sakinorva.net ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

sakinorva.net

http://www.example.com/

in Business and Economics

sakinorva.net ~ Sakinorva Databank

sakinorva.net

ubaTaeCJ

http://www.example.com/

1

Business and Economics

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 0

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

You may not modify this entry's picture.

	Woll Smoth 2025/07/21 (Mon) 00:21:10 #10173
	I think IDRlabs just wants to maintain the integrity of their system above all, they even mentioned themselves (the admins) they do not use socionics or enneagram but rather use Milton personality styles to explain things outside of their IDR type. I do think IDRlabs approach to typology is pretty Jungian (in that they focus mostly on psychoanalysis over behaviors themselves). However, how they see the functions are very different from Jung's original conception. They mentioned that they disregard Jung's Si description (and even van der Hoop's) and just use Myer's description of Si in their system but even if we ignore that many of their Ni types are Jungian Ti types like Chomsky, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Plato, Dante, Hegal, etc. Many of their Fi types are Jungian Introverted Irrational types (Jungina Si/Ni) like Kafka, van Gogh, David Lynch, etc. I don't think this is an error per se, just that IDRlabs have sort of created their own branch of typology using Jungian/MBTI concepts and I happen to be the few people to have a strong grasp of their typological system so I make the best use of it here in this site because in the index page it explicitly states "IDR" meaning that we are using IDRlabs system and not just general function system.

Editing post #10173 by Woll Smoth I think IDRlabs just wants to maintain the integrity of their system above all, they even mentioned themselves (the admins) they do not use socionics or enneagram but rather use Milton personality styles to explain things outside of their IDR type. I do think IDRlabs approach to typology is pretty Jungian (in that they focus mostly on psychoanalysis over behaviors themselves). However, how they see the functions are very different from Jung's original conception. They mentioned that they disregard Jung's Si description (and even van der Hoop's) and just use Myer's description of Si in their system but even if we ignore that many of their Ni types are Jungian Ti types like Chomsky, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Plato, Dante, Hegal, etc. Many of their Fi types are Jungian Introverted Irrational types (Jungina Si/Ni) like Kafka, van Gogh, David Lynch, etc. I don't think this is an error per se, just that IDRlabs have sort of created their own branch of typology using Jungian/MBTI concepts and I happen to be the few people to have a strong grasp of their typological system so I make the best use of it here in this site because in the index page it explicitly states "IDR" meaning that we are using IDRlabs system and not just general function system.
Replying to post #10173 by Woll Smoth

	nicotineseries IXFP 6w5, 649 EII-Fi 2025/07/21 (Mon) 00:08:38 #10172
	I think, I have something to say that I want to said about their website (IDRlabs) is that their do, I feel that their making some of mistake? (But, we are just a human beings. We're aren't that too perfect at all on doing things) And would change our thought in the future. The thing that I want to criticized for is their membership followers I think they should be able to think hard, critically (maybe) about typing people/things accurately and correctly using these right typological systems, the cognitive function. I think they want to be in a system that they can trust and yes, I think it must be them (do I really understand this typological method, this person is must be an xxxx based on my research of his biographies/quotes, which Jungian theory, which axis, etc.)

Editing post #10172 by nicotineseries I think, I have something to say that I want to said about their website (IDRlabs) is that their do, I feel that their making some of mistake? (But, we are just a human beings. We're aren't that too perfect at all on doing things) And would change our thought in the future. The thing that I want to criticized for is their membership followers I think they should be able to think hard, critically (maybe) about typing people/things accurately and correctly using these right typological systems, the cognitive function. I think they want to be in a system that they can trust and yes, I think it must be them (do I really understand this typological method, this person is must be an xxxx based on my research of his biographies/quotes, which Jungian theory, which axis, etc.)
Replying to post #10172 by nicotineseries

	Woll Smoth 2025/07/20 (Sun) 23:45:14 #10170
	The dominant function is like breathing. The dominant function in our personality is so intrinsic to us, so deeply ingrained, that it's like breathing. We don't even have to think about it, we just do it naturally and almost effortlessly. It's the part of our personality that's most instinctive to us and the one we're most comfortable with. The auxiliary function is like walking. While it might not be as effortless or as automatic as breathing, it's still something we do fairly naturally and without much conscious thought. In terms of personality, this function tends to support and balance out our dominant function. The tertiary function is like jogging. It's something we can do and have some level of conscious access over, but it requires more conscious effort and isn't as natural or comfortable as breathing or walking. We might be good at it, but it's not our go-to skill or way of being. IDRlabs describes it as the puerile function where the individual naively overestimates their sophistication with their Tertiary function and it ends up like a child in a grown ups clothes, in other words can be clever and innovative but not entirely actualizing it's full and actual use. Because it jumps in and out of consciousness (semi-conscious), it's like an event where it has a definite beginning and end before beginning again only to be burnt out later, with the cycle repeating. However, one must not underestimate the charm and influence of the tertiary function. The inferior function is like a hidden cramp. It's a part of us that we're often not aware of, and when it does show up, it can be painful or uncomfortable. It's the part of our personality that we repress and have no volitional control over. As von Franz has said about the inferior function, "You can never rule or educate it and make it act as you would like, but if you are very clever and are willing to give in a lot, then you may be able to arrange so that it does not throw you.” Despite it being an unpleasant area, it can also be a source of growth if we're willing to confront and work on it.

Editing post #10170 by Woll Smoth The dominant function is like breathing. The dominant function in our personality is so intrinsic to us, so deeply ingrained, that it's like breathing. We don't even have to think about it, we just do it naturally and almost effortlessly. It's the part of our personality that's most instinctive to us and the one we're most comfortable with. The auxiliary function is like walking. While it might not be as effortless or as automatic as breathing, it's still something we do fairly naturally and without much conscious thought. In terms of personality, this function tends to support and balance out our dominant function. The tertiary function is like jogging. It's something we can do and have some level of conscious access over, but it requires more conscious effort and isn't as natural or comfortable as breathing or walking. We might be good at it, but it's not our go-to skill or way of being. IDRlabs describes it as the puerile function where the individual naively overestimates their sophistication with their Tertiary function and it ends up like a child in a grown ups clothes, in other words can be clever and innovative but not entirely actualizing it's full and actual use. Because it jumps in and out of consciousness (semi-conscious), it's like an event where it has a definite beginning and end before beginning again only to be burnt out later, with the cycle repeating. However, one must not underestimate the charm and influence of the tertiary function. The inferior function is like a hidden cramp. It's a part of us that we're often not aware of, and when it does show up, it can be painful or uncomfortable. It's the part of our personality that we repress and have no volitional control over. As von Franz has said about the inferior function, "You can never rule or educate it and make it act as you would like, but if you are very clever and are willing to give in a lot, then you may be able to arrange so that it does not throw you.” Despite it being an unpleasant area, it can also be a source of growth if we're willing to confront and work on it.
Replying to post #10170 by Woll Smoth

	nicotineseries IXFP 6w5, 649 EII-Fi 2025/07/20 (Sun) 23:43:51 #10169
	Whoa, this is a great progress. I think this is why I am discovering some of a new great length of discuss about the MBTI systems and not for confused by the whole MBTI community especially from that you know (Personality Database). All I know is I'm usually learning more about typology is by another website I remember it's named is Personality Cafe website or anything like for instance YouTube and now I discovered a new system again is it the IDRlabs and I know too in their website (Personality Database) that some of a (someone) who membership their website (IDRlabs) there following their methods of typing famous people. Good, great so yeah I probably just want to say, enjoy what's on this website as much as you can.

Editing post #10169 by nicotineseries Whoa, this is a great progress. I think this is why I am discovering some of a new great length of discuss about the MBTI systems and not for confused by the whole MBTI community especially from that you know (Personality Database). All I know is I'm usually learning more about typology is by another website I remember it's named is Personality Cafe website or anything like for instance YouTube and now I discovered a new system again is it the IDRlabs and I know too in their website (Personality Database) that some of a (someone) who membership their website (IDRlabs) there following their methods of typing famous people. Good, great so yeah I probably just want to say, enjoy what's on this website as much as you can.
Replying to post #10169 by nicotineseries

	Woll Smoth 2025/07/20 (Sun) 23:43:07 #10168
	Some may ask “why so types showcase instances of displaying their parallel dominant function (Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se, Ni/Si) even if it’s not in their stack in IDR?” To answer that the following is an exchange of a former IDRlabs follower and one of the admins: Dx Req: "Is it me, or do people who have an Inferior function in a certain area start showing some traits from the Introverted/Extroverted version of that function? Because of my Inferior Te function, I find myself showing more of the Ti traits than Te traits such as favouring 'Justice' and 'Integrity' over 'Dominance' and 'Expediency'. And also, people with an Inferior Ni would cycle through several ideas like an Ne user would, and people with an Inferior Ne would have all the persistence with their ideas that you would see in an Ni user." IDRlabs Admin: "That is a hard question to answer but it does seem that people’s dominant function can sometimes take on some of the modes of the parallel function Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se and so on. This is not described in the literature, just something we have informally noticed. Our best estimation is that since the dominant function is the most well-developed, it can mime its way through some of the same functional roles that are native to its domain (Ji / Je / Pi / Pe) since that is the person’s 'ground zero.' These elements are still foreign, though, and not genuine in the manner that they would be if the person was of the opposite type. A case in point would be how Fi users can sometimes apply a faux Ti standard with regards to third-world problems or oppressed peoples in general. But though IFPs can well don the garbs of Ti rhetoric, and even calculations, the driving force is still a one-way street beneath it all. A good example seems to us to be Portia’s defense speech in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. She appeals to 'justice' to get Antonio off. On the face of it, she is providing an argument for why it is just to let Antonio go, but at the heart of it her partiality and passion are driving the works."

Editing post #10168 by Woll Smoth Some may ask “why so types showcase instances of displaying their parallel dominant function (Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se, Ni/Si) even if it’s not in their stack in IDR?” To answer that the following is an exchange of a former IDRlabs follower and one of the admins: Dx Req: "Is it me, or do people who have an Inferior function in a certain area start showing some traits from the Introverted/Extroverted version of that function? Because of my Inferior Te function, I find myself showing more of the Ti traits than Te traits such as favouring 'Justice' and 'Integrity' over 'Dominance' and 'Expediency'. And also, people with an Inferior Ni would cycle through several ideas like an Ne user would, and people with an Inferior Ne would have all the persistence with their ideas that you would see in an Ni user." IDRlabs Admin: "That is a hard question to answer but it does seem that people’s dominant function can sometimes take on some of the modes of the parallel function Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se and so on. This is not described in the literature, just something we have informally noticed. Our best estimation is that since the dominant function is the most well-developed, it can mime its way through some of the same functional roles that are native to its domain (Ji / Je / Pi / Pe) since that is the person’s 'ground zero.' These elements are still foreign, though, and not genuine in the manner that they would be if the person was of the opposite type. A case in point would be how Fi users can sometimes apply a faux Ti standard with regards to third-world problems or oppressed peoples in general. But though IFPs can well don the garbs of Ti rhetoric, and even calculations, the driving force is still a one-way street beneath it all. A good example seems to us to be Portia’s defense speech in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. She appeals to 'justice' to get Antonio off. On the face of it, she is providing an argument for why it is just to let Antonio go, but at the heart of it her partiality and passion are driving the works."
Replying to post #10168 by Woll Smoth

	Woll Smoth 2025/07/20 (Sun) 23:41:10 #10167
	Although ISTPs can sometimes concretely articulate their Ti ideas, Ti is usually harder to spot in ISTPs than in INTPs (although Ti in certain INTP individuals may not be readily apparent either). Coupled by the fact that one's type does not exhaust a individual's entire personality, this is also the result of Se influencing how they approach and validate their internal principles. ISTPs believe that the validity of their principles is tested and proven through real-life situations, thus their principles tend to be more pithy, practical, and untidy. They may think that their principles do not require extensive verbal explanation because they can be observed or proven in practical contexts. They typically prefer to demonstrate their principles rather than explaining them verbally (or even if the principle is not demonstrated through action, then they will at least see those principles as more "self-evident" compared to the INTP, all else being equal). To add on, the following text from IDRlabs very well illustrates how Ti in the ISTP works: "With regard to the ISTP, however, it has often been remarked how most descriptions of Ti, and of what the two ITP types have in common, seem to pertain more to INTPs than ISTPs. In our estimation, this has been true of Jung, von Franz, and Myers. It has also been true of some of our own articles. This conflation of Ti as it appears with Ne, and Ti as it appears with Se, is a dearth in the scholarship on Jungian typology and has yet to be properly addressed. However, one way to unite the predictions of Jungian theory with the observations made post hoc is to contend that while ISTPs do think in terms of principles, their overriding principle is not academic, but the principle of reality itself. Paraphrasing the German fighter ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel, one might say that according to this principle, reality itself is the sole criterion of what is possible or impossible, good or bad. Concerning the ISTPs of this world, theirs is the practical mode of thinking in principles, and since reality is not at all as neat as the noetic conceptions of N types would have it appear, the principles-based thinking of ISTPs must therefore naturally be more adaptable and deviate more from pure ideation than in the case of the INTP." To go slightly off topic here, I want to touch upon something regarding the ISTP that I think hasn't been talked about much. Now, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule but for many ISTPs, when they truly understand the undelying mechanics of their interest, it enables them a basis to be able to improvise, and if the individual ISTP is creative, then it enables them to innovate. These principles forms a foundation upon which they can fine-tune and build their own ideas, which may lead them to come up with new practical solutions pertaining to their interests. It's not just about knowing; it's about understanding and then applying that knowledge. To use an analogy (this shouldn't be taken too literally), it is like a musician who first learns the basic scales and chords, once they have a firm understanding of these mechanics, they can start to improvise and, if creative, create their unique sound.

Editing post #10167 by Woll Smoth Although ISTPs can sometimes concretely articulate their Ti ideas, Ti is usually harder to spot in ISTPs than in INTPs (although Ti in certain INTP individuals may not be readily apparent either). Coupled by the fact that one's type does not exhaust a individual's entire personality, this is also the result of Se influencing how they approach and validate their internal principles. ISTPs believe that the validity of their principles is tested and proven through real-life situations, thus their principles tend to be more pithy, practical, and untidy. They may think that their principles do not require extensive verbal explanation because they can be observed or proven in practical contexts. They typically prefer to demonstrate their principles rather than explaining them verbally (or even if the principle is not demonstrated through action, then they will at least see those principles as more "self-evident" compared to the INTP, all else being equal). To add on, the following text from IDRlabs very well illustrates how Ti in the ISTP works: "With regard to the ISTP, however, it has often been remarked how most descriptions of Ti, and of what the two ITP types have in common, seem to pertain more to INTPs than ISTPs. In our estimation, this has been true of Jung, von Franz, and Myers. It has also been true of some of our own articles. This conflation of Ti as it appears with Ne, and Ti as it appears with Se, is a dearth in the scholarship on Jungian typology and has yet to be properly addressed. However, one way to unite the predictions of Jungian theory with the observations made post hoc is to contend that while ISTPs do think in terms of principles, their overriding principle is not academic, but the principle of reality itself. Paraphrasing the German fighter ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel, one might say that according to this principle, reality itself is the sole criterion of what is possible or impossible, good or bad. Concerning the ISTPs of this world, theirs is the practical mode of thinking in principles, and since reality is not at all as neat as the noetic conceptions of N types would have it appear, the principles-based thinking of ISTPs must therefore naturally be more adaptable and deviate more from pure ideation than in the case of the INTP." To go slightly off topic here, I want to touch upon something regarding the ISTP that I think hasn't been talked about much. Now, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule but for many ISTPs, when they truly understand the undelying mechanics of their interest, it enables them a basis to be able to improvise, and if the individual ISTP is creative, then it enables them to innovate. These principles forms a foundation upon which they can fine-tune and build their own ideas, which may lead them to come up with new practical solutions pertaining to their interests. It's not just about knowing; it's about understanding and then applying that knowledge. To use an analogy (this shouldn't be taken too literally), it is like a musician who first learns the basic scales and chords, once they have a firm understanding of these mechanics, they can start to improvise and, if creative, create their unique sound.
Replying to post #10167 by Woll Smoth

	Woll Smoth 2025/07/20 (Sun) 23:32:00 #10165
	I'll use this page as a sort of free form discussion page, so now that we got that out of the way… The following comment was inspired by the IDRlabs articles "8 Common Typing Mistakes" and "Typology Lessons from von Franz." Those articles were made about a decade ago, and while many of the problems they pointed out are still relevant today, there are also other points that I feel we have moved past now (e.g. thinking all military commanders are N types). This will sort of be like an updated version of the aforementioned articles regarding the common misconceptions I see within the typology community to this day. (This is mainly about IDRlabs typology, other systems mentioned here are merely incidental). (1): Type does not define everything about a person's personality: "When people first get into typing, many try to cram all psychological information on a person into the Jungian cognitive functions. And in doing so we are actually apt to betray the functions themselves." – IDRlabs Admin Team: Why Frank Ocean is ISFP, 2012 "A common mistake Jungian typologists make is to take every behavior, viewpoint, and fact about a person’s life as a sign of one or more of their cognitive functions. That is an error. Not everything about a person’s life is related to their Jungian type." – Dylan Shapiro: Why Woodrow Wilson Is INTJ, Part 2, 2015 "A person’s [personality] type does not exhaust everything about his personality. However, since many practitioners of Jungian typology are not well-acquainted with [the] domains of [psychological] studies, they tend to construe everything they observe about that person’s personality as having to do with his type." – Boye Akinwande: On Kanye West and the ISFJ Type, 2015 (1.1): The fallacy of equating correlation with causation in typology: "While there are certainly correlations between type and such contents (behavioral traits, interests, ideas, skills, etc.), they cannot be taken as the direct constituents of a person’s type, the way 90% of the internet does. For a simple explanation as to why, consider how the existence of such contents in an individual’s psyche is often more a function of time and place (the culture in which he is situated, for instance)." – Boye Akinwande: On Kanye West and the ISFJ Type, 2015 "To give an analogy, in most modern depictions of Santa Claus he tends to wear a red outfit. But it would obviously be an error to say that if somebody wears a red outfit, he must then be Santa Claus. This is exactly what people are doing [in the typology community] ... They are pointing at people in red, assuming them all to be Santa Claus." – IDRlabs Admin Team: Why Bill Clinton is ESFP, 2013 (1.2): One's type is NOT a causation of one's level of intelligence: “Like stupidity … [intelligence] is not a function, but a modality; the word tells us no more than how a function is working, not what is functioning.” – Jung: Psychological Types §949 "[What] appears to have happened is that intelligence (IQ) has been conflated with intuition. Thus we get the familiar arguments that since Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, he really cannot be an S type, and since Frank Ocean can speak in complete sentences, he can’t be an ISFP, because certain other ISFPs are inarticulate. But IQ has nothing to do with type. If it did, then typology would cease being typology and start being a covert intelligence test, albeit with no actual requirements for purporting to have a high IQ. If it did have actual requirements, then anybody who reached a certain level of competence and smarts would automatically become an N type, no matter what their personality was actually like." – IDRlabs admin team: On the Bias against Sensation, 2013 "[Some] will want a tool that measures cognitive abilities and intelligence. To them we would recommend the study of IQ and IQ testing. The idea of multiple intelligences may also be to their taste." – IDRlabs admin team: On the Bias against Sensation, 2013 (2): Fantasy and imagination is not synonymous with the N functions: “Intuition is not identical with fantasy which Jung regards as a human capacity independent of the functions.” – Von Franz: C.G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, 1972 “Fantasy can find expression via thinking, feeling, intuition and perception [i.e., sensation] and is therefore probably an ability sui generis, with deep roots in the unconscious.” – Von Franz: C.G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, 1972 (2.1): Creativity and innovative ideas are not exclusive to the N functions: “Jung attaches great importance to the creative activity of fantasy, which he even puts in a category of its own, because in his opinion it cannot be subordinated to any of the four basic functions, but partakes of them all. He rejects the usual notion that artistic inspiration is limited to the intuitive type. … Fantasy is indeed the source of all creative inspiration, but it is a gift that can come to any of the [functions].” – Jolande Jacobi: The Psychology of C.G. Jung, 1942 "Take, for instance, somebody like Miles Davis. Here you have a guy who initiated several big stylistic changes in the world of jazz over the years. He was at the forefront of cool jazz, modal jazz, jazz fusion, avant garde jazz and more. If you compare an album like Kind Of Blue to an album like On The Corner, they’re just on completely different planets. Miles Davis was an exceptionally creative guy with a wealth of innovative ideas. So, what one might erroneously take from this is that 'he’s constantly coming up with new ideas and thus must be an Ne type.' But, if you put these preconceptions aside and read interviews with Miles Davis, you find absolutely nothing in the way of Ne there whatsoever. As to his extroverted perception, Davis shows Se, not Ne, and you end up with ISTP for him." – Ric Velasquez: How to Fail at Typing Musicians, 2013 (3): One should separate a person's beliefs and philosophy from their cognitive process: "If you read chapter VIII in Psychological Types, you will see that Jung’s innovation on James’ typology was to use the terms psychologically instead of philosophically. For example, David Hume was a radical empiricist, but in Jung’s typology, we cannot say that because he was a sensory empiricist, he was therefore a Sensation type. If we did that, we would not be using a psychological classification of material, but a philosophical one." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 "We are not saying that Jung’s typology has no bearing on philosophical beliefs, [but] we are saying that such bearings are incidental and not essential. For example, NTP types are on average more likely to give credence to the Kantian Noumenon than NTJ types, in our experience. But these are correlations and to apply the typology psychologically we must regard that as circumstantial evidence compared to the direct evidence of looking at how a person functions psychologically." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 (4): Function terms should not be taken literally: "Jungian intuition is KANTIAN intuition. It has very little to do with the way we use the world ‘intuition’ today. To be ‘intuitive’ in the popular parlance is actually more of an indication that someone is sensing. For example: Who is most 'intuitive' by the informal meaning of the word: Bill Gates or Paris Hilton?" – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 "In the [IDRlabs] article 'On the Bias Against Sensation', it is mentioned that Jung himself did not partake in the popular and widespread bias against [S] types. While that is true, Jung could perhaps be said to have contributed to the bias in his own indirect way: By calling that function ‘Sensation,’ he implied an overly crude and unthinking relationship between the mental processing of the S type and the unmediated influx of sense-data upon the psyche. But I would argue that sensory input is really just one means to the preferred ends of the S function, which is to grasp ... and interact with the actual ... to a fuller degree than N types do. The real irony of this argument is that, for all intents and purposes, the most descriptive name for Sensation will then be Intuition! Instead of implying that S types are mindlessly thrown about by their senses, the ‘Intuitive’ label would rather imply that S types meet life more naturally, intuitively, and without the need for a lot of the high-flowing and stilted reflection that the N types so often evince." – Sigurd Arild: Sensation and Intuition as Names and Misnomers, 2016 (4.1): Thinking types are not wholly rational and strong emotional reactions or convictions doesn't necessarily indicate a Feeling preference: "Unconscious and undeveloped [i.e., inferior] feeling is barbaric and absolute, and therefore sometimes hidden destructive fanaticism sometimes bursts out. ... These people are incapable of seeing that, from a feeling standard, other people might have another value, for they do not question the inner values they defend. Where they definitely feel that something is right, they are incapable of showing their feeling standpoint, but they never doubt their own inner values." – Von Franz: Psychotherapy, 1993 "From a Jungian perspective, no one is wholly rational." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 (5): One shouldn't confuse preference with ability: "In [Freud’s] mental make-up sensation was a far more active element than intuition. This statement is of course perfectly compatible with the thesis that intuition, though the less active of the two functions in him and though deprecated by him, may have been of a quality superior to most men. But it cannot be repeated too often that the types … aim to discriminate between people, not in merit, but broadly in their usual ways of mental operations..” – Horace Gray: Freud and Jung; Their Contrasting Psychological Types, 1949 "It is important to separate preference from ability. Jungian typology is a study of personality, not necessarily of the specific and concrete efforts and contributions that a person made." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 "Jungian functions are, as Costa and McCrae have written, structures that govern the organization and flow of consciousness. Because these functions are relatively powerful, we can then colloquially speak of 'Si activities, Ni activities, Te activities,' and the like. But at the end of the day, what we refer to as, say, 'Te activities' do not have to be solved by the Te function. So in the comparatively rare case where you have an ENTP who is good at organizational management and the like we would – strictly speaking – be observing an ENTP who has learned to deploy his Ne, Ti and Fe in ways that gets the Te job done. Sort of like when you use a lighter to open a beer cap or when you use a pair of tweezers to drive a nail into a wooden board." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 (6): Not Factoring in Personality Disorders “[Jungian typology] is but one segment of our new [psychological] knowledge, it is but one section of science in general; and this new … body of knowledge must … receive some sort of integration before the function of each particular branch is disclosed.” – James Oppenheim, American Types, 1930 “We try to be careful to use the system as it was intended: It says something about the arrangement of the four functions and their orientations. All sorts of other factors that pertain to the personality are, in effect, irrelevant to the system. For example, whenever people see a Hollywood star with narcissistic traits, they immediately think that person is some type with Fi because 'narcissists are frequently at odds with social norms and so are Fi users.' So in reality, most people have a sort of psychological myopia where they want to fit everything into typology because they are not acquainted with anything but typology.” – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013

Editing post #10165 by Woll Smoth I'll use this page as a sort of free form discussion page, so now that we got that out of the way… The following comment was inspired by the IDRlabs articles "8 Common Typing Mistakes" and "Typology Lessons from von Franz." Those articles were made about a decade ago, and while many of the problems they pointed out are still relevant today, there are also other points that I feel we have moved past now (e.g. thinking all military commanders are N types). This will sort of be like an updated version of the aforementioned articles regarding the common misconceptions I see within the typology community to this day. (This is mainly about IDRlabs typology, other systems mentioned here are merely incidental). (1): Type does not define everything about a person's personality: "When people first get into typing, many try to cram all psychological information on a person into the Jungian cognitive functions. And in doing so we are actually apt to betray the functions themselves." – IDRlabs Admin Team: Why Frank Ocean is ISFP, 2012 "A common mistake Jungian typologists make is to take every behavior, viewpoint, and fact about a person’s life as a sign of one or more of their cognitive functions. That is an error. Not everything about a person’s life is related to their Jungian type." – Dylan Shapiro: Why Woodrow Wilson Is INTJ, Part 2, 2015 "A person’s [personality] type does not exhaust everything about his personality. However, since many practitioners of Jungian typology are not well-acquainted with [the] domains of [psychological] studies, they tend to construe everything they observe about that person’s personality as having to do with his type." – Boye Akinwande: On Kanye West and the ISFJ Type, 2015 (1.1): The fallacy of equating correlation with causation in typology: "While there are certainly correlations between type and such contents (behavioral traits, interests, ideas, skills, etc.), they cannot be taken as the direct constituents of a person’s type, the way 90% of the internet does. For a simple explanation as to why, consider how the existence of such contents in an individual’s psyche is often more a function of time and place (the culture in which he is situated, for instance)." – Boye Akinwande: On Kanye West and the ISFJ Type, 2015 "To give an analogy, in most modern depictions of Santa Claus he tends to wear a red outfit. But it would obviously be an error to say that if somebody wears a red outfit, he must then be Santa Claus. This is exactly what people are doing [in the typology community] ... They are pointing at people in red, assuming them all to be Santa Claus." – IDRlabs Admin Team: Why Bill Clinton is ESFP, 2013 (1.2): One's type is NOT a causation of one's level of intelligence: “Like stupidity … [intelligence] is not a function, but a modality; the word tells us no more than how a function is working, not what is functioning.” – Jung: Psychological Types §949 "[What] appears to have happened is that intelligence (IQ) has been conflated with intuition. Thus we get the familiar arguments that since Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, he really cannot be an S type, and since Frank Ocean can speak in complete sentences, he can’t be an ISFP, because certain other ISFPs are inarticulate. But IQ has nothing to do with type. If it did, then typology would cease being typology and start being a covert intelligence test, albeit with no actual requirements for purporting to have a high IQ. If it did have actual requirements, then anybody who reached a certain level of competence and smarts would automatically become an N type, no matter what their personality was actually like." – IDRlabs admin team: On the Bias against Sensation, 2013 "[Some] will want a tool that measures cognitive abilities and intelligence. To them we would recommend the study of IQ and IQ testing. The idea of multiple intelligences may also be to their taste." – IDRlabs admin team: On the Bias against Sensation, 2013 (2): Fantasy and imagination is not synonymous with the N functions: “Intuition is not identical with fantasy which Jung regards as a human capacity independent of the functions.” – Von Franz: C.G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, 1972 “Fantasy can find expression via thinking, feeling, intuition and perception [i.e., sensation] and is therefore probably an ability sui generis, with deep roots in the unconscious.” – Von Franz: C.G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, 1972 (2.1): Creativity and innovative ideas are not exclusive to the N functions: “Jung attaches great importance to the creative activity of fantasy, which he even puts in a category of its own, because in his opinion it cannot be subordinated to any of the four basic functions, but partakes of them all. He rejects the usual notion that artistic inspiration is limited to the intuitive type. … Fantasy is indeed the source of all creative inspiration, but it is a gift that can come to any of the [functions].” – Jolande Jacobi: The Psychology of C.G. Jung, 1942 "Take, for instance, somebody like Miles Davis. Here you have a guy who initiated several big stylistic changes in the world of jazz over the years. He was at the forefront of cool jazz, modal jazz, jazz fusion, avant garde jazz and more. If you compare an album like Kind Of Blue to an album like On The Corner, they’re just on completely different planets. Miles Davis was an exceptionally creative guy with a wealth of innovative ideas. So, what one might erroneously take from this is that 'he’s constantly coming up with new ideas and thus must be an Ne type.' But, if you put these preconceptions aside and read interviews with Miles Davis, you find absolutely nothing in the way of Ne there whatsoever. As to his extroverted perception, Davis shows Se, not Ne, and you end up with ISTP for him." – Ric Velasquez: How to Fail at Typing Musicians, 2013 (3): One should separate a person's beliefs and philosophy from their cognitive process: "If you read chapter VIII in Psychological Types, you will see that Jung’s innovation on James’ typology was to use the terms psychologically instead of philosophically. For example, David Hume was a radical empiricist, but in Jung’s typology, we cannot say that because he was a sensory empiricist, he was therefore a Sensation type. If we did that, we would not be using a psychological classification of material, but a philosophical one." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 "We are not saying that Jung’s typology has no bearing on philosophical beliefs, [but] we are saying that such bearings are incidental and not essential. For example, NTP types are on average more likely to give credence to the Kantian Noumenon than NTJ types, in our experience. But these are correlations and to apply the typology psychologically we must regard that as circumstantial evidence compared to the direct evidence of looking at how a person functions psychologically." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 (4): Function terms should not be taken literally: "Jungian intuition is KANTIAN intuition. It has very little to do with the way we use the world ‘intuition’ today. To be ‘intuitive’ in the popular parlance is actually more of an indication that someone is sensing. For example: Who is most 'intuitive' by the informal meaning of the word: Bill Gates or Paris Hilton?" – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 "In the [IDRlabs] article 'On the Bias Against Sensation', it is mentioned that Jung himself did not partake in the popular and widespread bias against [S] types. While that is true, Jung could perhaps be said to have contributed to the bias in his own indirect way: By calling that function ‘Sensation,’ he implied an overly crude and unthinking relationship between the mental processing of the S type and the unmediated influx of sense-data upon the psyche. But I would argue that sensory input is really just one means to the preferred ends of the S function, which is to grasp ... and interact with the actual ... to a fuller degree than N types do. The real irony of this argument is that, for all intents and purposes, the most descriptive name for Sensation will then be Intuition! Instead of implying that S types are mindlessly thrown about by their senses, the ‘Intuitive’ label would rather imply that S types meet life more naturally, intuitively, and without the need for a lot of the high-flowing and stilted reflection that the N types so often evince." – Sigurd Arild: Sensation and Intuition as Names and Misnomers, 2016 (4.1): Thinking types are not wholly rational and strong emotional reactions or convictions doesn't necessarily indicate a Feeling preference: "Unconscious and undeveloped [i.e., inferior] feeling is barbaric and absolute, and therefore sometimes hidden destructive fanaticism sometimes bursts out. ... These people are incapable of seeing that, from a feeling standard, other people might have another value, for they do not question the inner values they defend. Where they definitely feel that something is right, they are incapable of showing their feeling standpoint, but they never doubt their own inner values." – Von Franz: Psychotherapy, 1993 "From a Jungian perspective, no one is wholly rational." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2014 (5): One shouldn't confuse preference with ability: "In [Freud’s] mental make-up sensation was a far more active element than intuition. This statement is of course perfectly compatible with the thesis that intuition, though the less active of the two functions in him and though deprecated by him, may have been of a quality superior to most men. But it cannot be repeated too often that the types … aim to discriminate between people, not in merit, but broadly in their usual ways of mental operations..” – Horace Gray: Freud and Jung; Their Contrasting Psychological Types, 1949 "It is important to separate preference from ability. Jungian typology is a study of personality, not necessarily of the specific and concrete efforts and contributions that a person made." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 "Jungian functions are, as Costa and McCrae have written, structures that govern the organization and flow of consciousness. Because these functions are relatively powerful, we can then colloquially speak of 'Si activities, Ni activities, Te activities,' and the like. But at the end of the day, what we refer to as, say, 'Te activities' do not have to be solved by the Te function. So in the comparatively rare case where you have an ENTP who is good at organizational management and the like we would – strictly speaking – be observing an ENTP who has learned to deploy his Ne, Ti and Fe in ways that gets the Te job done. Sort of like when you use a lighter to open a beer cap or when you use a pair of tweezers to drive a nail into a wooden board." – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013 (6): Not Factoring in Personality Disorders “[Jungian typology] is but one segment of our new [psychological] knowledge, it is but one section of science in general; and this new … body of knowledge must … receive some sort of integration before the function of each particular branch is disclosed.” – James Oppenheim, American Types, 1930 “We try to be careful to use the system as it was intended: It says something about the arrangement of the four functions and their orientations. All sorts of other factors that pertain to the personality are, in effect, irrelevant to the system. For example, whenever people see a Hollywood star with narcissistic traits, they immediately think that person is some type with Fi because 'narcissists are frequently at odds with social norms and so are Fi users.' So in reality, most people have a sort of psychological myopia where they want to fit everything into typology because they are not acquainted with anything but typology.” – IDRlabs Admin Team, 2013
Replying to post #10165 by Woll Smoth