I heard that the MBTI test has recently become popular in the country. I actually knew about this test a few years ago. At first, I regarded the MBTI theory as a type of 'fortune-telling theory' similar to zodiac signs, but eventually, I began to take it seriously, and the process in between involved understanding Jungian psychology. This article is my amateur discussion on Jungian psychology (different from the MBTI test).
https://www.typeinmind.com/fise
https://www.lucaluo.com/mbti-introduction/
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/464389486
As a science student (or an engineering student as pure science students perceive), I have always believed that the vast majority of applied disciplines in this world cannot relate to the concept of 'pseudoscience', because the essence of these disciplines is too complex. In the absence of more powerful tools, speculating the essence through phenomena is a reasonable research method. The applied disciplines with overly complex essences include economics and psychology, which are difficult to logically deduce their essence like mathematics. However, many people will agree with one viewpoint: whether theoretical sciences or applied sciences, essence definitely exists (or there is only one truth!). I believe that the MBTI theory explores the essential question of 'why people are different'. To negate this theory, one must present a more powerful theory that attempts to answer 'the same question'. Some might say: 'But psychology has more detailed and accurate tests.' ~ 'Yeah, I know,' I have also taken those 'more professional' tests, but these 'more detailed and accurate tests' are obviously not exploring 'the same question'. In the language of 'machine learning', these 'more detailed and accurate' tests are 'overfitting'. Simply put, a good theory should have the ability to 'predict the future', and to 'predict the future' one must summarize 'patterns'. If we compare MBTI to traditional Chinese medicine, then the theory that overturns MBTI should be a complete understanding of the pathogenesis mechanism of Western medicine, rather than an X-ray. As long as this moment has not yet arrived, this simple theory of MBTI will be hard to replace, so I would like to retrace the path of this controversial theory using a deconstructive approach, while hoping to clarify my own doubts.
First of all, many "misunderstandings / misconceptions / pointless debates" arise from different definitions, so we need to provide an accurate definition for the eight functions proposed by Jung. Jung's theory holds that the basic cognitive functions of humans are divided into four categories: sensing, intuition, thinking, feeling. Here, I will translate them into what I believe are the most accurate terms:
sensing = "Experience"
intuition = "Association"
thinking = "Logic"
feeling = "Emotion"
In this context, 'experience' and 'association' are used for 'information reception', while 'logic' and 'emotion' are used for 'information judgment'. In simple terms, as a biological machine, humans certainly possess the abilities of 'information reception' and 'information judgment':
Environment
|
Information Reception: 'Experience' or 'Association'
|
Information Judgment: 'Logic' or 'Emotion'
|
Behavior: Not part of Jungian functions
|
New Environment
The terms 'Experience' and 'Logic' are both easy to understand. The intuitive concepts of 'information reception' and 'information judgment' seem to directly correspond to 'Experience' and 'Logic'. Here, 'Experience' is the function of acquiring existing information, while 'Logic' is used to discover the 'logical relationships' between pieces of information (who is the cause? who is the effect? or are they unrelated?). The process by which a biological entity adapts to its environment must follow the order of 'Experience' - 'Logic' - 'Behavior'. However, 'Behavior' is not within the scope described by MBTI, because from the perspective of interaction with the environment, the 'information reception' and 'information judgment' are deterministically influential on 'Behavior'.
But the other two functions are rather perplexing. First, why is 'Association' a function of 'Information Reception' 🧐? What is the difference between the information obtained through 'Association' and that obtained through 'Experience'? From a literal perspective, the information obtained through 'Association' does not seem to come from observations of the real world. For instance, the information produced by 'dreaming' does not directly originate from reality. Therefore, the essential difference, as I understand it, between 'Association' and 'Experience' is whether the information is sourced from the real world. The information generated by 'Association' must inevitably have subjective processing from the user. During discussions on 'Association', the term 'Discovering Possibilities' frequently arises. 'Possibilities' essentially refers to information that has not yet appeared in the real world, and the importance of 'Discovering Possibilities' is tied to accurately predicting those possibilities, which constitutes 'Predicting the Future'. This is a manifestation of human intelligence in adapting to the environment. 'Association' supplements the information not gathered by 'Experience' by 'Predicting the Future', making 'Association' one of the sources of information.
Moreover, what is perplexing is 'emotion'—why is 'emotion' a function of judgment? What exactly does 'emotion' want to judge? From the majority of discussions, 'emotion' is not the type of 'emotion' like 'I feel happy when I eat delicious food' because 'happiness' can come from 'experience' and does not require 'judgment of information' to be obtained. However, from a definitional standpoint, all information that needs to be processed, if 'logic' only handles information related to 'logical relationships', then the remaining information that does not apply to 'logical relationships' but still needs to be processed seems to be left to 'emotion' to handle. In fact, in discussions about 'emotion', the descriptor 'values' is often brought up, because 'values' are inherently different from the 'logical relationships' that only have one truth, so the judgment of information related to 'values' must involve a significant amount of subjective assumptions. Questions like 'Does this align with morality?' or 'Is this design beautiful?' are typical examples of the applicability of the 'emotion' function.
So, we have a relatively clear definition of the four types of functions:
'Experience' - Feeling to provide information about the real world
'Association' - Predicting to provide information about the future (supplementing information that 'Experience' cannot obtain)
'Logic' - Judging the logical relationships of information
'Emotion' - Judging the non-logical relationships of information (covering information that 'Logic' cannot judge)
Introversion and Extraversion are terms often used in psychology, particularly in the context of the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). These concepts relate to how individuals gain energy, process information, and interact with the world around them.
Jung added the dimension of 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion' to the four types of functions mentioned above, doubling the number of functions from four to eight. This dimension is the most abstract yet subtle part of the theory, as it explains the essential differences between 'Extraverts' and 'Introverts', yet its definition seems to have no relation at all to 'Extraverts' and 'Introverts'! Through my careful investigation and research, the essential difference between 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion' is (adapted from the original definition):
'Extraversion' - When I am using a certain 'function', I am 'easily' affected by the real-world environment.
'Introversion' - When I am using a certain 'function', I am 'not easily' affected by the real-world environment.
Humans, in the process of adapting to this world, are inevitably influenced by the 'real environment' (What is happening around me? Who is beside me? What am I going to do?), so the function 'Extraversion' seems to be a more 'down-to-earth' expression. If we take 'Extraversion' as the standard for normal functioning, then the 'Inner OS' of 'Introversion' and the combination of the four functions will look quite 'alternative' 👽:
'Introversion' x 'Experience'
When I provide real-world information for 'Judging function', I am 'not easily' influenced by the real environment.
Therefore, I prefer to use 'experience' as a substitute, and the more 'experience' I have, the more information I can provide.
Of course, there are always things that are beyond my 'experience', so I feel a lot of pressure when I accept new things.
'Introversion' x 'Association'
When I predict future information using 'Judging function', I am 'not easily' influenced by the real environment.
Therefore, I like to look for 'patterns', because I believe that what happens in the future is 'unchanging amidst all changes'.
Of course, beyond the 'patterns' I am familiar with, my ability for association is greatly diminished.
'Introversion' x 'Logic'
When I am 'judging' the 'logical relationships' of information, I am 'not easily' influenced by the real-world environment.
So even if I lack a lot of key information, I can still discover 'logics that are not visible on the surface'.
Of course, sometimes the 'logics that are not visible on the surface' that I discover are completely wrong and end up wasting quite a bit of my time.
'Introversion' x 'Emotion'
When I judge issues similar to 'values', I am 'not easily' influenced by the real environment.
Therefore, I can stick to my 'values' instead of others' 'values'.
Of course, I know that sometimes aligning with others' 'values' can help everyone get along more harmoniously.
With that, the '8 types of functions' after adding the dimensions of 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion' seem to describe abilities a bit more concretely:
Information Reception
Extraverted Sensing Se Sensing to provide information (more inclined to provide 'real-time information')
Introverted Sensing Si Sensing to provide information (more inclined to provide 'experience')
Extraverted Intuition Ne Intuition to provide information (more inclined to be based on 'real-time information')
Introverted Intuition Ni Intuition to provide information (more inclined to be based on 'patterns')
Judging Information
Extraverted Logic Te The logical relationships of judging information (more inclined to seek 'evidence-driven logic')
Introverted Logic Ti The logical relationships of judging information (more inclined to seek 'logic that is not visibly apparent')
Extraverted Feeling Fe The non-logical relationships of judging information (more inclined to adhere to 'collective values')
Introverted Feeling Fi The non-logical relationships of judging information (more inclined to adhere to 'personal values')
The most logically clear point of this dimension is that when a person is using a certain function to do a specific thing, they will definitely be either 'introverted' or 'extraverted'. This is because 'introversion' and 'extraversion' are mutually exclusive in their logical definitions. For example, a person with 'introverted emotions' is more likely to adhere to 'their own values', suggesting a relatively lesser adherence to 'collective values', while 'introverted experiences' tend to provide 'experiences' and will, to some extent, ignore 'real-time information'. This preference must be displayed by comparing different individuals in the same context because everyone will inevitably become more 'extraverted' or more 'introverted' when dealing with different issues. For instance, when playing card games, 'introverted logical' individuals will also have to employ 'extraverted logic'. Therefore, those who claim on Zhihu that they possess strong 'extraverted logic' and 'introverted logic' are essentially stating that they have no 'tendency'. 😑
Here, I will discuss some practical examples. As a 'bad student' who has long been unsuited to the school system, I have witnessed countless wars between 'top students' and 'gods of study.' The 'gods of study' often score first in math, yet their overall scores are far behind those of the 'top students.' At that time, most people recognized that both types of individuals are 'smart,' but they could vaguely sense that these two kinds of 'smart' are different. Ultimately, this leads to the stereotype that 'gods of study' are smarter but not as hardworking as 'top students.' However, this difference is clearly explained by 'Introverted Logic' and 'Extraverted Logic,' as different subjects inherently favor certain 'tendencies.' Similarly, one can explain why people who enjoy fantasy (Ne-Ni) have such different temperaments or why similarly empathetic individuals (Fe-Fi) have such different motivations. This 'tendency' is the reason I began to take the MBTI theory seriously, because even if the MBTI theory did not exist, such 'tendencies' are ubiquitous. The MBTI theory simply provides a perspective for understanding these 'tendencies.' A profound understanding of 'why people are different?' is essential for building a better school system and a more fair and efficient society.
The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) consists of 16 different personality types, which are derived from the combination of four dichotomies: Introversion vs. Extraversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling, and Judging vs. Perceiving. Each type represents a unique blend of these traits, influencing how individuals perceive the world and make decisions.
Understanding these types can help in personal development, enhancing communication, and navigating relationships, as each type has its own values, strengths, and cognitive processes. While some may view MBTI as a valuable tool for insight, it is important to recognize that it is rooted in psychology rather than rigorous scientific validation, and should be approached with a critical mindset.
Now we know that under the MBTI theory, there are four functions, and each function will have a bias. So, isn't 2 to the power of 4 equal to 16 functions? But in reality, the MBTI theory suggests:
A person will have a primary "Information Reception" function and a primary "Information Judgment" function.
For example, in 'Information Reception', 'Experience' and 'Association' have a complementary yet competitive relationship to a certain extent, where the winning function becomes a person's preferred 'Dominant Function'. This means that some people tend to use 'Association' instead of 'Experience' to provide information for their judgment functions, while others prefer to use 'Logic' rather than 'Emotion' for judgment. However, a preference for 'Association' and 'Logic' does not imply the absence of 'Experience' and 'Emotion'; it simply indicates a lower willingness to use 'Experience' and 'Emotion'.
Is this assumption reasonable? Looking at some practical examples, I think it is reasonable. We all know that some people, when chatting, prefer to talk about their life experiences, such as which delicious restaurant they visited this week or what tasks they completed at work, while others prefer to discuss more abstract topics that aren't closely related to their lives. In fact, this preference for topics is likely the result of the "information reception" function being dominated by "experience" or "association". The expressions "having thoughts" or "fantastical thinking" in Chinese seem to be a stereotype evaluation of the "association" dominant individual.
The relationship between 'logic' and 'emotion' as judging functions is stronger in complementarity than in competition (logic vs. non-logic). Therefore, a person's preference for them is often directly reflected in their 'behavior'. For example, in common problems like the 'trolley problem' where both 'logic' and 'emotion' apply, 'emotion' preferers often make decisions that are deemed 'emotional' by 'logic' preferers, while 'logic' preferers receive evaluations such as 'cold-hearted'. Thus, this preference in 'information' and 'behavior' certainly exists in the real world. At this point, it seems we can have a basic 'personality recipe' to shape a person:
1. Is the function of "Information Reception" led by "Experience" or "Association"?
2. Is the function of "Information Judgment" led by "Emotion" or "Logic"?
3. Is the function of "Information Reception" "Introverted" or "Extraverted"?
4. Is the function of "Information Judgment" "Introverted" or "Extraverted"?
Total number of personality types = 2 ^ 4 = 16
As a result, we once again accidentally arrive at the number 16. However, the MBTI theory states: Not so fast 🧐, you have two conditions that you haven't taken into account yet! The first condition is:
The main functions of 'Information Reception' and 'Information Judgment' also have preferences!
In other words, some people prefer 'judgment information' over 'receiving information'. At this point, many people, including myself, find it difficult to intuitively understand this viewpoint using 'local statistics'. However, if we must bring up certain 'stereotypes', returning to the school example, we will find that in the discussions about 'study gods' and 'academic overachievers', the cause for 'study gods' to express their viewpoints often arises from 'some logical fallacy'. In contrast, 'academic overachievers' tend to start discussions from 'views with assumed conditions'. 'Some logical fallacy' is a product of 'judgment information', while 'views with assumed conditions' are a product of 'receiving information'. This motivational distinction can partly explain the preference that exists between 'judgment information' and 'receiving information'. If we accept this primary functionality of 'preference', we need to revise our 'personality recipe':
1. Is the function of 'Receiving Information' dominated by 'Experience' or 'Association'?
2. Is the function of 'Judging Information' dominated by 'Emotion' or 'Logic'?
3. Is the function of 'Receiving Information' 'Introverted' or 'Extraverted'?
4. Is the function of 'Judging Information' 'Introverted' or 'Extraverted'?
5. Do you prefer 'Receiving Information' or 'Judging Information'?
Total number of personalities = 2 ^ 5 = 32
After the first condition was added, we obtained 32 possibilities. It seems that the second condition will halve the number of possibilities?
The MBTI theory says: Yes, yes, however, the second condition is more difficult to understand than the first condition... 😟, the second condition is:
The dominant function of a person in 'information reception' and the dominant function in 'information judgment' cannot both be 'introverted' or both be 'extraverted'.
In other words, if we determine that a person's "Information Reception" and "Information Judgment" dominant functions are respectively "Association" and "Logic", and their preference for "Information Reception" is higher than for "Information Judgment", then this person's dominant function combination can only have two types (the other two are excluded by the "second condition"):
Ni + Te "Introverted Association" + "Extraverted Logic"
Ne + Ti "Extraverted Association" + "Introverted Logic"
-----------------------------------
Ni + Ti Impossible double "Introversion" combination
Ne + Te Impossible double "Extraversion" combination
Regarding why 'Information Reception' and 'Information Judgment' cannot both be 'Introverted' or both be 'Extraverted', I actually can no longer generate an intuitive understanding, but from empirical observation around me, this second condition is very likely also correct. Here, I should re-examine the definitions of 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion':
Is it easily influenced by the real environment?
In fact, apart from the 'second condition', the other parts of the 'personality recipe' are all doing addition, trying to explain personality in a more specific way. Before the 'second condition' appeared, all the 'functions', 'tendencies', and 'preferences' can be seen as independent works of 'nature's master craftsmanship', and when they appear together, they create a 'combination' in the pure mathematical sense. However, the 'second condition' is doing subtraction on this 'combination', which clearly reflects a limitation that does not come from 'nature's master craftsmanship', but the definitions of 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion' direct this limitation towards the 'real environment'.
Perhaps the combination of 'dual introversion' originally existed, but because 'information reception' and 'information judgment' are not easily influenced by the 'realistic environment', its actual performance is completely detached from the 'realistic environment'. However, if a person wants to exist healthily in this society, they must inevitably establish a certain connection with the 'realistic environment', while the MBTI theory seems to assume that both the functions of 'information reception' and 'information judgment' can be used to build connections with the 'realistic environment'. This is similar to how both 'information judgment' and 'information reception' can serve as different entry points for problem-solving. The four 'extraverted functions' that can be directly observed from a person seem to be influenced by the 'realistic environment':
Positive stereotypes Negative stereotypes
Extraverted Sensing Se Has athletic or performing talents, enjoys life Indulgent, superficial
Extraverted Thinking Te Able to make decisions on the spot Unfeeling, pragmatic
Extraverted Feeling Fe Has empathy, values fairness Your mom thinks you're cold, moralistic, liberal
Extraverted Intuition Ne Has a strong desire to explore new things Talkative, prone to daydreaming
In other words, the MBTI theory believes that a person must connect with the 'real environment' through one of these four functions. When a person is influenced by positive or negative 'stereotypes', it is mostly caused by 'extraverted functions', because 'introverted functions' are difficult for the external world to observe. Similarly, a combination of 'double extraversion' might also exist, but its manifestation is complete detachment from the 'self'. This is not an abstract philosophical concept; the 'self' is clearly an environment that humans can 'self-improve' in. Without the 'self', a person can only be led by the 'real environment'. Modern humans can more easily connect with their 'self' when alone or not influenced by the 'real environment'.
Therefore, because a healthy person must simultaneously connect with the 'real environment' and the 'self', when a person has only two main functions, there will inevitably be one 'Introversion' and one 'Extraversion'. Unfortunately, those who possess 'double Introversion' and 'double Extraversion' must be pulled back to a more balanced state by the two 'gravitational pulls of personality', which are 'self' and 'real environment'. At this point, we seem to be able to establish a strong connection with the MBTI theory's 'Function Mirror Theory'! How do 'double Introversion' and 'double Extraversion' return to balance? It seems that each combination has only one optimal choice, which is to replace the second-ranked dominant function. Taking Ni-Fi 'double Introversion' as an example, the function that can replace 'Fi' must meet all the conditions of the 'personality recipe', so 'Te' is the only logically fitting choice:
Is it a judgment function? Is it Extraverted? Is it not rejected by Fi?
Ne X O O
Se X O O
Si X X O
Fe O O X Meets all conditions but Fi and Fe reject each other
---------------------------------------------------------------
Te O O O Meets all conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ti O X O Still "Double Introversion"
The reason it is called the 'Functional Mirror Theory' is that when 'Te' needs to be replaced, 'Fi' is also the best choice, which gives rise to 4 'mirror pairs'.
Te-Fi
Ti-Fe
Ni-Se
Ne-Si
So the final 'Personality Recipe' is out!
1. Is the function of 'Information Reception' dominated by 'Experience' or 'Association'?
2. Is the function of 'Information Judgment' dominated by 'Emotion' or 'Logic'?
3. Is the function of 'Information Reception' 'Introverted' or 'Extraverted'?
4. Is the function of 'Information Judgment' 'Introverted' or 'Extraverted'?
5. Do you prefer 'Information Reception' or 'Information Judgment'?
6. If 'Double Introversion' or 'Double Extraversion' occurs, then replace the second 'Dominant Function' according to 'Mirror Pairing'.
Total Number of Personalities = (2 ^ 5) / 2 = 16
At this point, all MBTI personalities can be depicted according to this 'personality recipe'.
Type Name Combination Third Function Common Stereotype Description
ISTJ Si + Te Fi Introverted Serious Realistic Logical Thinker
ISFJ Si + Fe Ti Introverted Serious Realistic Emotional Thinker
ESTP Se + Ti Fe Extraverted Free Realistic Logical Thinker
ESFP Se + Fi Te Extraverted Free Realistic Emotional Thinker
ISTP Ti + Se Ni Introverted Free Realistic Logical Thinker
INTP Ti + Ne Se Introverted Free Abstract Logical Thinker
ESTJ Te + Si Ne Extraverted Serious Realistic Logical Thinker
ENTJ Te + Ni Se Extraverted Serious Abstract Logical Thinker
ISFP Fi + Se Ni Introverted Free Realistic Emotional Thinker
INFP Fi + Ne Si Introverted Free Abstract Emotional Thinker
ESFJ Fe + Si Ne Extraverted Serious Realistic Emotional Thinker
ENFJ Fe + Ni Se Extraverted Serious Abstract Emotional Thinker
INTJ Ni + Te Fi Introverted Serious Abstract Logical Thinker
INFJ Ni + Fe Ti Introverted Serious Abstract Emotional Thinker
ENTP Ne + Ti Fe Extraverted Free Abstract Logical Thinker
ENFP Ne + Fi Te Extraverted Free Abstract Emotional Thinker
The distinction between J and P (Seriousness and Freedom) is not originally from Jung's theory, but was added later by the MBTI theorists Briggs and her daughter. The conditions for this distinction depend only on whether the dominant 'Judging Function' is 'Extraverted' (whether 'Fe' or 'Te' exists in the dominant function). Our reconstruction method already includes this condition of whether the 'Judging Function' is 'Extraverted', so it can be considered 'different paths leading to the same destination'. Here, I used the translation 'Seriousness' to avoid ambiguity, because when the 'Judging Function' is 'Extraverted', it is very easy for others to observe that a person is using 'Judging Function', which makes their overall image seem very 'Serious' and 'pressuring others'. However, this kind of 'Seriousness' is actually a 'stereotype'; we only need to focus on what the 'Dominant Function' is.
Some stereotypes based on dominant functions are very reasonable, such as the four types of 'emotional thinkers' (NF types) led by 'Association' and 'Emotion': INFP, ENFP, INFJ, ENFJ, which many refer to as 'Idealists'. Their trait is a particular focus on the area of 'abstract non-logical' fields like humanities and arts. However, if we delve deeper, the biggest difference between humanities and arts is that the humanities place more emphasis on exploring 'collective values'. At this point, INFPs and ENFPs show less interest in the humanities compared to INFJs and ENFJs, who utilize 'Extraverted Emotion'. Conversely, INFJs and ENFJs generally show less interest in the arts compared to INFPs and ENFPs, who utilize 'Introverted Emotion'. Understanding these subtle distinctions allows us to avoid carelessly labeling someone (though the solution is to apply more precise labels😑).
Based on the combination above, it is not difficult to see that what people commonly refer to as 'Introversion' and 'Extraversion' actually originate from the 'First Function' \(\text{倾向性}\). In other words, the 'First Function' of an introvert can be one of the four 'Introverted Functions'. The 'Introverted Function' needs to have a connection with the 'Self', and when a person is influenced by the 'Real Environment', it is very difficult for them to use the 'Introverted Function'. This is why the MBTI theory provides especially clear explanations for 'Introverts' and 'Extraverts'. If a person is unable to use their 'First Function' for a long time, they will feel 'discomfort', which can be expressed in language as terms like 'fatigue' and 'loss of energy'. On the other hand, 'Extraverts' often need to socialize to 'absorb energy', as their 'First Function' can only operate normally under the influence of the 'Real Environment'.
The "discomfort" mentioned above is due to the fact that people do not receive the additional "happy hormone" secretion reward bestowed by "nature's craftsmanship." I believe that this imbalance in "happy hormone" secretion is the fundamental biological principle that leads to so many people's "internal biases." This is why I do not agree with any theory that claims to "transform personality," because a person is essentially a "biological machine" with an "internal reward mechanism." The possibility of changing one's "internal biases," even if it exists, would be an incredibly painful process. Medications can alter the secretion of "happy hormones," but their effects are also limited. The times when a person is typically happiest are when they are engaging in activities that produce the most "happy hormones" from their "primary functions." Therefore, "introverted" people should proudly announce: solitude makes me happier 😃. Often, a person emerges from a period of effort and failure by starting with the "acceptance of oneself." The essential meaning of "acceptance of oneself" here is to acknowledge one's "internal biases" and to refrain from doing things that do not make them feel happy.
So this is why some people are willing to give up a high-paying job to pursue a career they are interested in, not because these high-paying jobs are disliked by everyone, but because the content of the work may suppress a person's 'primary function'. Similarly, if attending school is considered a job, it's obvious that not every student would enjoy the school environment (especially the exam-oriented education system). There are so many examples around me and in the news: after leaving the school environment, some people who were once thought to have excellent grades lose their 'halo' and start enjoying a simple and happy life. Meanwhile, some who had merely passed time at school rediscover their 'potential' and strive in fields they choose. This is also why I believe that parents and an education system that do not respect a child's 'inner inclination' are the 'ultimate source' of most suffering in society (especially in Chinese society). Even though people might eventually return to 'happiness' and 'wealth' can be rebuilt, the lost 'time' and 'health' cannot be regained.
However, some may ask: Does this mean that human development is always left to "fate"? What is the difference between this and "lying flat"? In fact, accepting oneself does not mean stopping attempts, but rather not denying one's advantages. The "mirror function" in MBTI theory sharply points out:
After a person has acquired two "dominant functions," the subsequent "third function" that develops naturally is not random.
Here I attempt to add my own interpretation. If we go back to the previous 'personality recipe' that can produce 32 possible outcomes, we can imagine that those unfortunate enough to possess 'double Introversion' and 'double Extraversion', in order to maintain balance between the 'real environment' and the 'self', inevitably have to sacrifice their 'original second function' and use a 'pseudo second function'. However, because the hardware of the 'biological machine' has not changed, these individuals will always have a preference for the 'original second function'. When they successfully establish a bond with the 'real environment' and 'self' using the 'first function' and 'pseudo second function', the 'original second function' that has been reluctantly abandoned will no longer be restricted by the 'personality recipe's' 'second condition'. In an appropriate environment, it will be reawakened, specifically manifested as a person slowly discovering that they seem to have 'potential' and 'interest' in certain things that they had never noticed before.
This hypothesis, if based on the 32 possible versions of the ‘personality recipe’, suggests that within the 16 types of the MBTI theory, each should have a ‘primal type’ and a ‘transformative type’ derived from ‘double introversion’ and ‘double extraversion’. For the ‘primal type’, acquiring a ‘third function’ is a process of embellishment, as their ‘first function’ and ‘second function’ preferences are already superior to the ‘third function’. The desire to obtain the ‘third function’ often stems from ‘practical needs’; for instance, individuals who feel socially unsuccessful may have a strong desire to gain the ‘emotion’ function.
However, for the 'transformed type', this 'third function' itself is the 'original second function', so awakening it is a very natural process. However, to some extent, the 'pseudo second function' of the 'transformed type' may be inferior to the 'second function' of the 'original type', as it is a product of 'pulling up seedlings to help them grow' under survival pressure. Therefore, after the 'transformed type' returns to its 'original state', its 'original second function' will be very different from the 'second function' of the 'original type', especially when this 'original second function' is the 'extraverted function', which will cause a huge shock to those around who observe this change.
Original Type First Function Second Function Third Function
--------------------------------------------------
Modified Type First Function Pseudo Second Function Original Second Function
|
After Regression First Function Original Second Function Pseudo Second Function
This is also the fundamental reason why some people's actual performance does not conform to a certain type of 'typical description' but cannot be categorized into 'other existing types'. There is an MBTI extension theory that attempts to introduce the assertive or turbulent 'self-confidence?' dimension to explain this 'difference'. In my view, this is completely wrong and also contradicts the basic principles of MBTI, because 'self-confidence?' is a 'behavioral performance', not an 'internal tendency'. This article, through logical reconstruction, is sufficient to provide an explanation for the 'original type' and the 'transformed type' that aligns with the principle of 'internal tendency', in terms of 'causes' and 'rationality'. However, for both 'original type' and 'transformed type' individuals, attaining the 'third function' is an exciting milestone event, which belongs to the inevitable path of self-improvement.
Based on this assumption, we can imagine the observable differences between these "transformed types" and their "native types" after the "return to essence." Here, we take "ENTP" and "INTJ" as examples:
Pressure of survival Returning to essence Visual description
ENTP (Original Type) Ne Ti Fe - Full of curiosity, enjoys logical thinking
ENTP (Modified Type) Ne Ti Fe Ne Fe Ti Full of curiosity, excels at taking care of others (A mix of ENFP and ENFJ)
INTJ (Original Type) Ni Te Fi - Trusts intuition, acts decisively
INTJ (Modified Type) Ni Te Fi Ni Fi Te Trusts intuition, has rich emotional depth (A mix of INFJ and INFP)
This also implies that there are naturally some individuals who possess a mixture of "ENFP" and "ENFJ" personality types, but due to the pressure of survival, they have been transformed into "ENTP". When their "essence returns," their performance may be closer to "ENFP". This might explain why some people oscillate between "ENFP" and "ENTP," and why some "INTJ" occasionally test as "INFJ"; it is because "dual introversion" and "dual extraversion" are inherently unstable states. However, at this point, I should really be "Ting Ting". The impact of MBTI theory on "behavior" is enormous, and it cannot be fully covered in a single article. The rest will be left for "Personality Recipe: Volume Two."