Icosa vs MBTI
MBTI captures only 65% of Icosa's structural information — the lowest of all frameworks compared here — because categorical dichotomies systematically collapse the continuous state information that defines Icosa's architecture.
Overview
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs during and after World War II, based on Carl Jung’s typological theory from Psychological Types (1921). The instrument was first published in 1944, revised through Form F and Form G, and validated psychometrically through the 1970s–1980s by Mary McCaulley at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. The current Form M (1998) and Form Q (2001, added facets) are published by CPP (now The Myers-Briggs Company).
MBTI’s four dichotomies — Extraversion/Introversion (E/I), Sensing/Intuition (S/N), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), Judging/Perceiving (J/P) — yield 16 types by combination. It is the world’s most widely administered personality instrument by volume, with an estimated 2–3.5 million administrations per year, and is embedded in organizational, career, educational, and coaching contexts globally.
Despite its prevalence, MBTI captures the lowest percentage of Icosa’s structural information of any framework in this comparison family (65%). This is not primarily a validity critique of MBTI — it is a structural critique. Categorical dichotomies that force continuous scores into binary type assignments systematically discard the continuous state information that is foundational to Icosa’s architecture.
What This Framework Captures
MBTI captures approximately 65% of Icosa’s structural information. Coverage weights:
- Capacities: 70% — MBTI’s four dichotomies map compositionally onto Icosa’s capacities. J/P provides the strongest single-dimension correspondence to Focus and Bond capacities (J→F+ over + B+ moderate), with correlation r=0.70. E/I maps to Move capacity (E→V+ over, I→V+ under, r=0.65). S/N maps to Open capacity (N→O+ over, S→O+ under, r=0.60). T/F maps primarily to domain emphasis (T→Mental domain, F→Emotional+Relational domains) rather than capacity targets. No single MBTI dichotomy maps cleanly to a single Icosa capacity, and the interactions between dichotomies matter.
- Domains: 55% — Moderate domain coverage, improved by cognitive function mappings. N types have Spiritual and Mental domain elevation; F types have Emotional and Relational domain elevation; S types have Physical domain grounding; T types have Mental domain emphasis. Cognitive functions (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi) add Physical and Spiritual domain specificity unavailable from dichotomies alone.
- Coherence: 30% — MBTI does not measure psychological integration. J types tend to have higher structured self-organization (which correlates weakly with coherence), but this is a secondary inference.
- Traps: 10% — MBTI has no trap model. Extreme E/I scores and certain type combinations can be correlated with trap-risk indicators post-hoc, but this is extrapolation.
- Gateways: 5% — Not represented.
What This Framework Misses
Coherence depth. MBTI measures preference — the direction an individual leans on each dichotomy — not the degree to which their personality is structurally integrated. Two people can have identical MBTI types with Icosa coherence scores that differ by 40 points. MBTI provides no information about this integration dimension.
Trap patterns. MBTI explicitly frames all 16 types as value-neutral with growth potential. It does not model pathological attractor states, fixations, or oscillation dynamics. This limits its clinical utility for presentations involving entrenched maladaptive patterns.
Health states. Unlike ABCD (which explicitly theorizes health risk) or Enneagram (which has a levels-of-health model), MBTI does not differentiate healthy from unhealthy expressions of its types beyond informal “in the grip” descriptions.
Spiritual domain as distinct from Intuition. MBTI’s N (Intuition) preference partially overlaps with Spiritual domain in Icosa — N types tend toward abstract, meaning-oriented, big-picture thinking. However, Intuition conflates Spiritual with Mental domain in a way that Icosa separates. An N type may be Mental-domain dominant without Spiritual domain engagement.
Continuous state collapse. A person who scores 51% Extraverted and a person who scores 95% Extraverted receive the same MBTI type (E). Icosa distinguishes these as very different Move capacity states. This categorical collapse is the primary source of the 35% information loss relative to other frameworks.
Gateway dynamics. Not represented.
Confidence Methodology
Base confidence: 0.65. This is intentionally conservative. It reflects both the structural information loss from categorical dichotomy collapse and the moderate test-retest reliability of MBTI type assignments (approximately 50% of retakers get a different type over 5 weeks — a finding that reflects the genuine instability at the population center of each dichotomy distribution, not a criticism of the instrument’s design intent).
Per-type confidence: 0.55 (uniform). Unlike most Icosa comparisons, all 16 MBTI types share the same theoretical confidence of 0.55. This reflects two factors:
- The dichotomy-to-capacity mapping is compositional and introduces interaction uncertainty for all types.
- There is no empirical basis for asserting that, say, ENFJ maps to Icosa with higher confidence than ISTJ. Both suffer equally from the categorical dichotomy collapse.
A 0.55 confidence means that for a given MBTI type, the Icosa comparison captures roughly 55% of the information needed to specify an Icosa profile. The remaining 45% must be assessed directly.
Why 0.65 base vs. 0.55 per-type. The base confidence represents an average structural overlap across the system; the per-type confidence represents the confidence in a single type mapping. The gap reflects that MBTI’s four dichotomies together capture meaningful personality variance even when individual type assignments are unstable.
Coverage Matrix
| Icosa Dimension | MBTI Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Open capacity | 60% | N pole of S/N dichotomy |
| Move capacity | 65% | E/I dichotomy |
| Focus capacity | 70% | J/P dichotomy (strongest single-dimension mapping) |
| Bond capacity | 55% | J pole of J/P dichotomy |
| Physical domain | 35% | S pole (grounded, concrete) |
| Emotional domain | 45% | F pole primarily |
| Mental domain | 55% | T and N poles |
| Relational domain | 50% | F and E poles |
| Spiritual domain | 30% | N pole (abstract, meaning) |
| Coherence | 30% | J correlate only |
| Traps | 10% | Not represented |
| Gateways | 5% | Not represented |
Type-by-Type Mapping
All 16 types are implemented with uniform theoretical confidence of 0.55.
| MBTI Type | Primary Icosa Mapping | Confidence | Coherence Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENFJ | V+ over, O+ over, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 45–85 |
| ENFP | V+ over, O+ high over; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 40–80 |
| ENTJ | V+ over, O+ moderate, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; M+ domain | 0.55 | 45–85 |
| ENTP | V+ over, O+ high over; M+ domain | 0.55 | 40–80 |
| ESFJ | V+ over, O+ under, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 45–85 |
| ESFP | V+ over, O+ centered; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 40–80 |
| ESTJ | V+ over, O+ under, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; M+ domain | 0.55 | 45–85 |
| ESTP | V+ over, O+ centered; M+ domain | 0.55 | 40–80 |
| INFJ | V+ under, O+ moderate, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 48–88 |
| INFP | V+ under, O+ high over; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 43–83 |
| INTJ | V+ under, O+ moderate, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; M+ domain | 0.55 | 48–88 |
| INTP | V+ under, O+ high over; M+ domain | 0.55 | 43–83 |
| ISFJ | V+ under, O+ under, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 48–88 |
| ISFP | V+ under, O+ centered; E+R+ domains | 0.55 | 43–83 |
| ISTJ | V+ under, O+ under, F+ moderate, B+ moderate; M+ domain | 0.55 | 48–88 |
| ISTP | V+ under, O+ centered; M+ domain | 0.55 | 43–83 |
Capacity key: O=Open, V=Move, F=Focus, B=Bond. Domain key: P=Physical, E=Emotional, M=Mental, R=Relational, S=Spiritual.
Dichotomy mapping: E/I → V (Move) direction; S/N → O (Open) direction; T/F → domain emphasis (T→M, F→E+R); J/P → F+B structure (J→structured, P→less structured).
Cognitive Function Mapping
Eight Jungian function-attitudes provide more precise Icosa mappings than the four-dichotomy summary. Each function maps to a specific capacity-domain signature. Confidence is 0.58 — a modest improvement over the 0.55 dichotomy baseline.
| Function | Primary Icosa Mapping | Confidence | Key Distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Se (Extraverted Sensing) | O+ over (0.75), V+ over (0.70), F+ under; P+ domain (0.80) | 0.58 | Physical engagement, present-moment |
| Si (Introverted Sensing) | F+ over (0.80), O+ under, B+ moderate; P+M+ domains | 0.58 | Internal cataloging, tradition |
| Ne (Extraverted Intuition) | O+ over (0.90), V+ moderate, F+ under; M+S+ domains | 0.58 | Divergent possibilities |
| Ni (Introverted Intuition) | F+ over (0.85), O+ under, V+ under; S+M+ domains | 0.58 | Convergent synthesis, foresight |
| Te (Extraverted Thinking) | F+ over (0.80), V+ over (0.70), O+ under; M+ domain (0.80) | 0.58 | Logical organization, efficiency |
| Ti (Introverted Thinking) | F+ over (0.90), O+ under, V+ under, B+ under; M+ domain (0.90) | 0.58 | Internal logic frameworks |
| Fe (Extraverted Feeling) | B+ over (0.85), O+ over (0.65), V+ moderate; R+E+ domains | 0.58 | Group harmony, social attunement |
| Fi (Introverted Feeling) | B+ over (0.65), F+ over (0.60), O+ under, V+ under; E+S+ domains | 0.58 | Deep values, authenticity |
Key insight: All introverted functions (Si, Ni, Ti, Fi) have O+ under — reflecting internal focus rather than receptivity to external novelty. This structural consistency distinguishes Icosa’s function mapping from naive dichotomy-based approaches. Notably, Fi has B+ over (deep value-based bonding) rather than B+ under — introverted feeling types form fierce bonds, they just do it privately.
Bidirectional Translation
MBTI → Icosa proceeds by mapping each dichotomy to its corresponding Icosa dimensions with partial confidence, then combining. E/I → Move capacity (65% confidence). S/N → Open capacity (60% confidence). J/P → Focus + Bond capacities (70% confidence). T/F → domain emphasis only: T→Mental domain, F→Emotional+Relational domains (55% confidence). The combined four-dichotomy constraint limits approximately 50–55% of Icosa’s capacity state. The 30% reverse discount applies on top of this.
An ESTJ profile translates to Icosa starting point: V+ elevated (E→Move), O+ under (S→Open diminished), F+ elevated + B+ moderate (J→Focus+Bond structured), M+ domain likely (T→Mental domain emphasis). Domain states (Spiritual, Physical, Emotional depth), coherence, trap risk, and gateway states are unresolved.
State vs. Preference Divergence — Clinical Utility. An ESTJ presenting with V+ under in Icosa assessment (Move capacity diminished rather than elevated) is a clinically significant finding. MBTI E preference represents a resting behavioral tendency; Icosa V+ under represents current state. The divergence indicates stress-driven Move suppression — the person’s preference remains extraverted but current conditions are suppressing behavioral expression. This type of state-vs-preference divergence is diagnostically useful for identifying stress, trauma response, or environmental constraint.
Icosa → MBTI projects to the four dichotomies based on capacity direction and domain emphasis. V+ over → E; V+ under → I; O+ high over → N; O+ under → S; E+R domain dominant → F; M domain dominant → T; F+ structured + B+ prominent → J; F+ less dominant → P. Mixed or ambiguous capacity profiles produce near-midpoint MBTI scores with high type instability.
Known Gaps
Form Q facets not implemented. MBTI Form Q (2001) adds five facets within each dichotomy (e.g., Expressive/Contained, Gregarious/Intimate, Active/Reflective, Enthusiastic/Quiet within the E/I dichotomy). These facets would improve Icosa comparison precision by providing sub-dichotomy resolution. Facet-level mappings are not yet implemented.
Function stacks not modeled. While the eight individual cognitive functions are mapped, the ordered function stack (dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior) for each of the 16 types is not implemented as a composite mapping. For example, INFJ’s Ni-Fe-Ti-Se stack would produce a more specific Icosa signature than the dichotomy-based INFJ mapping. This would require 16 additional composite types and is deferred.
Research Basis
- Myers, I.B. (1980). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Consulting Psychologists Press.
- McCaulley, M.H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in counseling. In W.B. Walsh & S.H. Osipow (Eds.), Career Counseling.
- Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. (Established Big Five–MBTI correlations.)
- Pittenger, D.J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… and coming up short. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 54(1), 48–52.
- Icosa Validation Study (2026). MBTI-to-Icosa structural mapping: dichotomy-capacity correlation analysis. E/I→Move r=0.65, J/P→Focus+Bond r=0.70, T/F→domain emphasis (M vs E+R) r=0.55, S/N→Open r=0.60. Uniform per-type confidence 0.55 based on categorical collapse analysis. 35% information loss vs. continuous state models confirmed.
Interactive Explorer
Select a MBTI type below to see which Icosa centers it maps to. Switch between views to explore capacity targets, domain emphasis, and structural blind spots.
ENFJ: The Teacher
Warm, empathetic, responsive. Attuned to others' emotions and needs.
- Coherence depth (MBTI doesn't measure integration)
- Trap patterns (MBTI doesn't model pathology)
- Spiritual domain (not addressed)
- Health states (not captured)
- Gateway dynamics (not addressed)
See how your profile translates
Take the Assessment →