JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #9: GRANT'S "FUNCTIONS"/THE STACK AND JUNG'S FUNCTIONS/PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES ARE NOT THE SAME
I said in my announcement about letter cluster behaviors, that I was going to write this, and some people have made me mad in a Jungian typology group I'm in, because they're in fact, typing people in a very "Grant-ian" way. But I'm going to address that in the second way Grant and Jung are not the same. But let's start with the first reason they're not the same. This one should be obvious if you read my announcement about the letter cluster behaviors:
1. Grant just took 8 letter clusters associated with various behaviors and called them "functions". Jung's functions, on the other hand, are fundamental aspects of reality.
With Grant: SP behavior = Se, SJ behavior =Si, NP behavior = Ne, NJ behavior = Ni, TJ behavior = Te, TP behavior = Ti, FJ behavior = Fe and FP behavior = Fi
Whereas with Jung (Jung's quote): " To sum up, we have considered four kinds of realities: (1) static reality that comes to us through sensation; (2) the dynamic reality revealed by intuition; (3) static images given to us by thinking; (4) dynamic images sensed by feeling. "
2. Because Grant's "functions" are actually behaviors, he had to change the definition of each "function", depending on its location in the stack, to make it conform to the MBTI type descriptions.
Whereas Jung's functions maintain the same definition no matter their location, because they are thinking patterns first and foremost. They do change orientation, when they move from the conscious to the unconscious, in how they're perceived and how well the duties of the function are performed. However, the definitions and duties of the function to not change.
To show what I mean about Jung's functions changing orientation of how they're perceived and how well the duties are performed, but the functions not changing definitions or duties, I will use the following example: Ni1 in INPs vs. Ni4 in ESPs.
Ni manifests the same way in both INPs and ESPs. It's hard to define, so I'm not going to try to define it, but its definition is the same in both types. Its duties are also the same in both types. Some of its duties are to suspect, to ponder, to assume (draw conclusions), and more.
However, in INPs, Ni is looked at favorably by others. They generally perceive the INP as someone making good assumptions and drawing accurate conclusions. Sometimes they mess up, and those moments they tend to remember, but they usually get it right. INPs can be suspicious of people or things, but once again, it's usually perceived by others as them being cautious and not fanatical, and is seen as a good thing. Their pondering is actually perceived by others as a good thing as well, because it shows that they're looking at many possible angles to draw the conclusion from, and people think that's important.
Then, by contrast, ESPs have Ni4. In ESPs, the Ni is looked at by others with disfavor. People generally perceive ESPs as people who are very suspicious of others, and have a hard time trusting them. They often perceive ESPs as people who "jump to conclusions", and are more often wrong than right.
See how the function stayed the same and performed the same duties? However, what changed were how well the duties were performed, and how people perceived the duties of the function, as a result.
And I'm glad I used Ni as an example, because that gets me into the very "Grant-ian" typings and weird function definitions I've been seeing floating around in a group that's *supposed* to be Jungian typology
One is the belief that you must have Ni to have a relationship with God. 🤔 Huh, you've really got me, there. I just described the duties of Ni as suspicion, pondering and drawing conclusions. What the heck does that have to do with having a relationship with God? To whoever came up with that idea, God is omnipresent. He knows everything there is to know. He can be anything a human needs him to be to connect with him. There were many people who had a relationship with God in the Bible who had Ni in the undifferentiated realm (in other words neither conscious nor unconscious Ni): King David-an ENFP, King Solomon-an ENTJ, Isaac-an ISFJ, Jacob-an ISTJ, Moses-an ISTP, Joshua-an ENTP, Nehemiah-an ISFP, the apostle John-an ISTP, Simon Peter-an ENFJ*
* these typings were listed as DISC profiles in "Understanding How Others Misunderstand You " by Ken Voges and Ron Braund. I put them with the corresponding MBTI types
Another one I've seen is that people with Te4 write poetry. What the heck does Te have to do with writing poetry, and ever since when was poetry something not done well 🤔? That belief obviously had its origin in a "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist, because, first it singles out Te in a specific location, and second, because it is a completely different definition of Te from Te1, Te2, or Te3, and has nothing to do with Jung's Te at all. Well, anyway, in this group, people were using this "Grant-ian" MBTI theororist's theory to justify typing Taylor Swift as an ISFJ. "Taylor writes poetry. Therefore she has Te4, and she's an ISFJ ". Highly laughable 😆😂🤣. Anybody typing her correctly can clearly see that she's in the D (Dominance) quadrant of DISC. She's just about as opposite an ISFJ as you could be! 😆😂🤣 In my Typing In Practice post on her, I typed her as ENTP, and trust me, ENTP makes a whole lot more sense!
So that's 2 ways that Grant's "functions" and Jung's functions are different. I'm sure there's more, but I believe I've done enough writing for now, so I'll just end things here, and let you digest it