Carl Jung on Socionics/MBTI

[Raver]

The Godfather of Socionics/MBTI personal thoughts on typology systems:

“…the opinion has gotten about that my method…consists in fitting [people] into this system and giving them corresponding ‘advice.’ This regrettable misunderstanding completely ignores the fact that this kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlour game…My typology is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight.” C.G. Jung, Psychological Types

I'm just curious if this influences your belief in Socionics in any way, shape or form?

[Radio]

it's sad that this quote (and jung's approach to psychology) isn't common knowledge already, given how much of socionics is derived from jung.

[Zero11]

...but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight.”

[Ath Is Cool]

what does he mean by "a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material"?

[Absurd]

That poor IEI is rolling is his grave now, seeing Buddha, his maker, and spirits, not necessarily rich in alcohol.

[InvisibleJim]

The Godfather of Socionics/MBTI personal thoughts on typology systems:

I'm just curious if this influences your belief in Socionics in any way, shape or form?

Odd that when I raise this point I'm told 'read Jung' and 'you dont know your type'.

Such an intelligent community!



You will note that when asked about his type jung stated something like 'I think I have a lot of focus on thinking, but I see lots of other things too'

[Absurd]

[Nowisthetime]

Socionics is big improvement from Jung. He didn't know at that point how far his typology could be taken. Psychological types was pubished in 1921.

What's wrong with typing at first sight? It often works.

[ashlesha]

raver what the fuck are you doing on a socionics forum omg learn model a and you'll find out that it's true

[Raver]

raver what the fuck are you doing on a socionics forum omg learn model a and you'll find out that it's true

[Beautiful sky]

I don't have the book any more but in another paragraph he writes that he used his system to type people and give appropriate and corresponding advice/help. So, while most people apply Socionics as kind of a fun game here, the theory corresponds with reality for me and I use it that way.

[Raver]

what does he mean by "a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material"?

My assumption is that it was Jung's goal to simply organize the known behavioral patterns and thought processes he had observed within individuals into something comprehensible to understand the overall human psyche and not to put people into boxes to differentiate them from each other.

[Nowisthetime]

My assumption is that it was Jung's goal to simply organize the known behavioral patterns and thought processes he had observed within individuals into something comprehensible to understand the overall human psyche and not to put people into boxes to differentiate them from each other.

That's the practical use of a typology though. You need to box things if you're gonna put it into practise. We use all kinds of typologies all the time when we box and differentiate between plants, animals, trees, illnesses, countries. Of course one can approach these typologies in a strict abstract way, like maybe a theoretical zoologist would do, but there are a lot of useful things to learn when you apply the typology.

[strangeling]

That's the practical use of a typology though. You need to box things if you're gonna put it into practise. We use all kinds of typologies all the time when we box and differentiate between plants, animals, trees, illnesses, countries. Of course one can approach these typologies in a strict abstract way, like maybe a theoretical zoologist would do, but there are a lot of useful things to learn when you apply the typology.

That's true. However, the more intelligent the organism, the more room it has to adapt and change. What you learn about someone today might not be true tomorrow and choosing to project today into the future brings its own kind of unique problems; not to mention that what you might have learned about someone probably doesn't include their whole history, making what you know incomplete and often wrong in characterizing them.
Certain things come to mind where someone might believe other people can't change and judge them by their past and not what they could be capable of. At other times this can mean making a decision not to associate with other people because of a bad initial impression.

[krieger]

what does he mean by "a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material"?

probably something completely unrelated to empiricism, because Jung didn't understand the term. if you don't believe me, he actually admitted that he didn't once one of his critics pointed out to him how bastardizing his usage of it was. what jung probably did mean in that passage is "phenomenological", meaning that he was talking about a pool of nebulous subjective impressions and vistas, rather than anything quantifyably "empirical".

[Beautiful sky]

A tool used for organization.

[Nowisthetime]

That's true. However, the more intelligent the organism, the more room it has to adapt and change. What you learn about someone today might not be true tomorrow and choosing to project today into the future brings its own kind of unique problems; not to mention that what you might have learned about someone probably doesn't include their whole history, making what you know incomplete and often wrong in characterizing them.
Certain things come to mind where someone might believe other people can't change and judge them by their past and not what they could be capable of. At other times this can mean making a decision not to associate with other people because of a bad initial impression.

Of course typology can be used in the wrong way. I don't have any illusions that type should describe the whole personality, that would go against the whole concept of type, since typologies always ignore certain individual differences to focus on group traits (that's the whole point of it), otherwise we would just talk about groups of identical individuals. People of the same type can behave very differently, but I still think it's meaningful to assign a type to a person, the structure is still there, and it shows more and more as you get to know the person. That goes with any typology. If I type something as an "apple tree" I know that the apples might be sour or sweet, taste good or bad, the tree might be small or big etc. However, it's still useful to know what an apple tree is in contrast to for example a Christmas tree.

[Ath Is Cool]

probably something completely unrelated to empiricism, because Jung didn't understand the term. if you don't believe me, he actually admitted that he didn't once one of his critics pointed out to him how bastardizing his usage of it was. what jung probably did mean in that passage is "phenomenological", meaning that he was talking about a pool of nebulous subjective impressions and vistas, rather than anything quantifyably "empirical".

kinda makes me wonder how many other terms he misused. it's a good thing a lot of his terminology he created himself, or defines in the work.