JPT Vol69 0109

More than thirty years of publishing research articles related to the theory and
applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.
Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 1 JAN 09

69
“
The author asserts that type dynamics is a conceptually tangled con-
struct with little empirical support, is the source of many problems, and
should be discarded.
James H. Reynierse
Reynierse Associates
ABSTRACT
”
The Case Against Type Dynamics
The type dynamics model of psychological type was dynamics is Jungian. The empirical record is inconsis-
examined and criticized from several perspectives. tent with type dynamics and often contradicts it in
Problem areas include the following: Type dynamics ways that are fatal for the construct. Type dynamics—
has persistent logical problems and is fundamentally in any form—does not organize the data in an orderly
based on a series of category mistakes; it provides, at fashion that corresponds with the facts, because type
best, a limited and incomplete account of type-related dynamics is a conceptually compromised construct that
phenomena; epistemologically, type dynamics is not lacks coherence. Preference multidimensionality was
based on efficacy or the preponderance of the evidence presented as a theoretical alternative to type dynamics
but is strictly a method that assigns individuals to type that organizes the relevant data in an orderly fashion
dynamics groups or categories while offering little that corresponds with the facts. Orderliness occurs when
explanatory power; type dynamics is thoroughly con- research untangles the confounding that is natural to
founded with its Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) type dynamics and when we recognize that E–I points
content or composition; type dynamics relies on anec- to E–I and J–P points to J–P—not to E–I.
dotal evidence, fails most efficacy tests, and does not Note: For the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, the eight preference categories
are the following: Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), Thinking
fit the empirical facts; and finally, it is doubtful if type (T) versus Feeling (F), Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P).
Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type

Thomas G. Carskadon, Ph.D., Editor C A P T ®
2
INTRODUCTION “besides the most differentiated function, another, less
It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and differentiated function of secondary importance is
to end as superstitions. —THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-
Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter (1956) began determining influence” (p. 405). In similar fashion, Jung
their classic When Prophecy Fails as follows: noted that “Experience shows that the secondary func-
tion is always one whose nature is different from,
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.
Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him
though not antagonistic to, the primary function” and
facts or figures and he questions your sources. that “For all the types met with in practice, the rule
Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. holds good that besides the conscious, primary function
We have all experienced the futility of trying to there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function
change a strong conviction, especially if the con- which is in every respect different from the nature of the
vinced person has some investment in his belief. primary function” (p. 406).
We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses Because the dominant and auxiliary processes are
with which people protect their convictions, manag- in every respect different, Myers (Myers, 1962; Myers &
ing to keep them unscathed through the most devas- Myers, 1980) reasoned that the dominant and auxiliary
tating attacks. (p. 3). processes provide balance, that one must be extraverted
So too it is with the type community and its and the other introverted, and one must be for a
popularly held, but empirically unsupported belief in perceiving function, either S or N, whereas the other
type dynamics. must be for a judging function, either T or F (McCaulley,
Type dynamics refers to the hierarchical ordering 1999). Myers further claimed that the MBTI instrument,
of Jung’s functions (Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, through the J–P preference pair, provided a method for
and Feeling); the identification of this order as the determining these dynamical relationships, a method
Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions; that the MBTI Manual, in revision, continued to endorse.
and the expression of these functions in the Extraverted Although Myers’ original presentation of this method
and Introverted attitudes. According to theory, the was sketchy, the method for forming and identifying
Jungian functions represent opposite perceiving type dynamics categories was described in detail in later
(Sensing or Intuition) and judging (Thinking or editions of the MBTI Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985;
Feeling) processes that must be differentiated in order Myers et al., 1998) and elsewhere (e.g., Brownsword,
to provide focus and direction for any individual. 1987, 1988; Quenk, 1992, 1993).
From this perspective, there are opposite attitudes for Brownsword (1987, 1988) elaborated on an
expressing the functions (Extraversion and Intro- approach to type dynamics that was previously intro-
version), with each type expressing the dominant duced by Grant (Grant, Thompson, & Clarke, 1983),
function in its preferred attitude. Similarly, there are provided a general framework for conceptualizing type
opposite attitudes (Judgment and Perception) for deal- dynamics within the framework of the MBTI measure,
ing with the outer world, i.e., that determine which and identified three rules for forming type dynamics
functions are extraverted. categories. First, Js extravert their judging function, T or
Myers (1962) introduced the rudimentary elements F, but introvert their perceiving function, S or N. By
of type dynamics. More recent editions of the MBTI contrast, Ps extravert their perceiving function, S or N,
Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, but introvert their judging function, T or F.
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) have made frequent refer- Thus, type dynamics uses J–P as a “pointer vari-
ence to type dynamics and the “dynamical character able” in which the J–P preference pair identifies how
of type,” emphasized the enabling role of the J–P someone prefers to deal with the outer world, i.e.,
preference pair, and developed the concept more fully. which functions are extraverted. This use of J–P is cate-
The emergence of the construct “type dynamics” gorically different from the other MBTI preference pairs
was not based on empirical data and the results of but is central to the issue of how type dynamics groups
disciplined, rigorous research. Rather, the justification are formed. Second, for Es the extraverted function is
for type dynamics lies with statements of Jung (1923/ dominant and the introverted function is auxiliary. By
1971) and his identification of a principal or dominant contrast, for Is the introverted function is dominant and
function and a secondary or auxiliary function where, the extraverted function is auxiliary. Third, the opposite

3
of the dominant is the inferior, which is introverted Feeling (T–F), and Judging–Perceiving (J–P) that were
if the dominant is extraverted but extraverted if the then combined into a four-letter summary of each indi-
dominant is introverted. Similarly, the opposite of the vidual’s preferences. This combination of preferences
auxiliary is tertiary, which is introverted if the auxiliary provided the type classification for 16 different types,
is extraverted but extraverted if the auxiliary is intro- e.g., ISTJ or ENFP, that are included in the familiar
verted. From this perspective, both the dominant and MBTI type table and the first column of TABLE 1. In this
tertiary functions occur in the preferred attitude and sense, the MBTI measure describes four dimensions
the auxiliary and inferior functions in the less preferred of personality and the additive effects (the 16 types)
attitude. The MBTI Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; of these dimensions. At this level of analysis, Myers
Myers et al., 1998) outlined a similar set of rules except provided impressive empirical support for each of the
that only the dominant function operates in the preferred preferences and documented the independent character
attitude, whereas the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior of each MBTI preference category. Importantly, from this
functions are all expressed in the less preferred, opposite perspective the J–P preference pair has independent
attitude. Hereafter we refer to this view as the Manual meaningfulness and equivalent status relative to the
model. E–I, S–N, and T–F preference pairs (Reynierse, 2000a).
Type dynamics is central to type theory, is consid- Myers’ (1962) discussion, however, emphasized
ered the core of the MBTI typology (Lawrence & the dynamic relationships of the preferences, an
Martin, 2001; Pearman, 1992; Quenk, 1993), and approach that is categorically different from the
appears to be widely accepted. Unfortunately, type straightforward, independent nature of the individual
dynamics not only has little empirical support, but is preference pairs, particularly the J–P and E–I dimen-
rife with incorrect and misleading theoretical reasoning. sions. Most importantly, Myers provided no evidence
In fact, type dynamics can be criticized at many levels. for this interpretation, a deficiency noted by Mendelsohn
Specifically, the problem for type dynamics includes (1965) in his review of the MBTI instrument. Myers
these areas: Type dynamics has fundamental logical assumed that the J–P dimension identifies how some-
problems because at its foundation it is a category one prefers to deal with the outer world, i.e., which
mistake (Ryle, 1949); it provides, at best, a limited and functions are extraverted, but then provided no evi-
incomplete account of type-related phenomena; it is dence for the “pointer variable” role of J–P. In this sense,
strictly a method but is certainly not a theory; type although Myers had validated the individual prefer-
dynamics is thoroughly confounded with its MBTI con- ences, Myers’ interpretation was directed at another
tent or composition; it relies on anecdotal evidence but unvalidated methodology and a different set of typo-
does not fit the empirical facts; there is an alternative to logical categories.
type dynamics that is unaffected by these issues and The 16 types identified by Myers’ (1962) dynami-
easily accounts for all established empirical relation- cal interpretation occur only when extraversion, intro-
ships; and finally, it is doubtful if type dynamics is even version, and the dominant and auxiliary processes are
Jungian. At the same time, the type community has combined with the four functions. These 16 dynamical
aggressively and uncritically promoted type dynamics types, summarized in TABLE 1, show little resemblance
and has resisted constructive debate of its merits. In the to the 16 MBTI types that occur through the direct,
remainder of this paper, each of these points will be straightforward combination of the four preference
developed and elaborated further. pairs. They are categorically different, and it is a category
mistake to equate them (Ryle, 1949). The 16 dynamical
TYPE DYNAMICS IS A CATEGORY MISTAKE types are category mistakes because, using Ryle’s language,
Colloquially, we understand category mistakes by Myers “represented the facts” (of the MBTI type rela-
the expression “mixing apples and oranges” and know tionships) “as if they belonged to one logical type or
intuitively that to do so is logically improper. Category category” (the arrangement of dominant and auxiliary
mistakes are endemic within type dynamics. functional relationships) “when they actually belonged
Myers’ (1962) introduction of the MBTI measure to another” (the straightforward, MBTI preference
provided an objective instrument for identifying four types) (Ryle, p. 16). Myers’ dynamical types are not
pairs of dichotomous preferences, Extraversion- legitimate or logical types or categories, simply because
Introversion (E–I), Sensing–Intuition (S–N), Thinking– they were presented then (1962) and continue to be
Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

4
Table 1. The Sixteen Types and Their Straightforward MBTI® and Dynamical Interpretative Meanings.
Straightforward
MBTI® Type Interpretation Dynamical Interpretation
ESTJ E+S+T+J Dominant Thinking extraverted Auxiliary Sensing introverted

ESTP E+S+T+P Dominant Sensing extraverted Auxiliary Thinking introverted
ESFJ E+S+F+J Dominant Feeling extraverted Auxiliary Sensing introverted

ESFP E+S+F+P Dominant Sensing extraverted Auxiliary Feeling introverted
ISTJ I+S+T+J Dominant Sensing introverted Auxiliary Thinking extraverted

ISTP I+S+T+P Dominant Thinking introverted Auxiliary Sensing extraverted
ISFJ I+S+F+J Dominant Sensing introverted Auxiliary Feeling extraverted

ISFP I+S+F+P Dominant Feeling introverted Auxiliary Sensing extraverted
ENTJ E+N+T+J Dominant Thinking extraverted Auxiliary Intuition introverted

ENTP E+N+T+P Dominant Intuition extraverted Auxiliary Thinking introverted
ENFJ E+N+F+J Dominant Feeling extraverted Auxiliary Intuition introverted

ENFP E+N+F+P Dominant Intuition extraverted Auxiliary Feeling introverted
INTJ I+N+T+J Dominant Intuition introverted Auxiliary Thinking extraverted

INTP I+N+T+P Dominant Thinking introverted Auxiliary Intuition extraverted
INFJ I+N+F+J Dominant Intuition introverted Auxiliary Feeling extraverted

INFP I+N+F+P Dominant Feeling introverted Auxiliary Intuition extraverted
presented, in a logically illegitimate fashion. The Lowen then concluded that “this is an absolutely
operations or rules for establishing type dynamics cate- fundamental aspect of the dichotomous model”
gories are of a different sort and violate the operations (p. 49). Lowen’s argument, like Ryle’s (1949), is con-
used to validate and document the straightforward cerned with the unambiguous identification of cate-
MBTI preference type relationships. Type dynamics gories and the logical necessity of separating different
is thus fundamentally flawed, because it confiscated categories, i.e., identifying their operational differences.
the facts from a legitimate set of categories and then With the commitment to arrange and interpret
inappropriately applied these facts to another set of the MBTI preferences according to the operations of
categories where they do not belong (Ryle). type dynamics and the “pointer variable” role of J–P,
The logical problems of the J–P preference pair type theory makes additional category mistakes. The
were identified previously by Lowen (1982), who noted attitudes, E and I, and the functions, S, N, T, and F, are
that the “P versus J preference required different inter- category mistakes whenever their operations and inter-
pretations for extraverts and introverts” (p. 49). pretations depart from the straightforward, independ-
Similarly, Lowen rejected Myers’ use of J–P as not being ent nature of the individual preference pairs. In this
a true dichotomy because a sense, the MBTI preferences and types, arranged
“true dichotomy must be equivalent to a symmetrical according to type dynamics and given the dynamical
partition into two subsets in such a way that neither interpretation identified in columns three and four of
subset contains a pair of elements with opposite TABLE 1, are fundamentally category mistakes.
attributes. P versus J (as used by Myers) violates this That type dynamics has persistent logical problems
rule, because, for example, IN is the exact opposite of and is fundamentally based on a series of category
ES (as S is the opposite of N, and I the opposite of E) mistakes has serious consequences for type theory.
and yet both are contained in P. Therefore P versus J First, preoccupation with type dynamics not only
is not a dichotomy” (p. 49). emphasizes erroneous type categories but also diverts
attention from additional, legitimate type categories.

5
Second, the category mistakes of type dynamics into separate subsets, which never include their oppo-
produce serious confounding that must be identified sites (Lowen, 1982). In each case, these forms can be
for any research-based efficacy tests of type dynamics logically derived and demonstrated by a truth table,
theory. Both issues are addressed in greater detail below. contingency table, and the counting rules of probability
theory (e.g., Hays, 1963; Lowen). The additive nature
TYPE DYNAMICS PROVIDES AN INCOM- of the preferences and their combinations stand on their
PLETE ACCOUNT OF TYPE PHENOMENA own merit and need no further justification. TABLE 2
When reading the literature on type dynamics, one can illustrates these additive relationships for the 24 pairs.
easily get the impression that type dynamics is a “theory Type symmetry further implies that the individual
of everything” that opens the door to explaining and preferences are independent parameters that can be
understanding human personality in all of its complex- exercised in any order. Recognizing order effects
ity. For example, Quenk (1992) observed: (Lowen, 1982) and preference multidimensionality
No matter how we think about type dynamics, it is (Reynierse & Harker, 2008a, 2008b) expands type
the critical feature of type theory which makes “the categories even further. For example, Reynierse and
whole greater than the sum of its parts” and gives the Harker show that two or more MBTI preferences are
MBTI its potency as a system of explanation. It often necessary to describe type effects and relation-
permits understanding and assessment of a very ships. Within these multidimensional relationships,
broad range of human characteristics, from everyday individual preference relationships can be primary,
attitudes and behavior to complex unconscious
secondary, or equivalent. For example, the descriptor
processes. It also provides insight into personality
“Dominant” is a TE item in which “T” is primary
development over the lifespan. In short, were it not
whereas “E” is secondary. By contrast, the descriptor
for the dynamics of type, the MBTI would likely be a
mere footnote in the history of personality testing “Persuasive” is an ET item in which “E” is primary and
. . . . (p. 5) “T” is secondary, and the descriptor “Assertive” is an
E=T item where the contribution of E and T are equiv-
Quenk’s observation unnecessarily raised the alent (Reynierse & Harker). The preference multi-
stakes for type theory and failed to recognize the dimensionality composition (or content) for the
limits of type dynamics. Granting temporarily both the descriptors “Dominant,” “Persuasive,” and “Assertive” is
adequacy and accuracy of type dynamics as theory, type presented in TABLE 3. Preference multidimensionality
dynamics would still be a flawed and incomplete theory. in its most basic form—at the level of the Pairs—
This is the case because type dynamics is limited to the
MBTI relationships of Jungian functions (S, N, T, and F) Table 2. The 24 MBTI® Pairs With Order Effects.
and attitudes (E and I). At best, type dynamics addresses
eight sets of MBTI Pair relationships. At best, type
dynamics provides an overly simplistic solution to the IJ IP EP EJ
problem of human diversity and complexity. Despite JI PI PE JE
I=J I=P E=P E=J
Quenk’s endorsement, type dynamics provides a
limited—not comprehensive—view of psychological ST SF NF NT
TS FS FN TN
type. S=T S=F N=F N=T
Recognition of the independent status of the indi-
SJ SP NP NJ
vidual preferences—all eight of them—also provides the JS PS PN JN
potential for an expanded typology that includes many S=J S=P N=P N=J
additional type categories or forms (Reynierse, 2000a). TJ TP FP FJ

There is a natural symmetry that emanates from the JT PT PF JF
T=J T=P F=P F=J
preference pairs and the dichotomous nature of type.
Based on type symmetry, the individual preferences can IN EN IS ES
NI NE SI SE
be combined directly to form 24 pairs, 32 Triads, and I=N E=N I=S E=S
the conventional 16 four-letter types (Reynierse 2000b,
ET EF IF IT
2000c). In each case, these forms represent true TE FE FI TI
dichotomies in which individual forms are partitioned E=T E=F I=F I=T

6
Table 3. MBTI® Preference Multidimensionality Content for Three Illustrative Lexical Descriptors With
Their Significant r-values and Difference Scores (d.s.).
Preference
Descriptor Relationship E–I S–N T–F J–P
r d.s. r d.s. r d.s. r d.s.
Persuasive (ET) .19 .33 -.13 .25 .08 .14 — —
Dominant (TE) .11 .26 — — .23 .43 — —
Assertive (E=T) .21 .43 -.11 .20 .23 .42 — —
expands the number of type forms to 72 potential Pair tions expressed in the preferred attitude, whereas others
categories (TABLE 2), and an almost limitless variation are expressed in the less preferred attitude? Have longitu-
within each category. Many of these type relationships dinal studies demonstrated the lifespan and type devel-
have been confirmed empirically (Reynierse & Harker) opment sequences predicted by type dynamics? The
but are denied by type dynamics. problem is that type dynamics does not deal with facts,
because type dynamics lacks an empirical foundation.
TYPE DYNAMICS IS STRICTLY A METHOD The statements of Jung noted earlier reflect Jung’s
What exactly do we know when type theory invokes clinical experience and are untested observations—not
type dynamics either descriptively or as an explanation? evidence. Rigorous, systematic studies are necessary to
What is the scientific basis of type dynamics and the test the efficacy of these statements and validate them.
extent to which type dynamics includes an established Hypotheses regarding these statements as generalized
body of knowledge that describes causal and lawful for type dynamics need to be clearly stated so that they
relationships (e.g., Bunge, 1963; Casti, 1990)? Or from are testable and refutable.
an epistemological perspective, to what extent are the As noted earlier, when Myers (1962) introduced
“truths” asserted by type dynamics supported by the her ideas about the dynamics of type, she provided
preponderance of the evidence, or, alternatively, reflect no evidence for this dynamical interpretation. Later
mere opinion, i.e., they are asserted but without a basis descriptions of type dynamics included a “known set of
in evidence or reason (e.g., Adler, 1981, 1985; Russell, phenomena” that were fundamental and distinctive to
1912/1968)? Does our knowledge of type dynamics type theory but also were not supported by research
meet the exacting standard of certitude and immutabil- evidence. Grant et al. (1983) introduced a model of type
ity of the truth, or must these criteria be relaxed because dynamics as part of a theory of type development in
there is an element of doubt and evidence is lacking which both the dominant and tertiary functions occur
(Adler)? Alternatively, our supposed knowledge about in the preferred attitude and the auxiliary and inferior
type dynamics may in fact be contradicted by the functions in the less preferred attitude. Although it was
facts and evidence, casting doubt on our “knowledge,” noted, “admittedly it calls for further testing by experi-
falsifying it, and requiring that we revise our theory ence” (p. 3), this was not accompanied by any cited
(Popper, 1934/1959). research, and in the intervening 25 years this deficiency,
What are the facts and how do they fit the type to my knowledge, was never corrected. Brownsword
dynamics conceptual framework? Have type researchers (1987, 1988) elaborated on Grant’s approach to type
reliably demonstrated a hierarchical arrangement of the dynamics and provided a general framework for con-
dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions? Does ceptualizing type dynamics within the framework of
the evidence support the “pointer variable” role of J–P in the MBTI measure. But like Grant, he assumed that the
which the J–P preference pair identifies how someone legitimacy of type dynamics was self-evident and pro-
prefers to deal with the outer world, i.e., which functions vided no independent, objective evidence for its efficacy.
are extraverted? Is there evidence to support the type The second edition of the MBTI Manual (Myers
dynamics rules about the expression of the functions in & McCaulley, 1985) developed type dynamics more
the extraverted or introverted attitudes? Are some func- fully and provided an alternative view to Grant and

7
Brownsword. In the Manual model of type dynamics, research. One citation of an empirical research study—
only the dominant function operates in the preferred where the results and implications for type theory were
attitude, whereas the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior not addressed—misrepresented a lack of evidence for
functions are all expressed in the less preferred, type dynamics found by McCrae and Costa (1989) as a
opposite attitude. But again, no research evidence was lack of understanding of the concept:
provided to support this interpretation.1 The dynamic character of type theory is commonly
Quenk (1992, 1993) provided a detailed account overlooked by people new to typology and the MBTI
of type dynamics including a system for identifying and personality inventory. This accounts for their often
understanding these dynamics for each of the MBTI simplistic, categorical approach to the sixteen types.
types. She also made a particularly interesting state- Similarly, psychologists familiar with trait approaches
ment: to personality often assume that the type system
describes four personality dimensions whose effects
There are many ways of discussing the interaction of
are merely additive (McCrae & Costa, 1989). In
dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions—
ignoring the dynamic interactions critical to Jung’s
the dynamics of typology. We may use metaphors,
system, both laypeople and professionals miss out
such as the dominant as the captain and the auxiliary
on its greatest contributions to the explanation and
as first-mate; or Isabel Myers’ (1980) analogous
prediction of normal personality. (p. 19)
description of “the general” and his “aide.” We can
focus on Myers’ hypothesis that the auxiliary pro- McCrae and Costa were not guilty of ignoring or
vides balance between the critical mental processes overlooking the “dynamic interactions critical to Jung’s
of perception and judgment as well as the extraverted system” but examined them empirically and found
and introverted attitudes. We can apply Jung’s theory little evidence for them. Nor were they guilty of “assum-
of psychic energy, which sees the dominant function ing that the type system describes four personality
as most fully under our conscious control and having dimensions whose effects are merely additive.” Rather,
the lion’s share of psychic energy, while the auxiliary, their interpretation of additivity was consistent with the
tertiary, and inferior functions have decreasing
empirical facts as they found them. Additional reference
amounts of energy. (1992, p. 5)
to research included brief reference to unpublished
Quenk’s only concession to evidence and the research by Wayne Mitchell, first in the text (p. 38) and
empirical record was a brief reference to unpublished later in a note (p. 276), and discussion of the research
research by Wayne Mitchell. of Garden (1985, 1988) on burnout (pp. 235–236).
Quenk (1993) expanded her analysis of type Quenk’s discussion of type dynamics included no other
dynamics and identified “qualities” associated with each supporting evidence.
dominant and each inferior form of type dynamics. For In the third edition of the MBTI Manual (Myers et
example, she identified “inner harmony, economy of al., 1998), efficacy was finally recognized and there was
emotional expression, and acceptance of feeling as non- a balanced discussion of the research and empirical
logical” (p. 79) as qualities associated with dominant foundation of type dynamics. What is clear is that
introverted Feeling and “hypersensitivity to inner states, despite its importance to type theory, the number of
outbursts of emotion, and fear of feeling” (p. 79) as published studies on type dynamics is limited and there
qualities associated with inferior introverted Feeling. is little empirical evidence to support it.
Throughout, Quenk included a large number of illus- There are four additional points to be made here.
trative anecdotes that she referred to as “collected First, six studies were cited that did not demonstrate
participant ‘stories,’” and “my many composite stories of expected type dynamics predictions. Whether or not
their experience” (p. 241). But again Quenk showed the studies cited in the MBTI Manual provide a good test
little concern for efficacy, the need for evidence, or the of type dynamics and are in fact weak tests of type
methodology that formed the basis for her “authorita- dynamics as argued there misses the point. Regardless,
tive” presentation of these “dynamical qualities” and they still failed to support type dynamics.
“stories.” Without a defensible, replicable methodology Second, Thorne and Gough’s (1991) observer rat-
and a firm empirical foundation, Quenk’s “stories” do ings and the reanalysis of that data for the dominant and
not meet the rigorous standards of scientific research. auxiliary forms of the N, T, and F functions does not, as
Quenk (1993) takes an overall minimalist contended, support type dynamics. The MBTI Manual
approach that included few references to empirical identified the overlap in the 10 most and 10 least adjec-

8
tive descriptors for the dominant and auxiliary forms of interpretations are unrestricted. In my judgment, type
N, T, and F for both males and females and then stated, theory is better served by embracing both theory and
“These percentages range from 0.0 to 13.8, suggesting method that are inclusive and where the application
that independent observers, who did not know the types applies to all—without restriction—dependent variables,
of people they were describing, clearly did not see much a topic that will be revisited in another section of this
similarity between types having the dominant versus paper.
auxiliary forms of Thinking, Feeling, or Intuition” And that is the full extent of direct support for type
(p. 204). The implication is that there dynamics as reported in the MBTI®
are striking differences between the Manual (1998)—six studies that
“
dominant and auxiliary as predicted That type dynamics failed, one with a questionable inter-
by type dynamics. There is a funda- pretation, and one where contradic-
mental baseline problem for these
has persistent logical tory evidence was offered as support.
comparisons, however, as Thorne and problems and is Type theory’s claim that type dynam-
Gough’s observers did not find much fundamentally based ics is superior to the static model
similarity anywhere, even within the on a series of category and the straightforward contribution
same types—a result that might be of the individual preferences rests on
expected, as observers made ratings mistakes has serious this ephemeral empirical foundation.
using a rich and diverse pool of 300 consequences for Finally, Lawrence and Martin
adjectives.2 type theory. (2001) presented five rules for what
”
Third, the original research based they call the “classic” way to identify
on national sample data, although type dynamics, an approach that par-
presented in a cursory fashion and for alleled the methods of Brownsword,
a very limited set of dependent variables, provided Quenk, and the MBTI Manual. To their credit, they
some, albeit limited, support for type dynamics. addressed the issue of validity but accepted uncritically
Dominant extraverted thinking (DET) was greater the evidence for type dynamics presented in the MBTI
than auxiliary extraverted thinking (AET) for both Manual and did not present any new supporting
health and friendships dependent variables and domi- evidence.
nant extraverted feeling (DEF) was greater than auxil- The absence of any demonstrable empirical rela-
iary extraverted feeling (AEF) for a social dependent tionships is a serious deficiency of type dynamics.
variable (MBTI Manual Table 9.21, p. 203). At the same Although type dynamics is often invoked as both a pre-
time, there were also significant reversals that are dictor and explanation of human behavior, these roles
incompatible with a type dynamics interpretation and are unjustified because an established set of empirical
contradict it. Auxiliary introverted sensing (AIS) was observations does not exist for type dynamics. We must
greater than dominant introverted sensing (DIS) for an first have an established body of facts or knowledge that
accomplishment-dependent variable and auxiliary can then be organized—by the theory—in a meaning-
introverted intuition (AIN) was greater than dominant ful manner. Laws explain sets of empirical observations,
introverted intuition (DIN) for a home-and-family- whereas a theory explains a set of laws (Casti, 1990).
dependent variable (MBTI Manual Table 9.22, p. 204). Established facts are a necessary condition for explana-
Support then was about as frequent as disconfirmation tion (Bunge, 1963; Casti). From this perspective, type
and not particularly compelling. dynamics provides neither knowledge nor truth and
Fourth, the discussion of type dynamics intro- represents, at best, mere opinion. From this perspec-
duced very restrictive conditions for evaluating the effi- tive, type dynamics does not qualify as theory and
cacy of type dynamics, e.g., requiring first a significant explains nothing.
effect for the E–I x J–P interaction term, an effect that What then does type dynamics accomplish?
occurred rarely for the national sample data and in The rules or operations of type dynamics have been
other investigations (Reynierse & Harker, 2001). Such described in detail and identified earlier in this paper.
restrictive methodological requirements do not corre- There are three operationally distinct approaches to
spond with the generality and ubiquity of type dynam- type dynamics that determine how type dynamics
ics applications—applications in which type dynamics groups are formed or identified. Reynierse and Harker

9
(2008a, 2008b) have, for convenience, referred to these because each model is configured somewhat differently,
models as the Grant-Brownsword model (Brownsword, the confounding appears in a slightly different form
1987, 1988; Grant et al., 1983), the Manual model depending on the model. Because of space limitations,
(Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers et al., 1998), and the in this paper I illustrate this confounding only for the
Beebe model (Beebe, 1984) of type dynamics. In each Grant-Brownsword model of type dynamics. The inter-
case, knowing the four MBTI letters for a particular type ested reader should consult Reynierse and Harker for
provides a way of translating that type into type dynam- detailed treatment of both the identification of the
ics categories. And this is all we can say with any confounding and empirical tests of type dynamics.
certainty about type dynamics. Type dynamics is strictly In the Grant-Brownsword model (Brownsword,
a method for forming type dynamics groups or cate- 1987, 1988; Grant et al., 1983) type dynamics condi-
gories. Type dynamics “assigns” but does not explain. tions are formed according to three rules as described
The question that remains is this: Are these type earlier. The groupings for the dominant, auxiliary, terti-
dynamics categories meaningful? The short answer is ary, and inferior functions for S, N, T, and F as formed
that their meaningfulness has not yet been demon- by these rules are summarized in TABLE 4 (Brownsword).
strated, a topic that will be addressed more fully in a Explicit within the Grant-Brownsword model of type
later section of this paper. First, we must examine a dynamics is the idea that for any individual the four
methodological problem intrinsic to all forms of type functions are ordered in terms of individual preference
dynamics. and effectiveness, i.e., they form a hierarchy. For any
individual, the functions are arranged such that the
TYPE DYNAMICS IS CONFOUNDED dominant is greater than auxiliary is greater than tertiary
WITH ITS MBTI CONTENT is greater than inferior. For convenience, this can be
One of the problems facing studies of type dynamics is expressed as: dominant > auxiliary > tertiary > inferior.
their failure first to recognize and then to address the But quite separate from the established rules that
confounding that is inherent in any type dynamics form type dynamics groups, the dominant and auxiliary
design. Confounding introduces systematic bias that functions are clearly demarcated from the tertiary and
compromises interpretation of results. Obtained results inferior functions. It is necessarily the case that the dom-
are just as likely the result of an alternative hypothesis inant and auxiliary functions always include a particular
as the favored type dynamics interpretation. Con- preference, e.g., S, whereas the tertiary and inferior
founding distorts any orderliness intrinsic to the data in functions always include the opposite function, e.g., N.
unpredictable ways. Unless these sources of confound- For example, the eight dominant and auxiliary Sensing
ing are identified and controlled, research on type types in TABLE 4 include an S (ESTP, ESFP, ISTJ, ISFJ,
dynamics is uninterpretable. ISTP, ISFP, ESTJ, and ESFJ), whereas the eight tertiary
Another limitation of type dynamics research is and inferior sensing types include an N (ENFJ, ENTJ,
that type dynamics is clearly articulated in terms of four INFP, INTP, INFJ, INTJ, ENFP, and ENTP). Although
functions that are hierarchically organized as dominant, type dynamics is articulated in terms of individual func-
auxiliary, tertiary, or inferior, yet studies of type dynam- tions, the structure always includes both a particular
ics have been limited to comparison of the dominant function and its opposite. In this sense, type dynamics
and auxiliary. Unless all four hierarchical functional groups are confounded with each functional preference
conditions are included in the research design, type and its opposite. The preference pairs hypothesis
dynamics research is incomplete. (Reynierse & Harker, 2008a, 2008b) is an alternative to
Within this broader four-function type dynamics type dynamics and can be expressed as follows: domi-
paradigm, Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) iden- nant = auxiliary > tertiary = inferior. Because of this con-
tified three sources of confounding in which type founding, effects may not be the result of type dynamics
dynamics conditions are confounded with the MBTI but may only reflect differences between the S and N or
content or composition. The three sources of confound- T and F preferences.
ing are potential alternative interpretations to any inter- The expression of type dynamics conditions in the
pretation based on type dynamics. The three sources of e and i attitudes are also confounded with the first letter
confounding apply equally to the Grant-Brownsword, of several MBTI types, i.e., with the E and I preferences.
Manual, and Beebe models of type dynamics. However, For example, although ISFP and ISTP types are auxiliary

10
Table 4. The Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior Types According to the Grant-Brownsword
Model of Type Dynamics.
Jungian Expressed
Function MBTI Type Type Dynamics Category Jungian Attitude
Sensing ESTP+ESFP Dominant Sensing extraverted E (Se)
ISTJ+ISFJ Dominant Sensing introverted I (Si)
ISTP+ISFP Auxiliary Sensing extraverted E (Se)
ESTJ+ESFJ Auxiliary Sensing introverted I (Si)
ENFJ+ENTJ Tertiary Sensing extraverted E (Se)
INFP+INTP Tertiary Sensing introverted I (Si)
INFJ+INTJ Inferior Sensing extraverted E (Se)
ENFP+ENTP Inferior Sensing introverted I (Si)
Intuition ENFP+ENTP Dominant Intuition extraverted E (Ne)
INFJ+INTJ Dominant Intuition introverted I (Ni)
INFP+INTP Auxiliary Intuition extraverted E (Ne)
ENFJ+ENTJ Auxiliary Intuition introverted I (Ni)
ESTJ+ESFJ Tertiary Intuition extraverted E (Ne)
ISTP+ISFP Tertiary Intuition introverted I (Ni)
ISTJ+ISFJ Inferior Intuition extraverted E (Ne)
ESTP+ESFP Inferior Intuition introverted I (Ni)
Thinking ESTJ+ENTJ Dominant Thinking extraverted E (Te)
ISTP+INTP Dominant Thinking introverted I (Ti)
ISTJ+INTJ Auxiliary Thinking extraverted E (Te)
ESTP+ENTP Auxiliary Thinking introverted I (Ti)
ESFP+ENFP Tertiary Thinking extraverted E (Te)
ISFJ+INFJ Tertiary Thinking introverted I (Ti)
ISFP+INFP Inferior Thinking extraverted E (Te)
ESFJ+ENFJ Inferior Thinking introverted I (Ti)
Feeling ESFJ+ENFJ Dominant Feeling extraverted E (Fe)
ISFP+INFP Dominant Feeling introverted I (Fi)
ISFJ+INFJ Auxiliary Feeling extraverted E (Fe)
ESFP+ENFP Auxiliary Feeling introverted I (Fi)
ESTP+ENTP Tertiary Feeling extraverted E (Fe)
ISTJ+INTJ Tertiary Feeling introverted I (Fi)
ISTP+INTP Inferior Feeling extraverted E (Fe)
ESTJ+ENTJ Inferior Feeling introverted I (Fi)

11
Sensing extraverted (Se) groups (TABLE 4), they are tions include the ones in which only the secondary pref-
Introverted types that include the I preference. This erence is shared (in this case E), and these are the ENFP,
confounding occurs repeatedly in type dynamics, and it ESFP, ENFJ, and ESFJ types. Finally, there are conditions
is necessary to control for this second source of con- in which neither relevant preference is present nor
founding by parallel statistical analyses that separate shared, i.e., they are F and I rather than T and E groups,
strict MBTI E and I effects from the expression of type and these are the INFJ, ISFJ, ISFP, and INFP types.
dynamics effects in the e (e.g., Se) and i (e.g., Si) In this sense, type dynamics conditions are con-
attitudes. This is primarily a methodological issue founded with their multidimensional MBTI content.
when separate tests are completed for the extraverted Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) examined the
and introverted attitudes. When Extraversion and effects of preference multidimensionality for the item
Introversion are combined, i.e., when Dominant Sensing “Competitive” and 56 additional items. In every case,
(ESTP, ESFP, ISTJ, and ISFJ), Auxiliary Sensing (ISTP, without exception, the order effects predicted by prefer-
ISFP, ESTJ, and ESFJ), Tertiary Sensing (ENFJ, ENTJ, ence multidimensionality occurred and were statisti-
INFP, and INTP), and Inferior Sensing (INFJ, INTJ, cally significant. The order effects predicted and found
ENFP, and ENTP) are collapsed across the attitudes and for preference multidimensionality will be presented
compared directly (TABLE 4), this source of confound- more fully in the section that examines preference
ing is counterbalanced, with reduced methodological multidimensionality.
consequences. Regardless, E and I preference effects are Individual variables have relatively unique empiri-
an alternative interpretation relative to the expression cal relationships with the MBTI preferences as identified
of type dynamics effects in the e and i attitudes, and by correlation coefficients, difference scores, or other
analyses are required that separate these alternatives. measures. These demonstrated significant relationships
Preference multidimensionality is a third and more represent the MBTI content or composition for those
complicated source of confounding that occurs for type variables, because they are the MBTI preferences that
dynamics. Type dynamics relationships are inherently are relevant for describing that variable. Sometimes,
multidimensional and necessarily include two prefer- when this MBTI content includes two preferences—
ences—a function, S, N, T, or F and an attitude, either a function, S, N, T, or F and an attitude, either E or I—
E or I. However, preference multidimensionality is a the multidimensionality conforms to that expected by
general effect independent of type dynamics as two or type dynamics. In other cases, because the individual
more preferences are often necessary to describe signif- preferences are free to combine more broadly, many
icant type effects (Boozer, Forte, Maddox, & Jackson, other combinations are possible. Type dynamics is not
2000; Harker, Reynierse, & Komisin, 1998; Reynierse, only confounded with its MBTI multidimensional con-
2000c; Reynierse & Harker, 2001). To take just one tent but is also unduly limiting and restrictive.
example, the descriptor “Competitive” is a primary T Unfortunately, studies of type dynamics have not
item where r = .27 and has a secondary association with routinely recognized or controlled for these three
E where r = .19 (Harker et al., p. 13), and this multidi- sources of confounding. Although empirical support for
mensionality extended to many of their items. type dynamics, in any form, is limited and equivocal,
Multidimensionality is embedded in the composi- the failure to include appropriate controls means that
tion of each type dynamics group (TABLE 4) but in there has not been either a convincing or methodo-
clearly different ordinal relationships than that described logically appropriate empirical demonstration of type
by type dynamics, thereby producing different predic- dynamics anywhere. The next two sections examine the
tions than those of type dynamics. Again, take the item empirical inadequacy of type dynamics and will show
“Competitive” as an example, relating it to the type that the alternatives to type dynamics fit the empirical
content or composition of the type dynamics groups for record and account for the facts—but type dynamics
the Thinking function in TABLE 4. Note that there are does not. The orderliness intrinsic to the established
conditions in which both preferences (T and E) are empirical record can be accounted for exclusively by
shared, and these are the ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, and ENTP the preferences, either alone, or in more complex cases
types. There are other conditions in which only the pri- by preference multidimensionality. The inherent con-
mary preference is shared (in this case T) and these are founding in type dynamics only distorts this orderliness
the INTP, ISTP, ISTJ, and INTJ types. Additional condi- and makes the data incomprehensible.

12
TYPE DYNAMICS DOES NOT ACCOUNT arately the type dynamics rules or operations identified
FOR THE EMPIRICAL FACTS by three different approaches to type dynamics—the
Belief in type dynamics is usually supported, not by Grant-Brownsword (Brownsword, 1987, 1988; Grant et
empirically determined facts, but rather by appeals al., 1983), Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers et
to the anecdotal record. This is apparent in Quenk’s al., 1998) and Beebe (1984) models of type dynamics.
(1993) “stories” and the accounts of type dynamics that They then formed the appropriate groups (research con-
can be found in almost any issue of the Bulletin of ditions) based on these rules and examined predictions
Psychological Type. For example, I reviewed every article from type dynamics for these groups. The groups as
in the 2000 and 2001 issues of the Bulletin and identi- formed by the Grant-Brownsword model are presented
fied approximately 40 articles that invoked type in TABLE 4. The groups as formed by the Manual and
dynamics and then relied exclusively on anecdotal Beebe models are summarized in Reynierse and Harker.
accounts of type dynamics without considering or In addition, Reynierse and Harker identified three
citing any research evidence. And that is the problem sources of confounding within type dynamics and, as
for type dynamics, because the anecdotes appear in part of their research, completed additional analyses to
an empirical vacuum in which established facts and control for this confounding.
lawful relationships are simply missing. The results obtained by Reynierse and Harker
Are there any established facts that emerge from (2008a, 2008b) were clear: There was little, if any, evi-
the empirical record and rigorous research on type dence to support a type dynamics interpretation. The
dynamics? Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) pre- critical empirical results are summarized in TABLE 5.
sented the empirical case against type dynamics, and it The prediction that provides the greatest support for
is unnecessary to repeat all of their arguments or review type dynamics, that the dominant > auxiliary > tertiary
all of their results. The research is lengthy, consisting of > inferior never occurred for 270 direct tests of the
six separate studies and hundreds of direct tests of Grant-Brownsword model and occurred only once for
type dynamics theory, and the interested reader should 270 direct tests of the Manual model.4 Although this is
consult the studies directly for methodological and nonfatal, that it occurred so rarely—only once out of
empirical details. Reynierse and Harker examined sep- 540 tests—is telling.
Table 5. Summary of Major Empirical Type Dynamics Results Reported by Reynierse and Harker
(2008a, 2008b)3.
1. The hierarchical nature of type dynamics predicts that the dominant > auxiliary > tertiary > inferior, but this effect never occurred
for the Grant-Brownsword model and occurred only once for the Manual model.
2. The preference pairs hypothesis predicts that the dominant = auxiliary > tertiary = inferior, and this effect occurred 106 times for
the Grant-Brownsword model and 99 times for the Manual model. These effects are due strictly to the functional preferences, S,
N, T, or F.
3. Partial support for type dynamics, e.g., dominant > auxiliary only or tertiary > inferior only, occurred 47 times for the Grant-
Brownsword model and 45 times for the Manual model.
4. Reversals to type dynamics’ predictions, e.g., auxiliary > dominant, inferior > tertiary, tertiary > dominant, etc., occurred 54 times
for the Grant-Brownsword model and 50 times for the Manual model.These reversals contradict type dynamics.
5. There was no indication of hierarchy for the eight Beebe model positions.
6. Control conditions emphasizing the preference pairs hypothesis produced dominant = auxiliary > tertiary = inferior 58 times.
7. Control conditions produced effects that were due strictly to the MBTI E–I preference pair, effects demonstrated both directly and
indirectly in Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b).
8. Preference multidimensionality ordinal relationships in which the Both condition was followed by the Primary, Secondary, and
Neither conditions in fixed, sequential order occurred in every case (Reynierse & Harker, 2008a, 2008b), first for 57 items (Study
5) and later for 45 items (Study 6). There were no reversals, and no effects were contradictory.

13
The preference pairs hypothesis is an alternative to dictions to type dynamics theory. Similar reversals,
type dynamics, which predicts that the dominant = as noted earlier, were reported in the MBTI Manual
auxiliary > tertiary = inferior; this effect occurred 106 but were not identified as contradictions to theory.
times for the Grant-Brownsword model and 99 times Regardless, confirmation of type dynamics predictions
for the Manual model. The significance of these results occurred about as often as disconfirmation for both
for type theory is that they are due exclusively to the Reynierse and Harker’s analyses and those of the MBTI
individual functions—the S, N, T, or F MBTI prefer- Manual. Most importantly, these reversals are fatal to
ences—rather than any contribution from type dynam- type dynamics, because they violate the “law of
ics conditions. Because these results are direct contradiction,” a self-evident logical principle that states
predictions of the preference pairs hypothesis, the that “nothing can both be and not be” (Russell, 1912/
results favor the more parsimonious preference pairs 1968, p. 72).
hypothesis over type dynamics. But they are not fatal The empirical problem for type dynamics is a sys-
to type dynamics because type dynamics can claim, temic one, as there is no consistent structure present in
correctly, that the ordinal relationships are at least con- the data. Whatever model of type dynamics was exam-
sistent with type dynamics. ined—the Grant-Brownsword, Manual, or Beebe
Control conditions produced effects that were due model—the results were the same: Specific predictions
strictly to the MBTI E–I preference pair (Reynierse & were not confirmed, and contradictory reversals
Harker, 2008a, 2008b). The significance of these effects occurred often. Further, there is a good reason for these
is that they are straightforward E–I preference effects systemic empirical problems: Type dynamics is con-
rather than any contribution of type dynamics condi- founded with its MBTI content such that the expression
tions, particularly the type dynamics requirements of the functions in the extraverted or introverted
about the “pointer variable” role of J–P and the expres- attitudes reverses E and I conditions and thereby pro-
sion of the functions in the E and I attitudes. In other duces systematic bias that distorts strict MBTI empirical
words, E–I points to E–I and J–P only points to J–P. relationships. Type dynamics, in any form, simply does
Distinctions regarding the expression of the functions in not organize the data in an orderly fashion that corre-
the E and I attitudes are a critical theoretical and opera- sponds with the facts. Type dynamics is a conceptually
tional element of type dynamics, and these negative muddled construct that lacks coherence.
results falsify this expectation (Popper, 1934/1959) and There is another view (e.g., Myers et al., 1998;
are incompatible with type dynamics. This is the case Mitchell, 2006) in which type dynamics is identified
because straightforward E–I preference effects have with type interactions. From this perspective, type
demonstrated identity, whereas the “pointer variable role dynamics includes the idea that the preferences interact
of J–P” and the “expression of the functions in the E and to produce something new that is different from the
I attitudes” do not. Type dynamics suffers from an individual preferences, i.e., that the whole is greater
“identity crisis” that violates the “law of identity,” a self- than the sum of the parts. There are at least three prob-
evident logical principle that states that “whatever is, is” lems here. First, this view conflates type dynamics with
(Russell, 1912/1968, p. 72). type interactions, as they are distinct theoretical issues
Using the same general design as used in the MBTI that have separate operations and need to be tested sep-
Manual (Myers et al., 1998) for the national sample data arately. Evidence for one is not evidence for the other.
research, Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) found Second, Mitchell makes the arbitrary and troubling
effects, e.g., that the dominant > auxiliary, that paral- decision “to accept ranks out of order” when in fact
leled effects reported in the MBTI Manual. Partial effects such results were contrary to theory and prediction.
such as these were found a total of 92 times. These rel- Based on the falsification principle (Popper, 1959),
atively frequent significant effects, viewed in isolation, such “out of order ranks” demonstrate that the model is
can be construed as support for type dynamics. But in error and do not confirm the model, as claimed, for
they cannot be viewed in isolation, because reversals to those variables tested. Third, the evidence for type inter-
type dynamics predictions, e.g., auxiliary > dominant, actions is limited and relatively trivial compared to the
inferior > tertiary, or tertiary > dominant, etc. occurred contribution of the individual preferences.
54 times for the Grant-Brownsword and 50 times for The empirical effects for studies of type interac-
the Manual models—a total of 104 reversals and contra- tions are established and consistent. Large-scale studies

14
by different investigators that included many tests of ences are often necessary to describe significant type
type interactions found similar empirical trends for rat- effects and relationships (Harker et al., 1998; Reynierse,
ings of personal preferences (Myers et al., 1998), lexical 2000c; Reynierse & Harker, 2001, 2008a, 2008b);
descriptors (Reynierse & Harker, 2000, 2001), self-report second, that preference effects are proportional to their
questionnaire scale scores (Reynierse & Harker, 2005a), independent association or contribution, i.e., the inde-
business values (Reynierse, Harker, Fink, & Ackerman, pendently larger preference will, within methodological
2001), and personal values important for teamwork limits (e.g., adequate sample size and statistical power),
(Sundstrom, Koenigs, & Huet-Cox, 1996). In each case have a greater effect than the independently smaller
there were many significant effects for the individual preference. The theory is inclusive and includes all
preferences and two-way interactions, diminished effects preference relationships, including one-dimensional or
for the three-way interactions, and inconsequential single preference effects. Emphasis is placed on prefer-
effects for the four-way interaction. Examining the ence multidimensionality because that is the more inter-
effects indicated that the interactions were usually esting application of theory and provides for progressive
small, the percentage of variance accounted for by the complexity.
interactions was often trivial, and many significant In discussing preference multidimensionality, one
interactions were statistical artifacts that disappeared should be mindful of several important distinctions.
when examined more closely. First, I make the type theory assumption that everyone
Significant interactions occur, e.g., Rytting and has the capability to use all eight preferences, but as
Ware (1993), but they are clearly modest in scope, are bipolar opposites they can be used only successively, not
subordinate to the individual preferences, and occur simultaneously. In this sense, individuals are more com-
primarily at the most basic level, i.e., at the level of the fortable and skilled in the use of their preferred prefer-
two-way interactions or Pairs. Further, the interactions ences but in the appropriate situations still use their
produce synergistic effects for the straightforward MBTI nonpreferred preferences, albeit less frequently and
preferences, are complicated and difficult to interpret skillfully. Every individual is naturally prepared to
because type interactions include both augmenting and respond to the preference multidimensionality that
mitigating type effects (Reynierse & Harker, 2001) as is characteristic of a particular situation or context,
well as ordinal and disordinal statistical effects (Lubin, although their skill in doing so will be uniquely deter-
1961), but have no known categorical consequences or mined by the arrangement of their own preferences.
relationships for type dynamics. Type interactions reflect Second, I make the further assumption that each of
relatively minor quantitative differences rather than the the eight MBTI preferences is functional (Reynierse,
large qualitative effects and differences that are assumed 2000d) and can be ranked based on individual MBTI
by type theory and type dynamics. scores, a ranking procedure whose effectiveness was
demonstrated by Reynierse and Harker (2005b). In
PREFERENCE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY proposing eight functions, this model is superficially
ORGANIZES THE DATA IN AN ORDERLY similar to Beebe’s (1984) eight-functions model but
WAY differs considerably in the nature of the eight functions
The theory that organizes the data in a meaningful way and in the hierarchical ordering of these functions for
starts with the MBTI preferences and extends the Five any individual.
Factor Model (FFM) of personality (e.g., McCrae & Third, the expression of psychological type is
Costa, 1989, 2003) to the bipolar conditions of type fundamentally contextual and situational. The type
theory. This theory was presented in a preliminary way factors that describe people are separate from and differ-
by Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) and will be ent from the type effects that describe psychological
developed and presented more fully in the future. For situations. In this sense, the preference multi-dimen-
now, I provide only a brief introduction to theory in sionality identified for the lexical descriptors of my
order to provide background for understanding the research with John Harker (e.g., TABLE 3) describes
rationale behind the organization and structure of the those psychological events—not individual people.
relevant research conditions. These psychological events or situations are dependent
Preference multidimensionality includes two fun- on only some—not all eight—MBTI preferences. Unlike
damental ideas: first, that two or more MBTI prefer- individual people who have the capability of using all

15
eight preferences, psychological situations vary regard- the E and T effects, i.e., the contributions of only two
ing the preferences that are relevant for them and are preferences and the simplest form of preference multidi-
described by only a unique fraction of the available mensionality. The significant S preference for the items
MBTI preferences. Some preferences are relevant for “Persuasive” and “Assertive” is a complicating factor that
particular situations, whereas other preferences are can be ignored for illustrating the contributions of the E
noncontributory, are unnecessary, and irrelevant. and T preferences.5
Fourth, following traditional type practice and con- Four MBTI content conditions occur when the
vention, terms such as “dominant” and “auxiliary” are contributions of two preferences, in this case E and T, are
reserved to describe the relationship of the MBTI prefer- considered. These content conditions include conditions
ences for individual people. Psychological events are in which both preferences are shared (e.g., both E and
situational and contextual, where the T), where only an attitude is shared
contribution of each individual prefer-
“
(e.g., E), where only a function is
ence is relative and described as a Although type dynamics shared (e.g., T), and where neither the
primary or secondary relationship. relevant attitude nor function is shared
Quantitative differences determine
is often invoked as (e.g., I and F are shared but not E and
the relative contribution of the pref- both a predictor and T).
erences and contribute to unique explanation of human Content conditions are ordered
typological effects. The relative contri- behavior, these roles to include the additive effects of the
bution of the individual preferences relevant preferences and necessarily
varies depending on the specific situa- are unjustified because vary depending on which preferences
tional and contextual conditions. an established set of are primary and secondary. Thus, for
Fifth, the preference pairs empirical observations the ET item “Persuasive” in which E is
hypothesis is a special case of prefer- primary and T secondary, the specific
does not exist for
ence multidimensionality. More gener- order of analysis and effect includes
ally, the preference pairs effect occurs type dynamics. first the Both preferences group
”
when only one relevant preference (including ESTJ, ENTJ, ESTP, and
makes a meaningful contribution— ENTP); next, the Primary preference
i.e., effects are one-dimensional rather than multidimen- only group (ESFP, ENFP, ESFJ, and ENFJ); then the
sional. Secondary preference only group (ISTP, INTP, ISTJ, and
Sixth, although the simplest form of preference INTJ); and last, the Neither preference group (ISFJ,
multidimensionality includes two relevant preferences, INFJ, ISFP, and INFP). Compare with TABLE 4 for type
more complex cases include three or even four relevant dynamics order effects. The MBTI content that affects
preferences. Complexity is further enriched by the dif- these orders varies depending on which preferences are
ferent orders that are free to occur as well as the relative primary or secondary and this can be illustrated by con-
quantitative contribution, i.e., amount, of each prefer- trasting the ET item “Persuasive” in which E is primary
ence. In this sense type and trait constructs can coexist and T secondary, with the TE item “Dominant” in which
and codetermine personality effects and relationships. T is now primary and E is secondary. For the TE item
Preference multidimensionality refers to the MBTI “Dominant,” the Both preferences group remains the
content or composition of variables. For example, the same (including ESTJ, ENTJ, ESTP, and ENTP); now
three descriptors identified in TABLE 3 have explicit the Primary preference only group is based on T content
MBTI content and relatedness identified by significant (ISTP, INTP, ISTJ, and INTJ); and the Secondary only
correlation coefficients and difference scores with the E, group is based on E content (ESFP, ENFP, ESFJ, and
S, and T preferences for the items “Persuasive” and ENFJ); and last, the Neither preference group remains
“Assertive,” and with the E and T preferences for the the same (ISFJ, INFJ, ISFP, and INFP). In general, for
item “Dominant.” These three descriptors illustrate how these examples full preference multidimensionality
preference multidimensionality predicts different order occurs in which Both > Primary > Secondary > Neither.
effects based strictly on their MBTI content or composi- For items such as “Assertive,” in which E and T are
tion, order effects that are different from the orders pre- approximately equivalent, however, the primary-
dicted by type dynamics. Here discussion is limited to secondary relationship is not meaningful. Accordingly, in

16
this case the prediction also changes and is now Both > be explained by three variables or principles—the indi-
E Only = T Only > Neither (or alternatively, Both > E vidual functions as expressed in the preference pairs,
Only & T Only > Neither). Because the MBTI content is strict effects for the E–I preference pair, and preference
equivalent, groups composed strictly of MBTI E content multidimensionality. The individual MBTI preferences,
or MBTI T content should not differ significantly from acting alone or in concert with other preferences, are
each other. sufficient to account for all of the effects and relationships.
Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) examined
the order effects for “Persuasive,” “Dominant,” IS TYPE DYNAMICS JUNGIAN?
“Assertive,” and 54 additional items. The results fol- Much (e.g., McCaulley, 1999) has been made of Jung’s
lowed a general pattern in which the Both condition differentiation of a dominant and auxiliary process and
was followed by the Primary, Secondary, and Neither his statement that, “the rule holds good that besides the
conditions in fixed, sequential order. The most com- conscious primary function there is a relatively uncon-
pelling cases included significant effects in which Both scious, auxiliary function which is in every respect
> Primary > Secondary > Neither (occurred 10 times); different from the nature of the primary function” (Jung,
Both & Primary > Secondary > Neither (occurred 7 1923/1971, p. 406). Does this justify the MBTI version
times); Both > Primary & Secondary > Neither of type dynamics? Or for that matter, is type dynamics a
(occurred 13 times); and Both > Primary > Secondary & faithful interpretation of Jung? Is the American, MBTI
Neither (occurred 7 times). All of these relationships are type community the best source for interpreting Jung
predictable outcomes that fully support the preference and deciding what Jung really meant?
multidimensionality hypothesis. Although the remain- There is another credible source for interpreting
ing 20 cases produced lesser effects that reflect some- Jung—his assistant of many years, Carl Alfred Meier. On
what weaker items, they too were entirely consistent the relationship of the E and I attitudes to the functions,
with preference multidimensionality. In every case— Meier (1977/1995) was absolutely clear—indicating
for all 57 items investigated—the ordinal relationship that the “preponderance of one attitude (introverted
remained intact, the Both preferences condition always or extroverted) or one function (Thinking, Feeling,
showed the significantly strongest effect, whereas the Sensation, Intuition) in one person, and the opposite in
Neither preference condition was always significantly another person, forms the basis for much misunder-
weakest, and there were no significant reversals between standing and intolerance . . .” (pp. 7–8). Meier identified
the four MBTI content conditions. the functions and attitudes as pairs of opposites that are
John Harker and I have now tested almost 500 determined only by the preponderance expressed by any
cases in which the preference multidimensional condi- individual. Or as Meier put it, “The starting point for
tions include two relevant preferences and about 150 Jung’s typology was the fact that people usually have a
cases in which there are three relevant preferences. In preference for one specific ‘intellectual talent’ and
every case—without exception—the order effects pre- exploit it to the full” (p. 13). Putting this in MBTI and
dicted by the MBTI content (composition) conditions of type dynamics terms, the best estimate of the prepon-
preference multidimensionality occurred, and there derance of Extraversion or Introversion is one’s MBTI
were no significant reversals between the predicted E or I score, and the pointer variable role of the J–P
orders. Such uniformity of results is surprising because preference pair is irrelevant for expressing any of the
our research—like most social science research—is functions in the E or I attitude.
undoubtedly subject to random variability and artifacts Consider also what Meier (1977/1995) identified
that compromise the data in unpredictable ways. as the fourth fundamental principle when he noted:
The significance of these results is that preference So one can say that someone is a thinker, someone
multidimensionality organizes the data in an orderly else a feeling type, i.e., one orients himself prefer-
fashion that corresponds with the facts, whereas type ably with the thinking function, the other preferably
dynamics does not. Orderliness occurs when research according to his feelings. This main function is his
disentangles the confounding that is natural to type strong point, works reliably, and is thus referred to
dynamics. Orderliness occurs when we recognize that as the differentiated, or simply, the main function.
E–I points to E–I and J–P points to J–P—not to E–I. The On the basis of the principle of exclusion the other
highly systematic and orderly results of this research can function can be assumed to function weakly in

17
comparison, which is why we refer to it as the infe- SOCIAL CONTEXT
rior function. The other two functions have a sort of Type dynamics has persistent empirical and logical
intermediate position. (p. 13) problems that at the very minimum raise questions
Meier, interpreting Jung, then makes clear that about its legitimacy. Yet the type community is
where there is an auxiliary type it is in the same attitude, bombarded with messages about type dynamics.
whereas the inferior is always in the opposite attitude. Announcements for training programs, Bulletin of
For example, in discussing Extraverted Sensation plus Psychological Type articles, conference presentations and
Thinking as an auxiliary function, programs all endorse, celebrate, and raise the profile of
Meier wrote “Cooperation with the type dynamics in one form or another.
“
main function is made easier because It is also clear that the overwhelming
emphasis on type dynamics is more
of thinking’s similar attitude (extro- The question that
version)” (p. 32). By contrast, the ephemeral than substantive and
remains is this: promotes the status quo in lieu of
inferior is always opposite to the
dominant according to Meier, as “the
Are these type advancing understanding. Collectively,
attitude and function type are cou- dynamics categories the activities that promote type
dynamics exert considerable influence
pled together in relation to the oppo- meaningful?
”
site type, with the results that the to accept type theory as originally
latter is inferior both with respect to stated.
attitude and function” (p. 20). From the time that a new type
What is significant about this is that the results practitioner is first exposed to the MBTI measure and offi-
reported by Reynierse and Harker (2008a, 2008b) for cial MBTI type training, type dynamics is presented as
preference multidimensionality are consistent with the something “more than” and “superior” to the eight pref-
Jungian interpretation that identifies function and atti- erences. We are reminded that type dynamics is the core
tude differences between the first (dominant) and of the typology (Lawrence & Martin, 2001; Pearman,
fourth (inferior) positions, e.g., EN versus the opposite 1992; Quenk, 1993), whereas interpretations based on
IS, but do not postulate attitude differences between the individual preferences are superficial and simplistic
the dominant and auxiliary, e.g., the dominant EN and (Berens, 1999; McCaulley, 2001; Pearman, 2001;
auxiliary ET (or EF) both occur in the E attitude. Quenk, 1992; Thompson, 1998).
Further, there is parallel representation in preference The perceived and proclaimed superiority of type
multidimensionality between Reynierse and Harker’s dynamics over the contributions of the individual pref-
“Both” condition (e.g., EN) and their “Neither” condi- erences is pervasive. Recall that the claimed superiority
tion (e.g., IS) with Meier’s (1977/1995) interpretation of type dynamics occurs in an empirical context, where
of type opposites. In this sense, the preference multi- the evidence for the preferences is overwhelming and
dimensionality research of Reynierse and Harker is well documented. By contrast, type dynamics’ support-
entirely consistent with Jung and supports the funda- ers provide no evidence for the validity of type dynam-
mental type concept of complementary opposites. ics, and the documented supporting evidence for type
Jung proposed eight function types, or more dynamics, e.g., the MBTI Manual (Myers et al., 1998),
correctly considering current knowledge, eight prefer- is weak at best, despite its positive interpretation.
ence multidimensional function types—four extraverted Considering the weak empirical record, in which valid-
function types (ES, EN, ET, and EF) and four intro- ity is in doubt and there is considerable evidence against
verted function types (IS, IN, IT, and IF). Jung was it, one might expect that type spokespersons would
mostly right, and he can be excused for being incom- be cautious when making claims about type dynamics.
plete and not recognizing the contribution of the FFM Yet these type authorities are certain rather than
dimension of Conscientiousness and the MBTI equiva- cautious and make forceful claims. They repeatedly crit-
lent of J–P. Jung’s function types include the straight- icize “newcomers to type” who don’t understand type
forward contribution of the functions and attitudes dynamics but rely instead on adding together the eight
without the necessity of the convoluted role of type preferences (e.g., Quenk, 1992, 1993; Thompson,
dynamics. 1996, 1998) or have a surface rather than dynamic
understanding of type (Pearman, 1999, 2001).

18
Concluding Comment. A first principle of sci- descriptors between the males and females for each of
entific inquiry is that scientific knowledge is provisional the 10 types examined by Thorne and Gough. For the
and is subject to revision. Quenk (2008) was highly 20 comparisons, there was 0% overlap for 9 compar-
critical of high school and college teachers who “. . . isons, 5.3% overlap for 6 comparisons, 11.1% overlap
typically uninformed or with poor understanding of the for 1 comparison, 17.6% overlap for 3 comparisons,
MBTI assessment, then provide students with addi- and 25% overlap for 1 comparison. On average, for
tional misinformation about what the results mean rel- the same types, there was only 5.5% agreement
ative to one or another subject matter or life in general” (21/379 cases) for observer ratings from Thorne and
(p. 20). Her complaint, as she made clear, was that their Gough’s independent observers, who made ratings on
feedback and understanding was not based on type 300 descriptors. Because the similarity baseline was
dynamics and that “. . . a standard basic interpretation very low, type dynamics interpretations of their data
built around the core of personality differences, i.e., remain ambiguous and uncertain, and the most parsi-
perception and judgment” was required (p. 21). monious interpretation is that Thorne and Gough’s
Quenk’s comments occurred in a context in which she observers did not find much similarity anywhere. This
was promoting an MBTI reporting and feedback system lack of similarity between the dominant and auxiliary
that institutionalizes type dynamics. However, in this types as reported in the MBTI Manual indicates that
case those “uninformed teachers” were reasonably cor- the observers did not find or report much similarity
rect and closer to the truth, whereas the “type experts” anywhere, even within the same types.
who rely on type dynamics were in error. Quenk had 3 In the general case, in which high scores indicate a
it exactly backward. It is only the eight individual greater or stronger effect, the functions are arranged
MBTI preferences that have demonstrated validity—not such that the dominant is greater than auxiliary is
type dynamics or the type categories formed by type greater than tertiary is greater than inferior. This can
dynamics. The time has come for the type community be expressed as: dominant > auxiliary > tertiary >
to abandon their enthusiasm for type dynamics and to inferior. However, for Reynierse and Harker’s (2008a,
discard it. The provisional nature of science and the 2008b) rating scale, low rating scores indicate a
ethical use of type both demand it. greater or stronger effect. The results reported in
Table 5 and in the text are transposed effects that
NOTES correct for their scale scores and rearrange them to
1 Quenk (1993) in a note discussed the attitude rela- conform to the general case.
tionships of the auxiliary and tertiary functions and 4 The requirement that the dominant > auxiliary >
suggested that “A third hypothesis that I have pro- tertiary > inferior is inclusive in that the dominant
posed is that given the somewhat borderline status of must be significantly greater than the auxiliary,
the tertiary function, it may take either attitude, tertiary, and inferior functions; the auxiliary must
depending on circumstances or other idiosyncratic be significantly greater than the tertiary and inferior
factors” (p. 276). But this proposal suffers from functions; and the tertiary must be significantly greater
the logical problem of violating the “law of excluded than the inferior. Realistically, however, research data
middle,” a self-evident logical principle that states that are “messy” and are influenced by any number of
“everything must either be or not be” (Russell, 1912/ methodological and random factors and many depar-
1968, p. 72). Quenk’s proposal only succeeds in try- tures from this ideal condition are expected. Results
ing to have it both ways, without clearly identifying that depart from this hierarchical expectation are not
the circumstances or idiosyncratic factors—in other fatal to type dynamics theory, provided that the
words the underlying variables—that would specify predicted order is maintained. Still, the effect should
these attitude relationships. occur sometimes, and that it occurred in only one out
2 The MBTI Manual comparisons cry out for an appro- of 540 opportunities is an indication that type dynam-
priate control group, although such a control is not ics has serious problems and simply does not organize
obvious among Thorne and Gough’s (1991) research the data in a meaningful way.
conditions. However, using the identical data reported 5 When evaluating the contributions of only two prefer-
by Thorne and Gough and the same data re-analyzed ences, in this case E and T, the third contributing pref-
in the MBTI Manual, I compared directly the overlap erence, e.g., S, is balanced among the four-letter types
for both the most typical descriptors and least typical in each of the four (Both, Primary, Secondary, and

19
Neither) research conditions and has a negligible on various aspects of type theory, the structural prob-
effect. When there are three contributing preferences, lems of type dynamics, our independent—and differ-
eight multidimensional conditions are necessary, con- ent—solutions to these structural problems, and the
ditions that were examined by Reynierse and Harker broad philosophical issues that are foundational for
(2008a, 2008b) with the same general results. inquiry and knowledge. I also thank him for reviewing
and commenting on preliminary drafts of several
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sections of this paper. The paper has benefited from his
I thank Walter J. Geldhart for our many conversations insights and constructive comments.
REFERENCES
Adler, M. J. (1981). Six great ideas. New York: Macmillan Lowen, W. (1982). Dichotomies of the mind. New York: John Wiley
Publishing Co. & Sons.
Adler, M. J. (1985). Ten philosophical mistakes. New York: Lubin, A. (1961). The interpretation of significant interaction.
Macmillan Publishing Co. Education and Psychological Measurement, 32, 807–817.
Beebe, J. (1984). Psychological types in transference, counter- McCaulley, M. H. (1999). A lesson in type: It’s all about percep-
transference, and the therapeutic interaction. Chiron, tion and judgment. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 22(4), 1,
147–161. 3–4.
Berens, L. V. (1999). Watching the waves from the West coast. McCaulley, M. H. (2001). Experts panel: Summary. Bulletin of
Bulletin of Psychological Type, 22(8), 18, 20. Psychological Type, 24(4), 40–43.
Boozer, R. W., Forte, M., Maddox, E. N., & Jackson, W. T. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-
(2000). An explanation of the perceived psychological type Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five-
of the office politician. Journal of Psychological Type, 55, Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1),
5–13. 17–40.
Brownsword, A. W. (1987). It takes all types! San Anselmo, CA: McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood:
Baytree Publication Company. A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: The
Brownsword, A. W. (1988). Psychological type: An introduction. Guilford Press.
San Anselmo, CA: The Human Resources Management Meier, C. A. (1995). Personality: The individuation process in light
Press, Inc. of C. G. Jung’s typology. Einsiedeln, Switzerland: Daimon.
Bunge, M. (1963). Causality. Cleveland: The World Publishing (Original work published 1977)
Company. Mendelsohn, G. A. (1965). Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Casti, J. L. (1990). Searching for certainty. New York: William (MBTI). In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The sixth mental measurements
Morrow and Company. yearbook (pp. 321–322). Highland Park, NJ: The Gryphon
Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Press.
prophecy fails. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Mitchell, W. D. (2006). Validation of the full dynamic model of
Garden, A. M. (1985). The effect of Jungian type on burnout. type. Journal of Psychological Type, 66(5), 35–48.
Journal of Psychological Type, 10, 3–10. Myers, I. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo
Garden, A. M. (1988). Jungian type, occupation and burnout: An Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
elaboration of an earlier study. Journal of Psychological Type, Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the
14, 2–14. development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (2nd
Grant, W. H., Thompson, M., & Clarke, T. E. (1983). From image ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
to likeness. New York: Paulist Press. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L, & Hammer, A. L.
Harker, J. B., Reynierse, J. H., & Komisin, L. (1998). (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Independent observer ratings and the correlates of the EAR Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
subscales with their behavioral descriptors. Journal of Consulting Psychologists Press.
Psychological Type, 45, 5–20. Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Consulting Psychologists Press.
Winston. Pearman, R. R. (1992). The dynamic energy of type: Adaptation,
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton development, and consistency. Bulletin of Psychological Type,
University Press. (Original work published 1923) 15(4), 3, 16.
Lawrence, G. D., & Martin, C. R. (2001). Building people, building Pearman, R. R. (1999). Soulful journeys: Insights from within.
programs. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Bulletin of Psychological Type, 22(3), 36–37.
Psychological Type. Pearman, R. R. (2001). Leadership: Lessons in the mirror. Bulletin
of Psychological Type, 24(3), 21–22.

20
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2008a). Preference multidimen-
Basic Books. (Original work published 1934) sionality and the fallacy of type dynamics: Part I (Studies
Quenk, N. L. (1992). The whole is greater than the sum of its 1–3). Journal of Psychological Type, 68(10), 90–112.
parts: Observations on the dynamics of type. Bulletin of Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2008b). Preference multidimen-
Psychological Type, 15(4), 5–10. sionality and the fallacy of type dynamics: Part II (Studies
Quenk, N. L. (1993). Beside ourselves. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books. 4-6). Journal of Psychological Type, 68(11), 113–138.
Quenk, N. L. (2008). MBTI® Complete: An internet delivery Reynierse, J. H., Harker, J. B., Fink, A. A., & Ackerman, D.
system for the MBTI® Assessment. Bulletin of Psychological (2001). Personality and perceived business values:
Type, 31(2), 20–22. Synergistic effects for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
management ratings. International Journal of Value-Based
Reynierse, J. H. (2000a). The combination of preferences and the
Management, 14, 259–271.
formation of MBTI types. Journal of Psychological Type, 52,
18–31. Russell, B. (1968). The problems of philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press. (Original work published 1912)
Reynierse, J. H. (2000b). The architecture of type: The symmetry
of form. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 23(3), 14, 16, 18. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Reynierse, J. H. (2000c). The architecture of type: Additive and Rytting, M., & Ware, R. (1993). Reinterpreting the NEO-PI from
interactive effects of psychological type. Bulletin of Psycho- the perspective of psychological type. Conscious choices,
logical Type, 23(5), 12, 14, 16. unconscious forces: Proceedings of the X Biennial, International
Conference of the Association for Psychological Type (pp.
Reynierse, J. H. (2000d). The architecture of type: Primacy of the
213–218). Kansas City, MO: Association for Psychological
eight functions. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 23(4), 14, 16, 18.
Type.
Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2000). Waiting for Godot, the
Sundstrom, E., Koenigs, R. J., & Huet-Cox, G. D. (1996).
search for the Holy Grail, and the futility of obtaining
Personality and perceived values: Myers-Briggs Type
meaningful whole-type effects. Journal of Psychological Type,
Indicator and coworker ratings on SYMLOG. In S. E. Hare
53, 11–18.
& A. P. Hare (Eds.), SYMLOG field theory: Organizational
Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2001). The interactive and addi- consultation, value differences, personality and social perception
tive nature of psychological type. Journal of Psychological (pp. 155–173). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Type, 58, 6–32.
Thompson, H. L. (1996). The strange attractor within. Bulletin of
Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2005a). Type interactions: MBTI Psychological Type, 19(4), 34–35.
relationships and self-report questionnaire scale scores.
Thompson, H. L. (1998). The new paradigm. Bulletin of Psycho-
Journal of Psychological Type, 64(6a), 57–75.
logical Type, 21(1), 14, 16.
Reynierse, J. H., & Harker, J. B. (2005b). Type versus trait:
Thorne, A., & Gough, H. (1991). Portraits of type. Palo Alto, CA:
Taxons, real classes, and carving nature at its joints. Journal
Consulting Psychologists Press.
of Psychological Type, 64(6b), 77–87.

21
James H. Reynierse is an industrial-organizational psychologist with a Ph.D. in experimental psychology from
Michigan State University. He was a postdoctoral fellow at Indiana University (Psychology) and a Senior Scientist
Fellow at the University of Edinburgh (Zoology). Following a 10-year research and teaching career in higher educa-
tion, he spent 26 years in business—first in human resource management and later in management consulting before
retiring in 2000. He has published extensively, most recently on the styles of business managers, executives, and
entrepreneurs, theoretical issues related to type and the MBTI® instrument, and issues related to business values. He
is the author of the business classic, Ten Commandments for CEOs Seeking Organizational Change (Business Horizons).
Previously he was Editor and on the Editorial Board of the journal Human Resource Planning and is currently on the
Editorial Board of the Journal of Psychological Type®.
C O N TA C T
James H. Reynierse, Ph.D.
320 Angus Road
Chesapeake, VA 23322
Phone: 757.547.2416
Email: jreynierse@cox.net
This Journal is being made available through the collaborative efforts of Dr. Tom Carskadon, Editor of the Journal of Psychological Type, and
the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc., CAPT, worldwide publisher. Dr. B. Michael Thorne serves as Executive Editor of the
Journal of Psychological Type.
Journal of Psychological Type is a trademark or registered trademark of Thomas G. Carskadon in the United States and other countries.
CAPT is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the meaningful application and ethical use of psychological type as measured through the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in
the United States and other countries.
Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. and CAPT are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type in the United States and other countries.
Copyright © 2009 by Thomas G. Carskadon, Editor.
ISSN 0895-8750.

JPT Vol69 0109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPT Vol69 0109

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPT Vol69 0109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

More than thirty years of publishing research articles related to the theory and

applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.

Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 1 JAN 09

Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type

The Case Against Type Dynamics

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

ESTJ E+S+T+J Dominant Thinking extraverted Auxiliary Sensing introverted

ESFJ E+S+F+J Dominant Feeling extraverted Auxiliary Sensing introverted

ISTJ I+S+T+J Dominant Sensing introverted Auxiliary Thinking extraverted

ISFJ I+S+F+J Dominant Sensing introverted Auxiliary Feeling extraverted

ENTJ E+N+T+J Dominant Thinking extraverted Auxiliary Intuition introverted

ENFJ E+N+F+J Dominant Feeling extraverted Auxiliary Intuition introverted

INTJ I+N+T+J Dominant Intuition introverted Auxiliary Thinking extraverted

INFJ I+N+F+J Dominant Intuition introverted Auxiliary Feeling extraverted

The Case Against Type Dynamics

additional type categories or forms (Reynierse, 2000a). TJ TP FP FJ

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

Persuasive (ET) .19 .33 -.13 .25 .08 .14 — —

Dominant (TE) .11 .26 — — .23 .43 — —

Assertive (E=T) .21 .43 -.11 .20 .23 .42 — —

The Case Against Type Dynamics

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

The Case Against Type Dynamics

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

Sensing ESTP+ESFP Dominant Sensing extraverted E (Se)

ISTJ+ISFJ Dominant Sensing introverted I (Si)

ISTP+ISFP Auxiliary Sensing extraverted E (Se)

ESTJ+ESFJ Auxiliary Sensing introverted I (Si)

ENFJ+ENTJ Tertiary Sensing extraverted E (Se)

INFP+INTP Tertiary Sensing introverted I (Si)

INFJ+INTJ Inferior Sensing extraverted E (Se)

ENFP+ENTP Inferior Sensing introverted I (Si)

Intuition ENFP+ENTP Dominant Intuition extraverted E (Ne)

INFJ+INTJ Dominant Intuition introverted I (Ni)

INFP+INTP Auxiliary Intuition extraverted E (Ne)

ENFJ+ENTJ Auxiliary Intuition introverted I (Ni)

ESTJ+ESFJ Tertiary Intuition extraverted E (Ne)

ISTP+ISFP Tertiary Intuition introverted I (Ni)

ISTJ+ISFJ Inferior Intuition extraverted E (Ne)

ESTP+ESFP Inferior Intuition introverted I (Ni)

Thinking ESTJ+ENTJ Dominant Thinking extraverted E (Te)

ISTP+INTP Dominant Thinking introverted I (Ti)

ISTJ+INTJ Auxiliary Thinking extraverted E (Te)

ESTP+ENTP Auxiliary Thinking introverted I (Ti)

ESFP+ENFP Tertiary Thinking extraverted E (Te)

ISFJ+INFJ Tertiary Thinking introverted I (Ti)

ISFP+INFP Inferior Thinking extraverted E (Te)

ESFJ+ENFJ Inferior Thinking introverted I (Ti)

Feeling ESFJ+ENFJ Dominant Feeling extraverted E (Fe)

ISFP+INFP Dominant Feeling introverted I (Fi)

ISFJ+INFJ Auxiliary Feeling extraverted E (Fe)

ESFP+ENFP Auxiliary Feeling introverted I (Fi)

ESTP+ENTP Tertiary Feeling extraverted E (Fe)

ISTJ+INTJ Tertiary Feeling introverted I (Fi)

ISTP+INTP Inferior Feeling extraverted E (Fe)

ESTJ+ENTJ Inferior Feeling introverted I (Fi)

The Case Against Type Dynamics

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 69, January 2009

The Case Against Type Dynamics