plato’s education on the matter, people who are beset by thumos – that is to say, a spirited craving to make their mark upon the world – are not fit to master the insights required of higher learning. Their ego and drive to dominate and come out ahead gets in the way of their intellectual take on the discipline.
So to sum up, we agree with ArizonaINTJ that typology poisons some people’s perceptions. But ArizonaINTJ implies that typology always poisons everybody’s perceptions. And that is not correct.
***
Finally, ArizonaINTJ cautions people that typology is based on the occult. Much of what he says here hinges on his personal religious beliefs and is therefore hard to argue with or refute.
But first of all, he doesn’t exactly get the research on Jung’s occult activities right and doesn’t seem to understand how many of the things he calls out as anti-Christian are actually Christian, or at least Christian-syncretistic. For example, ArizonaINTJ seems to think that Philemon is some kind of demon. But Philemon was actually one of the first Christians instructed by Paul. In Christianity, Philemon is often considered a symbol that though God may at times seem absent in our lives, God’s revelation to us is intensely personal and that he is there for us if we forgive our enemies and love the Lord in our hearts. Now, ArizonaINTJ might not consider Jung a Christian, but Jung certainly considered himself a Christian, and it is probably no coincidence that he experienced his spirit guide as a Christian figure. You can’t really say on behalf of all Christians that experiencing Philemon as a spirit guide is necessarily un-Christian.
Another point here is that ArizonaINTJ vastly overstates the connection between Philemon and the theory of psychological types. The notes of what Philemon revealed to Jung can be read in his notebooks and those revelations read more like a diary and – in spite of what John Beebe says – don’t really have much to do with types. As the publications of Jung’s early papers has made clear, the theory of types came from collaboration with psychiatrists and philosophers, and many of the concepts that went into the theory weren’t even invented by Jung himself, but by people who were atheists, Jews and yes – by other Christians too.
ArizonaINTJ raises a big topic here, and we could carry on this line of criticism indefinitely. For this video, however, we’ll consign ourselves to one final point.
ArizonaINTJ says that typology is inherently un-Christian since it divides people into types, while the Bible teaches that everyone is the same. But that is not entirely correct. For example, the reason there are four Gospels in the Bible has, since antiquity, been argued by Christians to be because there are four different kinds of people. The Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as an action-oriented doer, or as we would say: SP type. The Gospel of Matthew recounts Jesus’ heritage and lineage within the Jewish community and shows us why he is the rightful heir to the Messianic throne, just as it focuses intensely on the proclamation of laws in the Sermon on the Mount. That is to say, the Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as an SJ type. Then there is the Gospel of Luke, which recounts the story in a more critical and detached way, emphasizing abstraction and intellectualism, or as we would say: Jesus as an NT type. Finally, there is the Gospel of John, which emphasizes the spiritual qualities of Jesus. It is much more ideally orientated, concerned with identity, and contains more theological deliberations than the other three. This Gospel shows Jesus as an NF type.
While the Christians of antiquity did not know the four basic temperaments, they nevertheless understood that people were different, and high-ranking Christians overtly argued that there had to be four Gospels to reflect the fourfold nature of humanity. So ArizonaINTJ is not entirely correct in saying that Christianity does not support a psychological typology of people. Of course, ArizonaINTJ may argue that he does not accept the reasoning of the early Christians. He could also point to the fact that there were historically far more than four Gospels. But if he took this position, he would also have to argue that the early Christians who compiled the Bible got their reasons for doing so wrong. It’s not impossible, we guess. But still pretty awkward.