* This is my personal blog and the views expressed here are purely subjective. I hope to write on this topic in several parts to shed lights on how I am “strategically” using Jungian concepts in my personal development with an unique creative approach. My personal findings, opinion and insights might help others who are in the same journey with me. It is gonna be long. So brace yourself.*
Read the first part:
I have described in the first part that despite of being a skeptic, I am using Jung’s Cognitive Functions as a temporary tool in my personal development. And I also went in depth about my own personality type and the confusion of myself being miss-typed as some other type. In later parts I will describe my own personal model. But today I would like to address a few aspects which usually are in question.
We know that many psychologists debunk or refuse MBTI types. They question the validity or credentials of MBTI tests because Myers and Briggs (mom and daughter duo) did not have any professional psychology background. They designed the tests based on Carl Jung’s Cognitive Functions Theory (who himself never tested it). They came up with questionnaire which are too “leading”. I do agree with the flaws of those typical questions.
That’s why psychologists prefer some other type testing like the Big Five Personality tests which are too vague and full of more bullshit IMHO. In that regard, whether the whole “psychology” major is science or pseudoscience-that is even a bigger question. Sorry psychologists!
I am more into neuroscience than psychology. Hence, I am more prone to investigate the validity of Cognitive Functions Theory than the MBTI tests.
But Dario Nardi is working on some meaningful research on cognitive functions. You can go to this forum and click those “spoiler” buttons to find his research findings:
An even better overview is in this forum:
Or watch this video:
And now you make up your mind. Is it science or pseudoscience?