If you’re considering moving past the phase where you’re taking simpler personality quizzes or are now deepening your knowledge of cognitive functions, it’s time to dig even further—into what a “lens” really means.

We’ve discussed here on this blog before what the general idea of a function is. Checking out previous articles on that subject would do you well to read. But for the sake of sharpening my case, and distinguishing the mechanism (Function) from the perspective (Frame), we’ll get surgical once more.

When we say one views things a certain way, in Jungian terms, we usually get something “directional.” Cognitive functions point a certain way, hence their nature as axes. They have a flow toward one part of the mind or the other, such as toward the ego or the subconscious.

For example, we can speak of an Introverted Sensing-oriented person. Systems that sprung off from Jung tend to blend weaknesses and/or strengths of these orientations together sometimes depending on their own argument for how the system should be used or viewed. But the general idea across them is that Introverted Sensing prioritizes lived sensation and its internal continuity over novelty or abstraction.

Many theories that have cropped up since Carl Jung’s initial work, which itself was built off Asian and other traditions, try to find “better” ways of organizing and universalizing these core orientations. In my view, as an aside, while they all compete, none truly covers new ground. Each takes a new angle or bends tradition in a new direction, but what I’ve learned from thinking about the topic is that most of the thinkers we’ve had up to this point have thought of (or at least observed) the basic building blocks that make human personality.

The scientific method has come along as a newer “universalizing principle,” one that attempts to find explanation for patterns across domains. However, from what I see, when it’s applied to humans, things get messy. That’s why newer frameworks such as The Big Five (OCEAN) exist, and have nudged the MBTI or similar out—psychology has moved over the past 20-30 years toward a more inclusive approach, one that itself tries to universalize, though snuffs out apparent generalization as it seemed to appear in earlier iterations. For instance, models across the board have gotten facelifts, and are critiqued from angles that refuse flattening of the individual.

Ironically, though, these new norms, while the flip of the culture the MBTI has made rise (a chaotic mix of using labels without questioning, overidentifying with them, and often remaining on a surface level of analysis), tend to cause the same issues to pop up. What I’ve noticed is that no matter how “scientific” a system is made or applied, the underlying theory is the same. Looking at OCEAN, for instance, I can’t look past how Openness mirrors Intuition, or how other facets are MBTI-adjacent, thus circling back to Jung and his antecedents.

Similarly, what doesn’t change, and what should—if the world is ever to make progress—is how people use these frameworks. And that’s where we get to the crux of this article: people confuse how they take things in with how much control they have over mastering that perception and doing something with it that can impact their community.

If we understand functions as perception and making those unfiltered noticings real, viewing Jung becomes much simpler. It also makes reflection much more actionable, which is what humans need to thrive.

Thinking about the most “successful” people in the world, people who have power, fame, intellect, or whatever quality one deems valuable—there is one thing they all do that makes them able to hold those positions and have influence. You can watch MasterClass or read hundreds of self-help books, which is all fine and good, but I can tell you here, the base pattern is they don’t sit. And they let themselves be uncomfortable with who they are long enough to make movement, which is one of the rudiments of Jungian psychic growth.

For example, if you have the “non-stereotypical” Introverted Feeling-oriented business leader, they’re likely to have confronted their opposing Extraverted Thinking and integrated it into something usable for their process. They’re using it for upward trajectory. And that’s where most of the narratives you hear from top Extraverted Thinking executives fall—they’re “seizing” something all the time, using their Thinking function to grab it. Now the Feelers are just harnessing their “weaknesses,” the ones that mirror the strengths of the traditionally rewarded, to get ahead.

They chose to view themselves differently, and make forward motion. This frame of which I speak is more a behavioral one, but it’s also tied to ethics, and personal philosophy. It’s realizing the power you have as an individual and carrying it forth. For example, can you justify why you do something? And how far down the decision tree are you willing to go to make sure that decision—no matter the reason or context—is ethical, personally-fitting, and broader based? That’s not only Jungian, but being a responsible citizen in culturally neutral terms.

Functions describe how information arrives. Frames describe what responsibility you assume once it has. Thus making a distinction from cognition to viewpoint is key, because where one person with an Extraverted Intuition lens struggles to launch, another might be a more active participant in their reality. So many factors dictate who gets to grow and who doesn’t, at least initially, but what many people don’t recognize is they have control. And they don’t know how much control they have until they exert it (without harm to themselves or others, of course).

That’s the ideal in framing: taking what you’re given (a way of viewing the world) and realizing that it doesn’t define you.

For many beginning typological enthusiasts, this distinction is not immediately evident. When it reveals itself, often two camps emerge: the people willing to see in themselves that inherent power not to give in to oversimplification, and those that resist. The resistance is a very deeply psychological, sociological thing. It’s layered. But what’s most important here is that it’s contextualized for the person. Do they want to overcome that barrier, moving on to deeper introspection, stronger reasoning, and lack of bias—or do they just want a badge?

Jungian study is not just a humble-brag. It’s serious moral and philosophical inquiry into the Self. And seriousness of purpose doesn’t require a lack of soul—but confronting demons and comprehending where your life force is meant to go is big work. Some people never do it. Some people try once and get so disgusted, they scar themselves. The variety is the human mosaic.

Just remember, you are not inherently better for being oriented a certain way. You just have a different perspective in a set of equal perspectives, on a planet where shades of gray are rarely appreciated, but deeply matter.

Nuance is not a personality trait. It’s a choice. Will you make it?

---

Featured image by Andrej Lišakov + video generated by Grok’s Imagine software.