In the book ‘Jung’s Compass of Psychological Types‘, the author, James Graham Johnston, assesses the types of the people listed below.
It should be noted that Johnston does not subscribe to the law of opposites as postulated by later theoreticians in the field. As such, his types are different and cannot be compared to the standard 16 types. For example, Johnston identifies himself as an Ni-Ti type with an Fe-Se shadow, so for example, according to his conception of function orders, his function order could be (a) Ni-Ti-Fe-Se or (b) Ti-Ni-Fe-Se, or something entirely different.
Although he agrees that there are a “primary 16” types, Johnston does not rule out that there could be more, saying, perhaps in jest, that there might as well be 2400 types in Jung’s typology when all the variations are factored in.
| Johnston himself | Ni + Ti |
| Jung | Introvert + Ti + Ni + Si* |
| Freud | Te |
| Eleanor Roosevelt | Introvert + Fi |
| Chagall | Preference for N over S* |
| Vermeer | Preference for S over N* |
| Plato | Ni + Ti |
| Aristotle | Se |
| Darwin | Te |
| Elizabeth I | Fe |
| Julia Child | Se |
| Andrew Carnegie | Ne |
| Gandhi | Ni |
| Georgia O’Keeffe | Si |
| Kant | Ti + Ni |
| Schopenhauer | Ni + Ti |
| Anne Frank | Fi |
| Paul McCartney | Introvert |
| J.S. Bach | Introvert |
| Einstein | Introvert + Ni + Ti |
| Frank Lloyd Wright | Introvert |
| Bill Gates | Ne |
| Steve Jobs | Ne (dom) + Si (aux) |
| Howard Hughes | Ne |
| Newton | Ti |
| Planck | Ti |
| Bohr | Ti |
| Lao Tse | Fi |
| Rabindranath Tagore | Fi |
| John Keats* | Fi |
| Monet | Si |
| Van Gogh | Si |
| Bob Dylan | Si |
| Ansel Adams | Si |
| Thomas Mann | Si |
| Coco Chanel | Si (dom) + Ne (aux) |
| Meister Eckhart | Ni |
| Jakob Boeme | Ni |
| Rufus Jones | Ni |
| George Fox | Ni |
| Napoleon | Ne* |
| Karl Rahner | Ti |
| French People | Se* |
*(Talking on the conceptual level and not necessarily the individual)
I have not read the book but is it possible that the author confused what these individuals are most dependent on for their lifestyles or occupation – thus, typing their ways of life and not the persons themselves – and their whole personalities? Does he mention anything along those lines?
It is also possible that he was identifying function-attitude axes.
Where the author has inserted qualifiers that signify that he is speaking conceptually, we have marked this with an asterisk, as noted.
In general the author takes pains to stress that he is talking about types of cognition (as Jung) and not functional roles in society (as Keirsey).
The author does not appear to believe that function-axes are necessarily in the same opposition that Jung and Myers thought. He appears to think that Si and Ne can go together in consciousness.