How the MBTI Misinterprets Jung's Typology

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most recognised tools for personality assessment, categorising individuals into 16 distinct personality types across four dichotomies: Extraversion–Introversion, Sensing–Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving. Developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs, the MBTI was inspired by Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. However, numerous scholars argue that the MBTI oversimplifies and misinterprets Jung's more complex theories on personality (Myers, 2019). This article explores these critiques in depth, highlighting the discrepancies between Jung’s psychological theories and the MBTI’s interpretations.

Jung's Theory of Psychological Types

In Psychological Types (1921), Jung presented his theory on psychological types, introducing two primary attitudes—Extraversion and Introversion—and four functions: Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition (Jung, 1921/1971). Jung’s framework was not intended as a rigid categorisation of individuals; rather, he viewed these types as developmental tools that reflect a dynamic interplay of the conscious and unconscious mind (Jacobi, 1965). He emphasised that personality is not static but evolves, with dominant and auxiliary functions shifting over time as part of an individual’s journey toward individuation (Jung, 1939). In contrast, the MBTI imposes a more deterministic view, attributing fixed types to individuals, potentially limiting the perceived capacity for psychological growth (Myers, 2016).

The Development of the MBTI

Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, developed the MBTI during the Second World War, aiming to make Jung's complex ideas accessible to the general public (Myers, 2019). While the MBTI reflects certain aspects of Jung's model, it introduces a fourth dichotomy—Judging versus Perceiving—to indicate a person’s external orientation. This adaptation, while useful for categorisation, diverges from Jung’s original typology, which refrained from defining personality by strict external traits. This discrepancy has led some scholars to argue that the MBTI overlooks the fluidity and depth of Jungian typology (Jacobi, 1965; Myers, 2018).

Critiques of the MBTI's Interpretation of Jung's Typology

1. Oversimplification of Jung’s Concepts

One major critique is that the MBTI oversimplifies Jung’s nuanced theories by imposing rigid categories on personality. Jung saw psychological types as tools to understand a person’s dominant tendencies, which shift over time, rather than as fixed labels (Jung, 1921/1971). The MBTI, by contrast, assigns individuals a static type, potentially neglecting the dynamic nature of personality and psychological development. Steve Myers (2019) argues that such rigid categorisation contradicts Jung’s emphasis on the psyche’s evolving nature, in which dominant functions interact with less developed, auxiliary functions in a continuous process (Jacobi, 1965).

2. Misinterpretation of the Transcendent Function

Jung’s concept of the transcendent function plays a vital role in integrating opposing psychological functions, ultimately promoting individuation (Jung, 1958). The transcendent function acts as a bridge, uniting conscious reasoning with unconscious insights to foster personal growth and resolve inner conflicts (Jung, 1954). However, the MBTI lacks a mechanism to account for this integrative process. Myers (2016) notes that the absence of the transcendent function limits the MBTI’s ability to reflect the full depth of Jungian individuation, which is essential for psychological growth and balance. Without this component, the MBTI risks encouraging a one-sided approach to personality, where individuals may over-identify with certain traits at the expense of their inner complexity (Jeffrey, 2024).

3. Static Typing Versus Dynamic Development

Jung envisioned personality as a dynamic system, in which individuals evolve and integrate less dominant functions over time as part of the individuation process (Jung, 1939). In contrast, the MBTI’s approach to typing may lead people to view their personality as fixed, potentially hindering exploration and development of less dominant aspects. According to Myers (2021), Jung would likely criticise the MBTI for promoting a static view of personality, which he saw as a barrier to psychological development. Jung’s theories suggest that the lifelong process of integrating different functions is key to achieving wholeness, a perspective largely absent in MBTI assessments (Jeffrey, 2024).

4. Questionable Endorsement by Jung

There is a widespread misconception that Jung endorsed the MBTI; however, evidence suggests otherwise. A letter often misattributed to Jung was, in fact, written by his secretary and does not reflect Jung’s true opinions on the MBTI (Myers, 2018). Jung expressed reservations about typology being used as a restrictive tool, cautioning that type assessments could lead to a reductionist view of personality (Jung, 1921/1971). This letter's misattribution highlights the need for a critical approach to interpretations of Jung's work, particularly when they risk oversimplifying complex psychological theories for popular use.

Implications for Psychological Assessment

The critiques of the MBTI’s interpretation of Jung’s typology carry significant implications for its use in psychological assessment and personal development. By oversimplifying psychological functions and omitting the transcendent function, the MBTI may lead to a superficial understanding of personality, potentially hindering personal growth. Furthermore, the lack of emphasis on individuation—a process central to Jungian psychology—suggests that MBTI assessments may not fully account for the evolving, multi-faceted nature of the human psyche (Jeffrey, 2024).

Conclusion

While the MBTI has gained widespread popularity and has proven beneficial in various contexts, it is essential to recognise its limitations in accurately representing Jung's original theories. The oversimplification of complex psychological functions, the omission of the transcendent function, and the promotion of static personality types represent significant deviations from Jung’s concepts. Understanding these discrepancies is crucial for individuals and professionals who use the MBTI, ensuring that it is applied with an awareness of its limitations and in a way that aligns more closely with the dynamic nature of human personality as proposed by Jung.

References

• Jacobi, J. (1965). The Psychology of C.G. Jung. Yale University Press.
• Jeffrey, S. (2024, September 17). The individuation process: Carl Jung's 3 stages to wholeness. Retrieved from scottjeffrey.com
• Jung, C.G. (1921/1971). Psychological Types (H. G. Baynes, Trans.). Princeton University Press.
• Jung, C.G. (1939). Contributions to Analytical Psychology. Routledge.
• Jung, C.G. (1954). The transcendent function: Collected Works, Volume 8. Princeton University Press.
• Jung, C.G. (1958). The transcendent function: Collected Works, Volume 8. Princeton University Press.
• Myers, S. (2016). Myers-Briggs typology and Jungian individuation. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 61(3), 289–308.
• Myers, S. (2018). The misleading letter from Jung on Myers-Briggs typology. Retrieved from stevemyers.co
• Myers, S. (2019). Myers-Briggs typology vs. Jungian individuation: Overcoming one-sidedness in self and society. Routledge.
• Myers, S. (2021). MBTI criticisms – whose side would Jung be on? Retrieved from stevemyers.co