My MBTI / Jungian-type report
More actions
Treated dimensionally, your scores are continuous positions on 4 axes. Edit on Special:MyProfile
The four axes
| Axis | Your score | Position | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| E Extraversion ↔ I Introversion | 0.70 | I (slight) | slight preference for Introversion (I) |
| S Sensing ↔ N Intuition | -0.15 | S (balanced) | roughly balanced between Sensing and Intuition |
| T Thinking ↔ F Feeling | 0.76 | F (slight) | slight preference for Feeling (F) |
| J Judging ↔ P Perceiving | 0.33 | P (balanced) | roughly balanced between Judging and Perceiving |
Cognitive function stack
Per Jung 1921 + Beebe 1984. The four positions are: Dominant (your primary lens), Auxiliary (your support), Tertiary (less developed but available), Inferior (often a blind spot or stress-time refuge).
| Position | Function | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Dominant | Fi | Introverted Feeling |
| Auxiliary | Se | Extraverted Sensing |
| Tertiary | Ni | Introverted Intuition |
| Inferior | Te | Extraverted Thinking |
How MBTI maps to the Big Five (OCEAN)
Empirically (McCrae & Costa 1989; Furnham 1996), the four MBTI dichotomies show moderate to strong correlations with four of the Big Five traits, the Big Five is widely considered the better-validated framework. Approximate correspondence:
- E ↔ I ≈ Extraversion (E = high Extraversion)
- N ↔ S ≈ Openness (N = high Openness)
- F ↔ T ≈ Agreeableness (F = high Agreeableness)
- P ↔ J ≈ Conscientiousness (P = low Conscientiousness)
- The Big Five's Neuroticism has no MBTI correlate.
If you also have OCEAN scores on this profile, you can compare directly: high Extraversion should align with E-side scores, high Openness with N-side, etc.
About the MBTI
The MBTI was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, drawing on Carl Jung's 1921 Psychological Types. The official instrument is proprietary; the items used on this wiki are the Open Extended Jungian Type Scales (OEJTS) by Eric Jorgenson (2014), public-domain bipolar items at openpsychometrics.org/tests/OEJTS.
Academic critiques of the MBTI focus on (a) low test-retest reliability when treated as forced types, same person re-tested often crosses one or more dichotomy midpoints; (b) bimodality assumed by typing despite empirical distributions being roughly normal on each dichotomy; (c) limited predictive validity for outcomes the Big Five predicts well. The dimensional treatment used here (continuous scores on each axis, never a forced category) sidesteps the worst of these critiques.
Recommended literature: Jung 1921 (Psychological Types), Myers et al. 1998 (MBTI Manual 3rd ed.), Quenk 2009 (Was That Really Me?), Beebe 2004 (cognitive function archetypes), McCrae & Costa 1989 (MBTI vs Big Five), Pittenger 2005 (Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI).
Cognitive function stacks per type follow the standard Jung–Myers framework as elaborated by Beebe. The Big Five correspondences cited above are from McCrae & Costa's 1989 joint-factor analysis.