You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
While Jung's typology of attitudes (extraversion-introversion) has gained a considerable popularity among the lay public, as well as a degree of credibility among scientific psychologists, the same cannot be said of his typology of functions (JUNG 12). The problem may well be, as Osmond, Siegler and Smoke suggest, that the vagueness and ambiguities of the original formulations do not allow one to type people reliably. ‘While Jung's typology proved fruitful as a therapeutic instrument, it has been an unqualified failure as a reliable method of establishing people's types, (OSMOND et al. 20). Jungians still disagree among themselves as to who represents examples of what type: Meier and Wozny showed in a recent study that Jungian analysts’ self-typing was notably different from their scores on a Jungian personality test (MEIER & WOZNY 16). And yet, considerable research has accumulated, particularly with The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, showing that some of the functional variables do correlate consistently and significantly with other personality factors, vocational attitudes and choices, cognitive and perceptual performances and preferences, and behaviour in various kinds of relationships (CARSKADOON 5).
The question arises as to whether there might be certain structural problems with the theory that are blocking further advance in understanding and validation. We propose, in this paper, to examine the hypothesised bi-polarity of the four functions, and suggest that perhaps the rigid dichotomising inherent within the functional typology as so far conceived, has served as a kind of conceptual strait-jacket, inhibiting growth and development of the model.
We omit from consideration the extraversion-introversion continuum, which has received considerable indirect validation through the very extensive body of research carried out using H. J. Eysenck's tests of extraversion (EYSENCK & EYSENCK 7). In spite of the fact that Eysenck himself has criticised Jung's theory for bei