Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Jung's Temperaments

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung's Temperaments

    OK we all know Kiersey's temperaments. Socionics' temperaments are similar. They are made up of your version and ality: Ij, Ej, Ep, Ip.

    But let's take a look at Jung's own description of the four combinations of these two preferences...

    I am sure you'd find many things that you have not noticed before. I had to abridge and change some of the wording to make it easier to understand. The translation was terribly verbose and confusing...

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung (Psychological Types): Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types…
    For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion.

    As a rule rational type has always a typical reasonal variation. The premise of Introverted Rational type is the predominance of the subjective factor existing beneath every conclusion and colouring every judgment. And he does not have to break any rule of logic. The superior value of the subjective factor to the objective is automatically assumed. A capital error regularly creeps in here, when one labours to prove a fallacy in the conclusion, instead of realizing the difference of the psychological premise. Such a realization is a difficult matter for every rational type, since it undermines the apparent absolute validity of his own rationale.

    Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates [sanction of the victim] is against him. He feels himself to be the underdog. And in so far as he is himself a convinced advocate of the general style of the age, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible is opposed to his principle.

    Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin.

    The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he is making a big mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object. By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert… Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judgment of 'egoist' would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by own efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.

    Jung (Psychological Types): Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types…
    I term the two types [The Thinking Extravert, and the Feeling Extravert] rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of reasoning or judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment.

    But we must not overlook the point, whether by 'reasoning' we are referring to the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology, or to the standpoint of an observer, who perceives and judges from without. The latter could just as easily arrive at an opposite judgment.

    In its TOTALITY, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality!

    The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in these types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim.

    The limitation of sensation and intuition is of course not absolute. These functions exist, for they are hardwired, but their products are subject to the choice of reasoning judgment. It is not the intensity of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment. Thus, in a certain sense… the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the Thinking type, or thinking in that of the Feeling type.

    They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally is consistent with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them [accidentally, as a result of the influence of the unconscious] corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions.

    Since there are vast numbers of men whose lives consist in what happens to them more than in actions resulting from reasoned intention, it might conceivably happen, that such a man, after careful analysis, would describe both our types as irrational. We must discount however, that often a person’s unconscious makes a far stronger impression than his conscious, and obviously his actions often have considerably more weight than his reasoned motivations.

    [He is saying that Rational Extraverts’ are at the end of the day fairly irrational. They are so unselfconscious that they don’t notice how much their actions are influenced by their irrational unconscious functions.]

    The rationality of Rational Extraverts is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such…

    Yet reason is very largely subjective and individual. This aspect is increasingly repressed, the more the significance of the object is exalted. Both the subject and subjective reason, are always threatened with repression and, when it descends, they fall under the tyranny of the unconscious, which in this case possesses most unpleasant qualities.

    In addition, there are primitive sensations, which reveal themselves in compulsive forms, as, for instance, an abnormal compulsive pleasure seeking in every conceivable direction. There are also primitive intuitions, which can become a positive torture to the individuals concerned, not to mention their entourage. Everything disagreeable and painful, everything disgusting, ugly, and evil is scented out or suspected creating misunderstandings of the most poisonous kind.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types…
    I call the two preceding types irrational because their choices are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon intensity of perception. Their perception functions without the censorship of judgment. In this respect both of these types have a considerable superiority over the two judging [Extraverted Judging] types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not.

    One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and when it does not yield itself to logic we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; but in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception! Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational.

    But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience (as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience). But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they live out a largely unconscious existence.

    Since the unconscious, in spite of its separation from the conscious subject, is always reappearing on the scene, the ACTUAL LIFE of the irrational types exhibits striking judgments which take the form of apparent sophistries, cold-hearted criticisms, and an apparently calculating selection of people. These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous.

    To the rationally orientated mind, the real character of such people might well appear rationalistic and purposeful in the bad sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and, therefore, quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely orientated by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to the rational judgment.

    It may appear to a rationally orientated mind that such an assemblage of accidentals, hardly deserves the name 'psychology.' The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational; for he sees him as something only half alive, whose only aim in life consists in fastening the fetters of reason upon everything living. Naturally, these are gross extremes; but they occur.

    When he is conceived in the light of what happens to him [i.e. his unconscious rational judgments and aims that overtake him], the irrational might easily be represented as a rational of inferior quality. This sounds strange to the rational mind, but it merely equals the astonishment of the irrational, when he discovers someone who can set the ideas of reason above the living and actual event.

    Such a thing seems scarcely credible to him. It is, as a rule, quite hopeless to look to him for any recognition of principles in this direction, since a rational understanding is just as unknown and, in fact, tiresome to him as the idea of making a contract, without mutual discussion and obligations, appears unthinkable to the rational type.

    This brings us to the question of rapport between people of different types. The recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord.

    This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition! A rational would complain that the rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance.

    To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees humanity. As a result, each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms.

    Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. But a psychological conscientiousness of this kind is by no means usual. Usually a kind of fake rapport is reached through projection: one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other intuits or senses a common interest. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.

    A relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance.
    [Note: all this brings me to a clear realization that a person does not just have a single psychological type but is more or less a system of alternating types…]

    Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types…
    The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Their greatest fault – their incommunicability. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meager capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a observation. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless confusion. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in accidental manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions.

    Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not realize that their habitual communications to their circle express very little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up.

    The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanor towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of doing so.

    We shall form a fairer judgment of such people and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision.

    But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.
    From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within. In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. From their lives, and not the least from what is just, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that all success and happiness are external, and that only the right method is needed to attain the haven of one's desires. [In other words they teach the active virtue of contentment – enjoying and poeticizing the cubic content of experience.]

    Until we meet again!

  4. #4
    Creepy-pikachu

    Default

    This ass monkey is the reason I found 16t. He was in some user group that I was in on Orkut, when Orkut was new, and then he got banned. I was curious as to what the hell he was talking about, so I followed him here, and he got banned here, too.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is some blahblah to me, no offence to Jung quoting ILIs.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevKamensky View Post
    This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational
    No duh.

    whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition! A rational would complain that the rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance.
    This can make sense, I think, but when one actually take tiny chat into account, it doesn't sound okay.

    To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human[...]
    What?

    Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. But a psychological conscientiousness of this kind is by no means usual. Usually a kind of fake rapport is reached through projection: one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other intuits or senses a common interest. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.
    I found korpsey in temperaments, this isn't that missed.

    A relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance.
    [Note: all this brings me to a clear realization that a person does not just have a single psychological type but is more or less a system of alternating types…]
    Jung has spoken, still don't know what he means. For an introverted temperament to have a "system, yes, system of alternating types, it enables it to have extraverted rational types as well, and when it enables/encourages(?) that, the whole point, that is, the difference between extraverted rational temperaments and introverted irrational one, is moot.

    [...]In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture.
    Cool.

    enjoying and poeticizing the cubic content of experience.]
    Would like to know what Lev actually copied here, I mean what does this mean? I can write phallusising the developed embrace and futurism, but I don't know what that means as well, so wonder whether somebody actually does.

  7. #7
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's not to get? I think "Cubic content of experience" means a multi-dimensional, non-linear, non-reductionistic perception.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •