Reconstructing Identity

ESTJ – Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
INFP – Introversion, iNtuition, Feeling, Percieving

I am positive that many of us would have heard about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), even if we have yet to formally hear of it. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment, as quoted, is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. It extrapolates on the original theories hypothesized by psychoanalytic Carl Gustav Jung, who proposes that there were four main functions of consciousness: namely 'Sensation', 'Intuition', 'Thinking' and 'Feeling'. These functions are then modified by two main attitude types: extraversion and introversion. The MBTI adds in an additional attribute (judging/perceiving) to the theories of Jungian psychology.

With quick reference to the above two personality types, we immediately get to see that these two are a pair we would commonly associate as ‘radically different’ or ‘complimentary’. Disregarding Extraversion and Introversion (we will be touching on this in the topic ‘personal and social identity’) ‘Sensing’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Judging’ can be considered as the more ‘logical’ approach to life whilst ‘Intuition’, ‘Feeling’ and ‘Perceiving’ may be ‘perceived’ to be the more intuitive approach. While the four attributes classify the different states of the human mind, these attributes, and the Jungian theory it has it’s backing upon are actually derivative from the discipline of philosophy. It is no wonder that we have returned back to the concepts of analytical epistemology and metaphysical ontology again- It is also no wonder that the discipline of psychology is actually an application of philosophy, utilizing the scientific method, to analyze and improve the human cognition.

‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. In summary, they describe how new information is understood and interpreted. ‘Sensing’ individuals tend to trust information that is real, present, tangible and concrete; to them, the meaning lies within the facts and data. Do note that such information is very ‘now’ or ‘materialistic’ in essence- in other words, people who Sense are very ‘realistic’ realists. On the other hand, Intuitionists tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical. This corresponds to the ‘idealistic’ or ‘eternal’ concept that I had touched upon on the topic of the Now and Eternal.

‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are the decision-making (Judging) functions. They are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). While ‘Thinking’ individuals (as quoted by Wikipedia) ‘tend to decide things… by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules, those who prefer 'feeling' tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation’. Recalling the concept of intuition as a form of intellectual empathy, we get a direct link that ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are actually derivatives from the concepts of Logical Analysis and metaphysical Intuition.

Beyond the theories of Carl Jung, Myers and Briggs had factored in an additional attribute to the human psyche known to be the ‘preferential lifestyle’. They had believed that some people prefer to live a lifestyle of Perception (sensing and intuition) while others prefer one of Judgment via their thoughts and feelings. In other words, the attributes of ‘Judgment’ and ‘Perception’ are henceforth the integrated product of ‘Sense’, ‘Intuition’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ on the MBTI scale; or Now, Eternal, logic and Intuition on the Moderation Doctrine.

Now, it is empathetically understandable that there can be no ‘right or wrong answer’ to the various outcomes that may arise via the permutation of the above four (of three we are currently concerned with insofar). This is partially because statistics have shown that the distribution of results over multiple individuals are more or less balanced; moreover, equal proportion of individuals from many of the different groups have lived rather successful, if not contented lives.

However, from the previous faculty of the Moderation Doctrine, we had concluded objectively that there are both strengths and weaknesses of logic and intuition itself. Recapping, logic is essential to our lives, it provides us objective truths in our epistemological knowledge. However it is very easily warped by the human will- even up to two opposing viewpoints on a given (set) situation, just as long as the flow has unity and coherence. Intuition, on the other hand, gives us the true experience of answers. However the truth it provides can be easily influenced by the logical interpretation by the human mind (since the human brain is logical in construct). The same we had concluded over the ‘Now’ and ‘Eternal’. Excessive emphasis on the ‘now’ would result in materialism and secularism, while, the opposite would result in the ‘idealistic’ life that bears no relevance to the world today. As a conclusion, we had stated that the objectively living best would be a life of integration of both logical analysis and intuitive experience, in both the material and idealistic.

Now what implications does it impose on the results of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Since there is very little distinction of the Moderation Doctrine and the MBTI, it logically concludes that while all current outcomes of the MBTI are equally ‘right’, there is actually an objective ‘better’ among all the available permutations. This objective answer is actually the balanced answer of moderation on the MBTI, or the answer when the test results in an equal proportion of ‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ traits, as well as in the attributes of ‘Thought’ and ‘Feeling’.

Putting this in very layman’s terms at a very elementary concept- rather than being on a single side of life, why not be on both sides and have the best of both worlds?

Of course, such discourses on the ‘living best’ cannot be justified with the re-conceptualization of such layman’s terms. We as humans cannot, for a fact, change our personalities overnight upon our own free will due to natural determinism. Neither can we assume that an integrated personality would definitely be objectively better (all the time) than a personality that lies on one of the sixteen possible outcomes- this is because while it is true that ‘the best of both worlds’ may be integrated, the contrary outcome, or ‘the worst of both worlds’ may too be integrated in such a ‘moderated’ life. Henceforth it would be philosophically unwise to attempt to change our personalities now that we have found an objective answer to the MBTI.

However, it is important to note once again that I have yet to factor in the attributes of Introvertism and Extravertism. I will give a more detailed explanation on the topic of Social Identity, but the current preclusion also lies within a certain sort of balance of the Introvert and the Extravert. As for now, this balance theory is still very confined to the individual mental cognition. But as a form of conclusion, we have reasoned out that there is indeed an objective answer to the truth of the ‘living best’, and that this objective answer would lie in accordance to the integration (or moderation) of ‘logic’, ‘intuition’, ‘now’ and ‘eternal’ as represented by ‘Sensing’, ‘Intuition’, ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ on the MBTI.

In the next topic, I’ll be covering the topic of personal identity. I believe that such an analysis is overly simplistic and does not do the topic justice- In the meantime; any form of criticism or comment is welcomed.
*

Side note:

Do note that there has been a slight error in conceptual re-representation from the Moderation Doctrine to the theories of Carl Jung adopted by the MBTI. This error would lie in the definition of intuition. In the Moderation Doctrine, ‘Intuition’ is defined as the metaphysical intuitive intellectual empathy (experience). In the theories of Jungian psychology and the MBTI, ‘intuition’ is known as a trust of abstract and theoretical information. In the above excerpt, I have attempted to clarify this error by the introduction of inverted commas (‘’) onto the Jungian ‘Intuition’ as opposing to the Intuition brought forward by metaphysics and the Moderation Doctrine.

Should the Moderation Doctrine (a derivation of philosophy) and the MBTI (a derivation of psychology) be mapped out side by side, the following conceptual links should be consistent and synonymous:


Logic (Logical Analysis) ------------------- ‘Thought’
Intuition (intellectual sympathy) ------- ‘Feelings’
Material (Now) ----------------------------- ‘Sense’
Idealistic (eternal) ------------------------- ‘Intuition’

Should there be any further difficulties in the interpretation of terms and concepts within this excerpts, do feel free to comment at the response page or on the discussion board at the side of this webpage.