Looking Back to Jung: The 8-Process Scores on the Majors Type Assessments

I recall my first exposure to Psychological Type (mid 1980s). After completing an assessment I was told a litany of what I prefer. Most of the information that I received was accurate and very helpful. Some of it was off and a bit confusing. This is not a criticism of the 16-Type model or any assessment. It is a common experience that occurs when any model meets an individual.

Individual differences within a whole type can be profound. While doing the psychometric development work on the MBTI Form Q I was motivated by the drive from my own personal experience to attempt to reveal the full breadth of natural differences that occur when assessing whole type. I subsequently discovered that while subscales within a dichotomy give information, they do not give an answer to the big question of “Why?” I now realized that I was focusing upon the psychometrics and attempting to accomplish something without connecting all the dots (model, psychometrics and individual).

When the assessment meets the individual, one can never go beyond the confines of the psychometric connection with the model. More simply put: if the psychometric goal of an assessment is to measure whole type (a model) that is what it will measure. Subscales based upon this goal will measure aspects of whole type (a very valuable endeavor). I wanted more than this.

During the process of developing my own assessments (MajorsPTI & Majors PT-Elements) I made a shift in thought and practice. To start with I became very familiar with Jung’s original 1923 text “Psychological Types,” more specifically Jung’s introduction to the text and chapter ten. I knew that I was after the 8 mental functions (processes). The expression of the mental functions in a person’s life pointed to the individual differences that I was after.

We know from type dynamics that there is an innate progression of type development. This is expressed as the development of a primary mental function (dominant) followed by the other seven. It was Jung’s own words that answered my big “Why?” question. He states in chapter ten that we can spot the primary and often the second (auxiliary) but after that life happens (Mark’s paraphrase). It is not that the type dynamic model is in error, rather it is static model expression and based upon the ideal, an ideal that is impacted by life, both within and without. It is our decisions and experiences that create the individual differences within type that are revealed by the expression of our mental functions.

The Majors/Jungian 8-Process Scores found on the Professional Reports of the MajorsPTI and Majors PT-Elements give the reported expression of Jung’s 8 mental functions in real time. Many years of development and many advanced psychometric/statistical courses at the university helped me to connect the dots. As I use the 8-Process Scores I find they serve to connect Jung’s mental functions to the individual. It is not a new model, but a life-impacted expression of the old.

The table below shows that on average the type dynamic model (static model) is found in the expression of the mental processes (see the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior for each type). What is also seen is the expression of the complement functions (the other four). This gives us the full understanding of how all 8 mental functions look when assessed. This does not negate any other model. It simply presents what the individual is reporting as the level of use and access to each of the 8-processess.