Myer Brigg type for Ni > Ti > Fi > Se I'm reading about Myer Briggs personality types and Jung cognitive functions for the first time.   Based on my understanding, it seems like each of the 16 MB personality profiles attempt to map to some combination of the 8 Jung cognitive functions.

But I can't seem to find an MB profile that maps to the following Jung cognitive function combination


Primary function - Introverted Intuition
Auxillary function - Introverted Thinking
Tertiary function - Introverted Feeling
Inferior function - Extroverted Sensing


Is it because the Jung cognitive function combination I stated is a theoretically and/or practically impossible?  If so, why is that the case?
If you look more into the history of the creators of the Myer's Briggs, you will notice that it is loosely based off Jungian archetypes. It was not created with 16 types initially. Actually, the Jungian theory is only in a few scales (I-E, S-N, T-F), and one of the criticisms of this test is that the theoretical basis really was not preserved.

The combinations you have discussed might not be available, because statistically, it would not have a lot of strength. I would worry about intercorrelated scales, because there is some evidence out there that they are currently, and that does not provide a lot of statistical strength for an actual assessment. 

You could further investigate the manual and gain more insight through some of these readings:

Myers, I. Briggs. (2003). MBTI manual: a guide to the development and use of    the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 3rd ed. Mountain View, Calif.: CPP.

Capraro, R. M, &amp; Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score   reliability across: Studies a meta-analytic reliability generalization  study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 590-602. doi:     10.1177/0013164402062004004

Pulver, C. A., &amp; Kelly, K. R. (2008). Incremental validity of the Myers-Briggs type indicator in predicting academic major selection of undecided university students. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 441-455. doi: 10.1177/1069072708318902