A Justification for the Standard Model in Jung's Typology

Jung’s principle of the auxiliary function allows for more than one interpretation. Myers

interpreted Jung’s model to be EIII/IEEE, which is called the “One-Three Model”. Jungian

analyst Harold Grant interpreted Junt’s model to be EIEI/IEIE (which is the Standard Model),

and others interpret EEII/IIEE, which is called the Nucleus Model. Formally, the most consistent

interpretation points toward the Nucleus Model.

Jung has implied that the secondary function is in the conscious realm, and is therefore affected

by the attitude of consciousness. Jung’s implications on the third function is that it is relatively

unconscious compared to the secondary function:

“Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking [thinking-sensation] may be an

unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition”

The third function is therefore affected by the attitude of the unconscious, hence the most logical

interpretation being EEII/IIEE.

However, there are more factors and supporting principles that possibly make the Standard

Model (EIEI/IEIE) the most logically and formally consistent interpretation of Jung, even if Jung

didn’t intend it himself:

● “[Introversion] ... gives the subject a higher value than the object, and the object

accordingly has a lower value. It is of secondary importance… In [the extravert’s] case

the subject is of secondary importance.”

 ● “The relative or total unconsciousness of the [attitudes] and functions excluded by the

conscious attitude keeps them in an undeveloped state. In comparison with the [most]

conscious function they are inferior … To the extent that they are conscious, they play

only a secondary role”

● [On the auxiliary function]: “Closer investigation shows with great regularity that,

besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary

importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence

… Its secondary importance is due to the fact that it is not, like the primary function,

valid in its own right as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play

more as an auxiliary or complementary function.”

● “Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly

demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of

secondary importance.”

● “The four functions … form, when arranged diagrammatically, a cross with a rational

axis at right angles to an irrational axis.”

At the forefront of Jung’s psychology and philosophy are concepts of balance and equilibrium,

with both creating some kind of oneness. It is an overarching ideal that things propel themselves

toward. When there isn’t balance, the occurrence of “Enantiodromia” is employed. It is a

Heraclitian-derived concept defined by Jung as “emergence of the unconscious opposite in the

course of time.”
Jung’s focus on opposing forces in typology gives rise to axes: the axis of

extraversion/introversion, thinking/feeling, and sensation/intuition. In addition, as per Jung’s

combination of attitudes and functions, there consequently exists the axes of Te/Fi, Fe/Ti, Se/Ni,

and Ne/Si.

With the MBTI’s implicit standardization of such axes into four letter codes (e.g. INTP = Ti/Fe +

Ne/Si), it can hypothetically be stated that there is no basic or major difference between the

Nucleus Model (EEII/IIEE) and the Standard Model (EIEI/IEIE). E.g., an INTP is still

fundamentally an INTP, so long as their axes consist of Ti/Fe and Ne/Si, while still being

primarily characterized by Ti. But this is just a reason that conveys the validity of both the

Standard Model and Nucleus Model.

Furthermore, it was stated by Jung:

“There is no such thing as a pure extrovert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the
lunatic asylum.”

This basic axiom potentially provides support for the Standard Model, depending on what he

means by “pure.” If by “a pure [attitude],” he means an attitude that wholly takes over the

consciousness or the ego, then there may have been an unconscious intention to support the

Standard Model.

On the basis that he did mean this, it is consequently permissible to point out the inconsistency of

the Nucleus Model compared to Jung’s most salient principles (balance, equilibrium, and

oneness).
The position of the functions in one’s stack are of qualitative strength rather than quantitative.

The lower the function is in the stack, the less refined it is. An individual can be forced to use

their inferior function multiple times but still remain uncomfortable using it. That being said, the

Nucleus Model, even in its purest form, isn’t in accordance with Jung’s standards and concepts

of balance and equilibrium.

For example, an introvert’s two lowermost functions, which are extroverted, do not induce

equilibrium, because the qualitative strength of the extroverted functions are less than that of the

introverted ones. The qualitative strength of the uppermost function-attitudes creates the ever

growing potential of an individual becoming a pure extravert or introvert. This can be a reason to

abandon the Nucleus Model, as there actually does seem to exist a vital difference between it and

the Standard Model.

In the Standard Model, equilibrium does indeed exist because there is a reconciliation between

each function-attitude in both consciousness and the unconscious. This logically allows for the

following statements by Jesse Gerroir and Michael Pierce respectively:

● “How could [the introvert] even have … impressions, if their approach was always to

abstract from the object? If they always did that ... they would have no impressions to use

as a base. Without the help of their extroverted functions, their [internal] databank is

empty. Likewise, the extrovert would be approaching each new object entirely anew with

… no databank at all. This is why extroverted functions are always paired up with

introverted ones and vice-versa. The extroverted functions will bring in data about
 objects and things and the introverted functions form that data into a databank that can be

used for future reference.”

● “In order for both attitudes to remain healthy, they must concede to the method of the

opposing attitude: extroversion must abstract general conclusions from the objective data,

and introversion must reconcile its subjective ideas with the current objective data.”

Additionally, there’s Jung’s syntax, which seems small but vital. When Jung speaks of the

psychological types, he mentions that each type has a “general attitude of consciousness.” This

implies that the main aspects, but not all aspects of consciousness are one-sided, flowing toward

a particular attitude. This allows for the opposing attitude to exist in consciousness, but only as a

supplement to the overall attitude of consciousness. As quoted before via Jung:

“The relative or total unconsciousness of the [attitudes] and functions excluded by the conscious
attitude keeps them in an undeveloped state. In comparison with the [most] conscious function
they are inferior … To the extent that they are conscious, they play only a secondary role”

It is evident that Jung’s basic philosophy is consistent with (and derived from) principal aspects

of Taoism, most notably the concept of Yin and Yang (see Psychological Types §358-367). In its

schematic representation (https://bit.ly/3ppOjTA), notice that there exists a small light circle on

the dark half, and a small dark circle on the light half. In terms of Jung’s typology, each small

circle can represent opposing attitudes in consciousness and the unconscious. E.g., an introvert

can have an extroverted function in consciousness, and an introverted in the unconscious.

With this concept being employed in Jungian typology, ideal standards of balance come into

play, and in quite an intricate manner. E.g., for the introvert, their secondary extraverted function,

although acting as an auxiliary in the conscious realm, being influenced by consciousness, still
appeals to the unconscious, because it is in the same attitude as the unconscious. The third and

introverted function, although relatively unconscious and being influenced by the unconscious,

still appeals to the introverted nature of consciousness, because it is in the same attitude as

consciousness. Therefore there is an ideal form of balance at play.

In terms of the Yin-Yang representation, the light circle in the dark half, by its nature, still

appeals to the light half, even though it is still affected by the dark half, and vice versa for the

dark circle in the light side. (Example Image: https://ibb.co/c80r24J)

The purpose of this documentation was to establish that, using (semi-)deductive methods

(namely the axiomatic method), the Standard Model is valid, rather than relying on inductive

methods (e.g., empirical evidence). Personally, empirical evidence wasn’t enough, even though

there is enough to support the Standard Model. A majority of the typing community see the

default type as consisting of functions that are in accordance with the Standard Model, and such

a view is quite abstract. A “default type” is something that is ideal; it’s an archetypal model, and

it is therefore something that should be proven ideally: in a deductive manner, where each

premise necessitates one another.