Typing about Type

Psychological Types: The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

2012-03-13T10:46:00.002-05:00

What follows is an excerpt from

Psychological Types (1923) (pp. 513-517) 11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a relatively determining factor.

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate : The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de 1'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden. This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function: thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking but .are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one ; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will, do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference” which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation the patient of a standpoint his physician becomes his standpoint But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious. The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter of two animals or monsters.

Archetypeture: Beebe's model : Part One

2012-03-06T13:12:00.000-05:00

[Don't know what a term means in this blog post?

Chances are you can find the definition at TypeInDepth.com

An excellent team blog that I highly recommend]

Isabel Myers, with cues from Jung, created a set of rules that outline how the mental function-attitudes "rank" from most preferred to least preferred in our consciousness. Each of the 16 Types have a different order of the FAs (function-attitude) that all follow this rule (which I will not describe here but may post someday).

One could easily stop there; it's pretty complex. But Isabel's model doesn't describe how the position of the FA affects its expression. How does the FA of Ni (introverted iNtuition) look different when in the 1st position (classically called the "Dominant") as opposed to the 3rd (simply "Tertiary") or the 7th (a horse with no name)? There were few descriptions; and those that did exist concentrated on the top four: the only ones we supposedly had any conscious ability to access.

And then along comes Beebe...

John Beebe created a "role model" of the hierarchy of archetypes - an architecture of these 8 ranked FAs with rules for their behavior based on 8 classic archetypal roles. Those roles are described at TypeInDepth.

The table below shows how Isabel's rankings of FAs (the "Actors") meet Beebe's archetypal "Roles" resulting in what I call 64 "Characters." Each MBTI type has 8 Actors (the FAs) and 8 Roles (the archetypes) = 64 possible Characters.

The "Equity Union rules" of placement (the 16 MBTI Types) of the FAs restrict and result in 16 possible ensemble "Casts" as detailed in the Table below (again, thanks to TypeInDepth). This is like the ultimate acting troupe - any Actor can play any Role and they're Cast according to the Equity approved Script that is your MBTI Type.


Image links directly to (c) TypeInDepth.com

The cast "Character Descriptions" are available by subscription to the Type Decoder @ Type Resources

So now what we have defined our terms and outlined the background, we come to the real point of the post.

When I first encountered Beebe's model, I immediately grokked it as correct. Something about it clicked, made sense, felt right and was elegant in its simplicity - essentially my iNtuition had a field day with it, and my Feeling judged it Good; but - my brain never stops there. I was left with "why does it feel right?" and "how did he come up with this?"

I personally don't need empirical logic and science and statistical analysis to go with my iNtuition in the heated flush of discovery, but ultimately I like to know "why I believe in what I do" - and I like to have my ducks in order when I ultimately I have to present to those who may like logical support. At the time, I (and most of the world) lacked any source material of Beebe's development model. So I had to figure out the "math" myself. What follows is my "math."

Click "read more..."

Bipolarity of Consciousness and Unconsciousness

Analytical psychology (which, unfortunately, includes Freud) was basically concerned with the differences between the Conscious Self and the UnConscious Self. Jung realized there were levels of complexity to this basic division, but it all starts from there.

Basically our conscious self is the part that we have accepted as agreeable, preferred, right, true, correct and good. We embrace it (in a philosophical ouroboros, one can ask, "do we like our conscious self because it's good?" or "do we think our conscious self is good because it's conscious?").

So that leaves everything that we find disagreeable, rejected, wrong, false, incorrect and bad. Normally we just find those traits in others outside of our Self - but Jung states that we have these within us too - just way down deep in ourselves. We just try to suppress them, say No! like a petulant two year old or ignore them altogether.

Jung says that these qualities make up our Unconscious, and that together we have a Psyche. So we have our first logical division:

Psyche

Conscious

Unconscious

The Conscious self can be summarized as our Positive side - agreeable, preferred, right, true, correct, good.
The UnConscious self can be summarized as Negative - disagreeable, rejected, wrong, false, incorrect, bad.

Jung's first "AHa!" when developing his model of Psychology (and what he thought, at first, was enough to describe the differences in everybody) was that of Attitude that had to do with directionality of attention.

Extraversion - towards the outside world, that is which evident, active and forward facing
Introversion - towards the inner world, that is which hidden, reflective and backward facing

Sound a lot like our rules for Conscious and Unconscious, don't they? And there's correlation. Introversion is frequently stated to be the Attitude we invoke in order to access the Unconscious. Our Consciousness is what we use when we're being actively engaged with ourselves and the world. Sure we can prefer Introversion, resulting in a seemingly disengaged and reflective personality type, but ultimately we use Extraversion as well. We all use both Attitudes.

Psyche	Attitude
Conscious	Extraverted
Unconscious	Introverted

Let's set aside Attitude for a little bit and move onto another concept and some new terms.

The Psyche and Mental Functions: Judgment

In order to create this division in our Psyche, our Self has used Judging - the Jungian term for the mental function of decision making and analysis of various kinds. The descriptions we used for conscious and unconscious (agree/disagree, yes/no, good/bad) are all decisions we've made about our Psyche. The basic division of Judging is that between the Positive and Negative.

Psyche	Judging
Conscious	Positive
Unconscious	Negative

Judgment can be further broken down into two kinds: Thinking and Feeling.
Thinking is logical, devoid of human value, and can basically be boiled down to 2 answers: Yes or No.
Feeling is empathy/sympathy, based on human values, and basically can be boiled down to Good or Bad.

Psyche	Judging	Thinking	Feeling
Conscious	Positive	Yes	Good
Unconscious	Negative	No	Bad

Now let's add Attitude back in the table.

Psyche	Attitude (A)	Judging (J)	Thinking (T)	Feeling (F)
Conscious	Extraverted (E)	Positive (+)	Yes	Good
Unconscious	Introverted (I)	Negative (-)	No	Bad

And let's add some descriptors

Psyche	A	J	T	F	Descriptors
Conscious	E	+	Yes	Good	agreeable, preferred, right,true, correct, active
Unconscious	I	-	No	Bad	disagreeable, rejected, wrong, false, incorrect, reflective

Part Two will take these concepts that we've defined and apply them to Beebe's model to show how the Archetypal Roles follow this "psycholgical type math" or what I called Archetypeture.

How Many Types Are There?

2012-03-03T10:53:00.000-05:00

How many Types are there?

Myers and Briggs claim there are only 16. Jung only really described 8. Spoto posits at least 56, and Singer Loomis claim 2.5 million.

I think 40320 is a good number to settle on - but how do we manage that?

As an Ne, I "feel compelled" to ask questions and posit the hypothesis that any combination may be possible, until proven otherwise (I suspect that an Ni would stop once there is a lack of support (Ne – hypothesis, Ni - theory)).

Given that the only basis for the theory of Myers and Briggs regarding the direction and hierarchy of the function-attitudes is a short paragraph of Jung’s, and no empirical reason, it must be considered. Mind you, the rule does many things

creates a framework of regular types
in a manageable number
that takes into account one P and one J function
one I and one E function,

since we need at least one in each quadrant to function "evenly."

So, it covers the four bases; it’s based on a rule; and is manageable – hence 16 Classic Types. I have no problem having 16 Types that most people fit, if not perfectly. But we always leave it there, without explaining how/why two people of the same type can be radically different. Myers-Briggs basically only takes the first two function-attitudes into consideration and presumes the rest. But I don't think we can call the variations "sub-types" because I think they're fully realized Types of their own.

Singer-Loomis supports my hypothesis by measuring the function-attitude directly, not through implication of the J/P scale in the MBTI. (I still have problems with the SLTDI however. I find it a poor implementation of the theory, but that’s another issue). But they don’t describe very well how an Ni in the lead position is different from the last, and how that affects the overall synergistically gestalted Type.

So given that we have 8 mental function attitudes, that we possess all of them, and a safe presumption that we can rank them in order of preference, and that the order matters, we have an 8 factorial (8!) number of combinations, or 40320. Singer Loomis breaks this down further by stating that there are actually 2.5 million+ possible combos because they’re using standard deviations of the scores and two mental functions can be “tied” for a position. At this point I think you’re splitting hairs. How does the order of preference affect 2.5 million types?

Now I believe in Beebe’s view of the hierarchy of archetypes with mental function attitudes. It’s a structure of Judgment (after all, we’re talking framework/roles and rules) as opposed to a description of mental function-attitudes (description a Perception structure). I'll save for another post why I do. The archetypal roles of Beebe’s theory also happen to parallel those of Campbell’s Hero’s Journey. I don’t need much more convincing than that!

So let us say for the sake of argument that we have Beebe’s 8-fold model as correct and logically supported. Then we have the 8 function-attitudes well defined by whole body of works around MBTI. So we have 64 possible Characters (archetypal role X function-attitude). Type Resources' Function-Archetype Decoder describes these 64 characters – how each mental function works in each role. But his decoder only does this for the 16 “Classic Types.”

Now 40320 is a pretty big number of combos to keep in your head – but given that most of us only fully develop the first two mental functions in a hierarchy of eight archetypes, let’s limit it to first pair. That gives us 56 possible combinations. I think 56 is good number – yes, you’ll need a book handy to reference the differences between the types, but it’s small enough that you can do the “math” of combining two function-attitudes in your head “additively.” You may lose the synergistic “multiplier effect” of describing the gestalted combo at length, but it’s good enough until you can get to the “handbook” of 56 or the I-ching-like “encyclopedia” of 40320 using the “manual” of 64 characters.

Personally, under MBTI, I am an ENFP. No problem with that here, but it is incomplete. Under Singer-Loomis (I took it and had it debriefed to me a few years ago) I am Ni/Fi/Ti/Si/Ne/Te/Fe/Se – notice that my function hierarchy is identical to the ENFP – N/F/T/S, but the directionality isn’t the same (I’m a quadruple introvert! But not really. I’m clearly an E). Am I a hybrid ENFP/INFJ? The only variation to that is that I prefer Te over Fe instead of the other way around like I “should” if my last four were the perfect mirror of my first four; because I “hate” Fe – it actually should be the last one, but I was raised properly and *do* have manners so answered accordingly ;-) ? A hybrid ENFP/INTJ?

So what am I missing here?

Perception and Time

2012-02-19T16:36:00.001-05:00

Mental Functions and Time Perception

View more PowerPoint from Michael Pastor

Myers-Briggs and Public Broadcasting

2009-09-28T11:59:00.000-05:00

Over the past six years, I have worked with public broadcasting stations to tailor the theory of Psychological Type for membership drives and capital campaigns. Knowing and applying Psychological Type can give a big boost to creating a cohesive campaign that truly reaches each and every member of your listening audience, turning them from passive listeners to engaged, and pledging, members.

Using Psychological Type, learn how your station and staff can

- identify your personal style, strengths, and “stretches” as individual staff members and create personal development goals.

- identify your organization's overall Type makeup, and how that bias is both helping and hurting your fundraising efforts.
- identify your individual on-air pitching style during pledge breaks, and how you can use the natural differences amongst your on-air staff to create complimentary Type pitch-teams.
- tailor and refine your station's overall mission statement and goals so that it both reflects your organization’s Type and appeals to all kinds of different Types.
- analyze your past pledge breaks in terms of vocabulary, themes and effectiveness, and see which Types you’re hitting, and which you’re not.
- avoid creating "scripts" to be read during pledge breaks and create "platforms" from which you can launch "structured improv."
- create a comprehensive package of materials that highlight every segment of your audience to get the most out of your capital campaign efforts.
- use new media (social networking, blogging, twitter, facebook, etc) most effectively so that they don't become resource traps.
- identify market segment gaps in your programming, and how your program scheduling can be structured so that it is perceived as "eclectic" instead of "random" or "focused" rather than "monotonous."
- identify your station's likely market segment without needing to spend funds for expensive marketing surveys that are usually designed with for-profit broadcasting companies in mind.

Psychological Type for Public Broadcasting can be tailored as a full-day retreat, a series of mini-retreats, or as an ongoing program. It is a valuable way to analyze past efforts, or as a way to create a brand-new methodology and continuously refine your fundraising.

Recessionary times hit non-profit organizations and public broadcasting stations especially hard; and a modest, but targeted, investment in your staff development can be both personally and *materially* rewarding. Program costs are developed with public broadcasting stations in mind. All sizes of stations, from small and scrappy, to large and institutionally-supported, can benefit from this kind of training and education.

Psychological Type is based on the theories of Carl Jung, and applied in the popularly-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Over 50 years old, the MBTI is the most widely used psychological type instrument used in the workplace today, with over 1 million people taking it every year. Today it is used in professional coaching, team-building, marketing, communications, organizational development and personal development. Psychological Type training can be a valuable addition to any ongoing program.

Barack Obama, Introspective ENTP?

2009-01-26T13:42:00.001-05:00

Your type doesn't change according to your mood. Expression of your type may appear to do so, but it doesn't actually change.

Obama is probably an INFP, and probably our first INFP president. (Clinton was the first xNFx, as an ENFP). Lawyers are all over the place on the MBTI table because Law is all over the place in terms of "personality type" of law. It's the *type* of law that may reveal what Type he prefers. He focused on constitutional law, which has a basis in theory over practice, hence N. And fundamental civil rights, which is an FP combo.

Others have mentioned his "alone time" routines and discipline for evidence of his "I" nature. He also pauses before responding, showing that high level of brain activity that occurs before a response that is the reflective hallmark of the Introverted preferences.

Lastly, the INFP is the "archetypal figurehead" type and frequently found in artists (particularly musicians and actors) and non-INFPs find themselves projecting their hopes and aspirations on such types because they're so easily absorbed by the cool, reserved, and observant cultural sponges that INFPs are.

Hillary could only lose in the primary to one person - her husband. And that's exactly who she did lose to - at least in terms of Type. Obama's INFP type appeared as ENFP during the primary.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Blogs and Type - Typealyzer

2008-12-02T12:28:00.000-05:00

I would be remiss if I did not call attention to a fun little web app that has hit the blogosphere lately. Rather than analyze a person in terms of Type, Typealyzer analyzes one's blog's Type. I don't know what algorithms it's using to generate the results, or how many blog posts it scans. I've seen mention that it only scans the most recent blog post, which may vastly skew the results. What's neat about this is that it doesn't attempt to analyze the author's Type, but their blog's Type, which can be very different. It's a good illustration of when one's Operating Type is different from one's Best Fit Type - we all visit various Type "zip codes" throughout our day and our life, but always return home.

I wouldn't be surprised if the basis is "frequently used words" by certain types, weighted according to preferences. There's a Type table in MBTI literature that lists words preferred by certain types (with appropriate overlap where Type overlaps).

What's important about this is the application of such analysis - if you're doing a PR blog, you're going to want to use more Extraverted Feeling vocabulary, as societal expectations are the basis for most Public Relations. If you're doing a blog that's more like a personal journal, and there's some differences, it reveals where one is visiting during the writing process (which overall is an Introverted activity, as opposed to the Extraverted preference for talking). Knowing that the writing process is going to be read by anyone changes it as well, therefore making blogging not a truly Introverted process (particularly since the editing and self-critical steps of writing are skipped).

Overall, it's a fun app. This blog comes out as ISTJ by the way. Not surprising given the number of lists, rules, and tables present. I also have to step WAY out of Type knowing that the results will be published and reviewed (I am an ENFP for the most part, and my writing style is nothing like my dynamic and interactive speaking style).

So go have fun with it.

FAQ and Myths About Personality Type

2008-11-24T09:54:00.002-05:00

There are a lot of myths on the internet perpetuated about the Personality Type, and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in particular. As I come across them, I'll attempt to bust them here.

1. Personality (tests/profiles) are like horoscopes. You can read anything you want into them.
It's more like horoscopes are attempting to be like personality profiles. In the case of the MBTI, there are 16 basic divisions, all of which are ultimately different from the other. There are similarities between many of the Types, but that's because they share common attributes (they may share ExFx in their code for example). Horoscope profiles are not generated by a question and answer instrument structured by an underlying theoretical structure. The MBTI is.

2. The MBTI doesn't predict success at a recommended career/job.
It's not supposed to. The MBTI reports job satisfaction vis-a-vis Type. When you see a "preferred careers" table, what you're seeing is the results of people reporting high job satisfaction compared to their Type. The MBTI shows what you prefer, not what you're good at doing. There are plenty of any given Type that aren't very good at being their Type. You may prefer to play baseball right-handedly, but that doesn't mean you're any good at hitting a ball.

3. The MBTI is frequently used to screen job applicants.
This is an unethical application of the MBTI according to APT International. Refer to myth #2 above. The exception to this rule is an organization that has conducted validated research to support such application, and I can nearly garuntee you that most HR departments don't. Personally, I'd be skeptical of working for any organization that uses any psychological instrument in their hiring process, but that's just me (being an ENFP).

4. I'm an Extravert, but I don't like to socialize with people.
Extraversion and socialablity are not the same thing. Extraversion and/or Introversion refers to where one focuses one's attention, or consciousness, and how one prefers to reenergize. Extraversion refers to the outside world, and Introversion refers to the inside world. The outside world isn't all people - it's things, ideas, animals, the sky, you name it. Socialability (or being a "people person") is more accurately indicated by the Thinking/Feeling dichotomy than the E/I dichotomy. When combined (as ExFx, IxFx, ExTx, IxFx) you get an even more accurate indicator. Additonally, remember that just because you prefer it, doesn't mean you're any good at it. You can prefer Extraversion and Feeling and be a pretty rotten person to be around at a party.

5. I'm an Introvert, but when I am with my friends and/or family, I'm very Extraverted.
Yep, and that's pretty indicative of Introverts. Those who prefer Introversion frequently feel "safe" enough around intimates to "let their guard down" and show a non-preferred side of themselves that isn't normally presented to the Extraverted world. Extraverts do the same thing in reverse - being uncommonly quiet and introspective with those they are intimately familiar.

6. I took the MBTI (in college, at work, in therapy) and then took the one online and it came out differently!
Well, yeah. And there's a few different possible reasons why.

a) It's a different indicator. If you took this one, then be advised that it's not the official MBTI. In fact, unless you're taking it through a qualified MBTI trainer, you're probably not taking the official MBTI. While I think the referred online indicator is pretty accurate, it's not the real thing.

b) You answered differently. That's hardly the indicator's fault. Now indicators are supposed to compensate for some degree of variation on the part of the taker when it comes to answers, but it's not psychic. Maybe you need to be a little more consistent ;-)

c) Officially, test-retest reliability scores for the MBTI are pretty high. Test-retest reliability is usually done with a 9-month time scale, so if it's been years since you took it, there's more of a chance of it changing. Now if you only changed on one letter, that's hardly the end of the world; see the next point.

d) The first time you took it (or maybe this time) you scored pretty close to the middle of the pack on at least one of the dichotomies, so the chances that you "flipped" letters is pretty good.

e) Possibly what happened (especially if you took it at work) you answered it in such a way as to satisfy an image you wanted to project, or expectations you expected to meet.

e) That usually indicates something is pulling you in one direction away from your preferred function. When we're younger, we're more under the influence of authority figures and family dynamics.

If you flipped on more than one letter, a little life-examination may be in order. ;-)

7. I read the profile and that isn't me!
First, the profiles aren't the point of the indicator. They just provide a nice snapshot of the larger dynamic of what's really going on (which most people don't get to learn, especially if they just took an online version without a trainer).

Secondly, well, then why did you answer the questionnaire the way you did? The resultant code only comes from one source - you. Garbage in, garbage out. A little self-awareness may be in order ;-)

[And guess what? That's partly what the MBTI is designed to help you start doing]

The mind inside the man

2006-05-23T14:13:00.000-05:00

The mind inside the man

This is one of the best articles on a case study (an INTP baseball team manager). The method the coach uses is similar to what the Oakland A's did, by hiring Wall Street Analysts, to build a good team.

Please Start Here

2005-10-19T12:56:00.000-05:00

I suppose the first post will lay out some ground rules, mostly for myself, but also for those who wish to comment on postings:

This is not the space to argue the validity of the basic Jungian theory of personality Type - for the purposes of this space, we're presuming the basic idea is valid
Debate about the extrapolation of Jung's ideas is completely valid - including criticism of the MBTI itself. Again, despite this rule, we're presuming that the MBTI, for the most part, is a valid indicator of Jungian Types. Some are better, others are worse, but since the whole theory is predicated on the idea that a standardized *objective* test is only one half of the whole process of self-discovery, arguing the validity of the MBTI is sorta moot In the end, only the 'subject' can validate the 'subject's' type
There are no Introverts or Extraverts - only Introvered and Extraverted functions in the dominant position. (Paraphrase of Peter Myers quote)
Rules are subject to change without notice ;-)
Keep an open mind
Recognize your own Type biases in your arguments
Have fun; I am

and now on with the show...