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.
Two Journal of Analytical Psychology articles, ‘The five functions of psychological types’ (Vol. 61, No. 2) and ‘Myers-Briggs typology and Jungian individuation’ (Vol. 61, No. 3), both by Steve Myers, provide important insights about employing Jung's type model for individuation. We agree with two of Myers' significant points: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) misses the opportunity to (1) highlight the transcendent function and (2) engage the types dynamically for the central purpose of individuation. We question, however, equating the transcendent function with the other four functions of psychological types. We regard the transcendent function as different in kind from the four.
Myers states that Jung's intent was ‘a potential role for typology in the process of individuation…. [Jung] had in mind the role of the symbol and the emergence of the transcendent function out of the dialectic of opposites, not the classification of individuals’ (Myers 2016b, p. 296). Myers shows that Jung had a concern for the misuse of his typology; Jung stated in a forward to Psychological Types:
My typology is … not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight…. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in Chapters II and V. He will gain more from them than from any typological terminology superficially picked up, since this serves no other purpose than a totally useless desire to stick on labels.
Myers points out that Jung was far more concerned with the ‘type problem’, or the problem of opposites: