Jung Personality Test: What Jung Actually Said (vs. What the Internet Made Up)

Carl Jung didn't create MBTI. He didn't invent 16 personality types. He never made a personality quiz. If he saw what the internet has done with his ideas, he'd probably need therapy himself.

What Jung actually developed was a theory of psychological types based on cognitive functions—how people perceive and judge information. It was nuanced, complex, and deliberately ambiguous about putting people into categories. Then Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother turned it into a questionnaire with neat boxes, and the rest is pop psychology history.

So when you search for a "Jung personality test," what are you actually looking for? Something based on cognitive functions? An MBTI variant? A test that measures the attitudes and functions Jung described? The answer matters, because these are very different things.

What Jung Actually Proposed

In his 1921 book Psychological Types, Jung described two fundamental attitudes and four cognitive functions:

Attitudes:

Extraversion — psychic energy directed outward toward objects and other people
Introversion — psychic energy directed inward toward subjective experience

Functions:

Thinking — making decisions through logic and impersonal analysis
Feeling — making decisions through values and personal significance
Sensation — perceiving through concrete, immediate sensory data
Intuition — perceiving through patterns, possibilities, and unconscious connections

Each person has a dominant function operating in either an extraverted or introverted attitude. The opposing function sits in the unconscious as the inferior function, and two auxiliary functions fill the middle ground.

This creates eight primary orientations: extraverted thinking, introverted thinking, extraverted feeling, introverted feeling, extraverted sensation, introverted sensation, extraverted intuition, introverted intuition.

Crucially, Jung saw these as tendencies, not fixed types. He explicitly warned against treating his typology as a classification system. In his own words: "Every individual is an exception to the rule." He described personality as dynamic, with different functions emerging in different contexts and the unconscious constantly compensating for conscious attitudes.

How MBTI Changed Jung's Ideas

Isabel Briggs Myers took Jung's framework and made some significant modifications:

Added a fourth dichotomy (J/P). Jung never proposed judging vs. perceiving as a separate dimension. Myers added it to indicate which function (thinking/feeling or sensing/intuition) a person shows to the external world. This created 16 types from Jung's original 8 orientations.

Made categories binary. Jung described functions on a continuum. You could be primarily a thinker who also uses feeling regularly. MBTI forces a choice: you're T or F. This is probably the biggest departure from Jung's intent.

Removed the unconscious. Jung's entire theory was built on the interplay between conscious and unconscious functions. Your inferior function—the one you're worst at—was central to his model because it represented your growth edge, your shadow material, the psychological territory you need to develop. MBTI largely ignores this.

Made it positive. Jung's typology included pathology. An overdeveloped dominant function creates a one-sided personality that's psychologically unhealthy. MBTI descriptions are uniformly positive—every type is special and wonderful in its own way. Jung would have found this naive.

The result is that MBTI is loosely inspired by Jung but diverges from his actual theory in fundamental ways. Taking an MBTI test is not the same as taking a Jungian personality assessment.

For more on MBTI specifically, see mbti test and mbti criticism.

Cognitive Functions: The Jungian Core

The most "Jungian" personality tests focus on cognitive functions rather than MBTI letter dichotomies.

Each cognitive function describes a specific way of processing information:

Extraverted Thinking (Te) — Organizing the external world through systems, metrics, and efficiency. Thinks out loud. Wants measurable results.

Introverted Thinking (Ti) — Building internal logical frameworks. Analyzes how things work. Values precision and internal consistency over external validation.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) — Reading and managing group dynamics. Attunes to others' emotions. Creates social harmony.

Introverted Feeling (Fi) — Deep personal values and authenticity. Strong inner moral compass. Evaluates everything against an internal ethical framework.

Extraverted Sensing (Se) — Fully present in the physical moment. Notices concrete details. Responds to immediate reality with precision.

Introverted Sensing (Si) — Comparing present experience to past templates. Detailed memory. Values tradition, routine, and proven methods.

Extraverted Intuition (Ne) — Generating possibilities and connections between ideas. Brainstorming. Sees patterns across seemingly unrelated domains.

Introverted Intuition (Ni) — Synthesizing information into singular visions or insights. Works unconsciously. Produces "aha" moments that feel like they come from nowhere.

A proper Jungian assessment would measure which of these functions you use most naturally, in what order, and how developed each one is. This is fundamentally different from asking "are you a thinker or a feeler?"

The cognitive functions test article breaks down how these are measured and which tests do it best.

Tests That Actually Measure Jungian Concepts

If you want an assessment grounded in Jung's actual ideas, here are your best options:

Sakinorva Cognitive Functions Test. Measures all eight cognitive functions independently rather than forcing dichotomous choices. You get a score for each function, which gives you a much more nuanced picture than four letters. It's free, no signup required. More details at sakinorva test.

Michael Caloz Cognitive Functions Test. Another cognitive-functions-first approach that avoids the forced dichotomies of standard MBTI. Shows you your function stack with relative strengths. See michael caloz test.

SoulTrace. Takes a different approach entirely. Instead of mapping you onto Jung's eight functions, it uses adaptive Bayesian inference to build a probability distribution across five psychological drives: structure, understanding, agency, intensity, and connection. This captures similar territory to Jung's typology—the understanding drive maps onto introverted thinking and intuition, the connection drive overlaps with extraverted feeling—but without pretending that eight discrete categories capture the full complexity of personality. Take it free here.

MBTI Step II. If you specifically want the MBTI interpretation of Jung, Step II breaks each of the four preferences into five facets. This partially addresses the "binary dichotomy" problem by showing you where you fall on subscales. It's paid and administered by certified practitioners.

Grey-Wheelwright Test. One of the original Jungian typology instruments, developed by analysts who studied with Jung. It's rarely used today but represents the closest historical link to Jung's original framework.

What Jung Got Right (and Wrong)

What holds up:

The idea that personality involves distinct cognitive processes—not just behavioral tendencies—was ahead of its time. Modern cognitive neuroscience supports the existence of different processing modes (analytical vs. holistic, detail-focused vs. pattern-focused) that loosely map onto Jung's functions.

The concept of the inferior function—that your weakest cognitive mode creates problems you need to confront—anticipated modern ideas about cognitive blind spots and psychological growth through discomfort.

The warning against rigid typology was prophetic. Every attempt to force personality into discrete boxes, from MBTI to Enneagram to online quizzes, runs into the same problem Jung predicted: people are more complex than any classification system can capture.

What doesn't hold up:

The specific eight-function model hasn't been empirically validated as a complete system. Factor analysis of personality data consistently produces five factors (the Big Five), not eight cognitive functions.

Jung's reliance on clinical intuition over statistical analysis means his typology was based on pattern recognition from patients, not controlled studies. The observations were astute but the methodology wouldn't pass modern scientific standards.

The mystical elements—collective unconscious, archetypes as universal psychic structures, synchronicity—take Jung's work beyond empirical psychology into territory that's philosophically interesting but scientifically untestable.

For how Jung's work compares to empirically validated models, see big five personality test and scientific personality test.

Jung vs. Modern Personality Science

Where does Jungian typology sit relative to current research?

Big Five (OCEAN) is the dominant framework in academic personality psychology. It's statistically derived, cross-culturally validated, and predicts real-world outcomes (job performance, relationship satisfaction, health) better than any Jungian-derived instrument.

HEXACO adds honesty-humility to the Big Five and has growing empirical support.

Jungian/MBTI frameworks remain hugely popular in applied settings (corporate training, coaching, self-development) despite weaker psychometric properties. Their appeal is narrative—people connect with the rich descriptions and find them useful for self-reflection even if the measurement isn't as precise.

The honest answer is that Jung's contribution was conceptual rather than empirical. He gave us a powerful language for talking about cognitive differences. But the specific measurement instruments derived from his work are less reliable and valid than modern trait-based assessments.

That said, "less valid" doesn't mean "useless." Understanding your dominant cognitive function—whether you naturally lead with analysis, values, concrete details, or abstract patterns—provides genuine self-insight. Just don't treat the results as a permanent classification.

The Bottom Line

If you're looking for a Jung personality test, know what you're actually getting:

MBTI-style tests are inspired by Jung but significantly modified from his original theory
Cognitive functions tests are closer to Jung's actual ideas but still systematize what he left deliberately ambiguous
No test fully captures Jung's original framework because he designed it as a clinical tool for therapists, not a self-administered questionnaire

The best approach: take a cognitive functions assessment to understand your dominant and inferior functions, then use a trait-based assessment like the Big Five or SoulTrace to get empirically grounded data about your personality. Together, they give you both the narrative richness of Jungian typology and the measurement precision of modern psychometrics.

Jung himself would probably approve of using multiple frameworks rather than treating any single system as gospel. He was, after all, the one who warned us not to take typology too seriously.

Jung Personality Test: What Jung Actually Said

Table of Contents