Carl Jung's Socionics Type (old discussions)

[hellothere]

why is that?

you don't see some Ni with concepts like the collective unconscious and universal archetypes, and his in rather rambling descriptive style of communication?

not to mention "synchronicity":

Jung coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "'acausal connecting principle'", "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism". Jung introduced the concept as early as the 1920s but only gave a full statement of it in 1951 in an Eranos lecture, then in 1952 published a paper "Synchronicity — An Acausal Connecting Principle" in a volume with a related study by the physicist (and Nobel laureate) Wolfgang Pauli.[1]

It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious [2], in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlay the whole of human experience and history — social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. Events that happen which appear at first to be coincidence, but are later found to be causally related are termed as "incoincident".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

[Hitta]

I haven't said that belief in God is an LII trait. Neither have I said that most or even many LIIs actually believe in God. I have only said that belief in God is more common in LIIs than in ILIs, and that the empirical evidence for that is rather obvious. And Kant and Hegel were both theists. They are good examples of the spiritualism that is related to thinking in general.

Um, did your mother deprive you of oxygen when you were young?

[strrrng]

Um, did your mother deprive you of oxygen when you were young?

rofl

[Park]

NT my ass. He is the same type as this guy:



and this guy:



and this guy:



and this guy:

[Park]

[jason_m]

I don't mean to be rude, but since when has V.I. been a fool-proof method of typing?

Jason

[Park]

I don't mean to be rude, but since when has V.I. been a fool-proof method of typing?

Since never. I didn't say it was. And that's not what my typing is solely based on.

[jason_m]

Since never. I didn't say it was. And that's not what my typing is solely based on.

Fair enough.

Jason

[aestrivex]

thanks, SG.

[aestrivex]

winterpark, has anyone told you that you're the same person as rocky?

[crazedrat]

Carl Jung, the man who ~wrote~ the functions, typed himself as Ni dominant.
K?
Reread that, you fucking retards.
Yeah, he wrote the god damn functions, and he typed himself Ni.
He also said he had a strong affinity for thinking.
....
.....
End of discussion.
The guy is the fucking grandfather of socionics, and you think he mistyped himself.
saying he typed himself as Ti... umm, go read psychological types again.

[Park]

Carl Jung, the man who ~wrote~ the functions, typed himself as Ni dominant.
K?
Reread that, you fucking retards.
Yeah, he wrote the god damn functions, and he typed himself Ni.
He also said he had a strong affinity for thinking.
....
.....
End of discussion.

Wrong, fucktard.
Reread that.

[crazedrat]

k, you're right. my memory was wrong.
i agree he is ISTj-Ti.
I've been looking into it some more.
He also reminds me alot of Timothy Leary, who is ISTj-Ti. Read Learys biography on the web.
I think the VI is a good indication.
He looks alot like Leary as well.
Ni / Ti / Se makes sense for him.
I've met an LSI-Ti in real life... the guy was really out there.
They have a strong, yet "misunderstood" Ni function.

[munenori2]

I have a hard time believing that the guy who wrote on all this stuff was, intuitively speaking, spewing out of an Ni HA.

[aestrivex]

it's fairly easy to see why an ILI might focus on the logical aspect of their persona and call themself an introverted thinker in jung's system; i probably would.

it's not so easy to see how an IEI or EII would do that. nor is it easy to see how a type with weak or devalued Ni would have as strong a grasp as jung did on the nature of his psychological motivations.

[Expat]

it's fairly easy to see why an ILI might focus on the logical aspect of their persona and call themself an introverted thinker in jung's system; i probably would.

Yes. Another example of this is that enneatype 5 seems derived from Jung's Introverted Thinking type, and it obviously appplies to ILIs.

it's not so easy to see how an IEI or EII would do that. nor is it easy to see how a type with weak or devalued Ni would have as strong a grasp as jung did on the nature of his psychological motivations.

That is a very good point; my own reasons for thinking INFj are related to watching a one-hour documentary, where it is shown that after his break with Freud, he withdrew to his house at a Swiss lake. He said that he discovered that he only felt well when sitting by the lake, throwing stones in the water, and the like; yet he did not understand well why. He did that whilst still sort of stunned at Freud's reactions. In later life, he spent all his time in that house surrounded by close family and friends, welcoming those who wanted to talk to him but not preferring not to get involved in psychological debate otherwise. That is of course not impossible for ILI or LII but it does have a Delta flavor with valued but weak Si. As for the point on "the nature of his pyschological motivations", I really don't see a problem with an EII doing that, whether it is explained by Fi, Ne, or Ni.

[Phaedrus]

Carl Jung, the man who ~wrote~ the functions, typed himself as Ni dominant.

No, he typed himself as Ti dominant.

Reread that, you fucking retards.

Reread Psychological Types and the five Tavistock lectures, you disgustingly ignorant idiot.

Yeah, he wrote the god damn functions, and he typed himself Ni. He also said he had a strong affinity for thinking.

He did not. You deserve no respect what so ever, because you are a liar who is just bluffing. You don't know what you are talking about here. For those who are to lazy to watch the whole interview with Jung, here is what he says about his own type:

“Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?”
“Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.”
“And reached a conclusion?”
“Wait a ... You see the type is nothing static. It changes within the course of life. But I most certainly was captized by Thinking. I always was, from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of Intuition too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now, that gives you all the necessary data for a diagnosis.”

The guy is the fucking grandfather of socionics, and you think he mistyped himself.

Jung correctly typed himself as a rational and thinking type. He identified himself as a introverted thinker with rather strong intuition (which Kant, another introverted thinker, had not according to Jung)

saying he typed himself as Ti... umm, go read psychological types again.

Yes, you should definitely do that, you incompetent lying fraud, you disgusting charlatan and brainwasher.

[Phaedrus]

k, you're right. my memory was wrong.
i agree he is ISTj-Ti.

Good that you can admit a mistake. But you have to admit yet another mistake, because Jung was not an ISTj. Are you all fucking retards? How can any sensible person believe that Jung was an ISTj? You are all brainwashed.

[aestrivex]

Yes. Another example of this is that enneatype 5 seems derived from Jung's Introverted Thinking type, and it obviously appplies to ILIs.

not derived, per se. the enneagram was certainly not developed with jungian psychology in mind. frankly i think ILI with Se DS is the best overall fit to E5 as far as the motivations of withdrawing into one's own mind as a defense mechanism for hiding from the outside world.

i think LII fits fairly well too, but overall the description seems more natural to someone with Se DS.

That is a very good point; my own reasons for thinking INFj are related to watching a one-hour documentary, where it is shown that after his break with Freud, he withdrew to his house at a Swiss lake. He said that he discovered that he only felt well when sitting by the lake, throwing stones in the water, and the like; yet he did not understand well why. He did that whilst still sort of stunned at Freud's reactions. In later life, he spent all his time in that house surrounded by close family and friends, welcoming those who wanted to talk to him but not preferring not to get involved in psychological debate otherwise. That is of course not impossible for ILI or LII but it does have a Delta flavor with valued but weak Si.

devil's advocate here: would a type with valued Si, even weak Si, be oblivious to the value of that kind of a relaxing environment? even if it were "healthy?"

by comparison, consider how Si role might react, particularly if that kind of an environment gave jung the opportunity to relax his mind in a way that was largely absent in the rest of his thinking.

perhaps i'm projecting E5 motivations onto jung here; i've seen him typed elsewhere as E9 but i don't think i accept that at all.

As for the point on "the nature of his pyschological motivations", I really don't see a problem with an EII doing that, whether it is explained by Fi, Ne, or Ni.

overall, when those psychological motivations deal in unconscious metaphors and symbols, human archetypes, dream states, and understanding the inner workings of the unconscious mind, i find it hard to relate to Fi or Ne to any degree of effectiveness.

[aestrivex]

“Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?”
“Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.”
“And reached a conclusion?”
“Wait a ... You see the type is nothing static. It changes within the course of life. But I most certainly was captized by Thinking. I always was, from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of Intuition too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now, that gives you all the necessary data for a diagnosis.”

lol. phaedrus is right, people; you SHOULD read that.

far from diagnosing himself as Ti, he diagnoses himself as thinking, intuitive, and not feeling -- while asking the interviewer to make the diagnosis rather than anything resembling a systematic response. and all the while he maintains self-detachment from his theories as well as the fundamental uncertainty of it all -- his theories being, in his mind, only a series of observations about the tendencies of the functioning of the human mind.

is that the kind of vague uncertainty we know and love from Ti dominants? or, as it were, EIIs?

[aestrivex]

if anyone can't tell, this is a typing i am extremely certain about.

[crazedrat]

No, he typed himself as Ti dominant.


Reread Psychological Types and the five Tavistock lectures, you disgustingly ignorant idiot.


He did not. You deserve no respect what so ever, because you are a liar who is just bluffing. You don't know what you are talking about here. For those who are to lazy to watch the whole interview with Jung, here is what he says about his own type:

“Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?”
“Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.”
“And reached a conclusion?”
“Wait a ... You see the type is nothing static. It changes within the course of life. But I most certainly was captized by Thinking. I always was, from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of Intuition too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now, that gives you all the necessary data for a diagnosis.”


Jung correctly typed himself as a rational and thinking type. He identified himself as a introverted thinker with rather strong intuition (which Kant, another introverted thinker, had not according to Jung)


Yes, you should definitely do that, you incompetent lying fraud, you disgusting charlatan and brainwasher.


Are you all fucking retards? How can any sensible person believe that Jung was an ISTj? You are all brainwashed.

you are right, he may be LII. I am not convinced on either LII or ILI.
His own words certainly seem to dismiss LSI-Ti.
Although LSI-Ti can, I think, in certain ways identify more with Ni than with Se if they are maladapted.
But I do not think this tendency is strong enough to justify Jungs words above.
Most of my resistance to the idea of LII, comes from him being very open minded and willing to consider even the most bizarre and abstract of theories; where LIIs tend to focus more on the concrete.. their perceptions being derived from Ne & in the name of achieving Si.
I am wondering if, once a certain level of intelligence is reached, functions begin to converge.
Tcaud and I talked about it a while back.
It is possible he may "falsely emulate" functions which are not a part of his ego block, through the coherence of those in his ego block.
an example would be if I logically acknowledged other peoples need for emotional support, or if I understood the implications of neglecting Ti wholistic coherence in how my ideas may be received by others ..(this has began happening to me as I have expanded my awareness of socionics- that I falsely emulate different functions using my ego functions. it happens often. I wouldn't be suprised of Mr. Jung himself had alot of this going on)
It is also worth considering MBTI & Socionics were not developed at this point in time. An ILI would strongly identify with both Te and Ti. Very easily they could see themselves as a strong thinker, I think; and to some extent falsely associate Ni with thinking .. particularly given Jungs somewhat ~off~ interpretation of introverted intuition as a prophetic function .. his Ni description seems to me he was projecting his own experiences, which were unique to him, into his work.
You can't read the Ni description he wrote and tell me it wasn't written almost like a mental autobiography.
This could also be a projection of his psychoticism, which most people try and pretend wasn't a component to his personality.
This psychoticism could also explain why LSI-Ti seems to identify more with internal reality than external reality; particularly in light of what I mentioned above on LSI-Ti & them innately identifying strongly with Ni.
Most of why I say Ti dominant is because his language in his writings is too vague and structurally oriented for Te (and less object oriented). But if he was ILI-Ni this may go some ways toward explaining his language. Also, the content of what he is discussing is inherently vague. He was a very talented writer, who developed a style of writing. This difficult-to-pin writing style could also be explained by the functional convergence I alluded to earlier.
...In light of all this information, if I had bet money on an answer, and I could only choose one, I would probably choose "ILI who was also a genius and a psychopath".
So I'm not settling on one. It is enough to say he is a genius. If he was around today I'm sure we could type him.
In my second reply I acknowledged my memory was wrong with the first reply, I just didnt feel like deleting it.
...yeah, about that. ..my memory wasn't really wrong, my introduction to personality textbook was wrong. but w/e. it says "introverted intuition ... blah blah blah. ... jung typed himself as this"
I honestly didn't expect anyone to care enough to freak the fuck out like you did.
Anyway, I cannot watch the video because my computers sound card is malfunctioning, so I am going to step out of this debate and let you two go at it.
so yeah...

[Expat]

lol. phaedrus is right, people; you SHOULD read that.

far from diagnosing himself as Ti, he diagnoses himself as thinking, intuitive, and not feeling -- while asking the interviewer to make the diagnosis rather than anything resembling a systematic response. and all the while he maintains self-detachment from his theories as well as the fundamental uncertainty of it all -- his theories being, in his mind, only a series of observations about the tendencies of the functioning of the human mind.

is that the kind of vague uncertainty we know and love from Ti dominants? or, as it were, EIIs?

No, you're right. Based on that exchange, the case for ILI is clear.

[Wittmont]

Expat, you mention Jung's reaction and withdrawal to his house by the lake as an EII reaction. But as IEI was also mentioned, and that reaction could well be IEI too. I am not saying Jung was IEI but I have not left that out completely. (I think Jund is ILI>IEI>LII).

Jung had a very expansive mind, extremely strong Ni. He looked at many fields and cultural phenomena and tied them together in a whole complete concept. His interest in alchemy and focus on personal creativity (just look at how he loved to paint mandalas) and the sculpture in his yard that he cut from a stone.

The main reason it is hard for me to see Jung as ILI is that he feels 'positive' to me. ILI's can be 'dry' and 'dreary' and 'negative' in that they often suck energy from me (woody allen yuk). I get none of that from Jung. On the contrary he energizes me and I feel I 'get' his concepts easily. Also in the videos on youtube he feels quite warm and 'positive' to me.

General question: Would an ILI put so much effort into promoting personal creativity as a way to connect with your inner self/unconscious?

ILI according to wikisocion:

"ILIs naturally possess a strong command of logical systems such as formal logic and mathematics. However, they tend to be very skeptical of extensively systematic explanations of real-world phenomena. While they readily acknowledge the usefulness of many proven systematic, mathematical, and symmetrical systems in science, they tend to be disdainful of theoretical and practical models that describe an absolute reality or that do not have some empirical basis. The ILI vision of reality, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise, is that of one self-contained universe of too many processes and mysteries to count."

Jung is famous for his 'larger than the self' theories - like the collective unconscious as an extension of the personal unconscious.

Isn't that the main criticism of Jung in academic circles, that he is too 'mystical' [draws too far going conclusions from personal experiences] rather than 'scientifc' [completely based on empirical evidence]?

Wikisocion has an interesting take on the ILI role in life:

The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.

Ok, after having rambled (sorry T types) my way here I think Jung is ILI. (I realized I had problems typing Jung as ILI because of a schewed image of what ILI's can be)

[Phaedrus]

lol. phaedrus is right, people; you SHOULD read that.

far from diagnosing himself as Ti, he diagnoses himself as thinking, intuitive, and not feeling -- while asking the interviewer to make the diagnosis rather than anything resembling a systematic response. and all the while he maintains self-detachment from his theories as well as the fundamental uncertainty of it all -- his theories being, in his mind, only a series of observations about the tendencies of the functioning of the human mind.

is that the kind of vague uncertainty we know and love from Ti dominants? or, as it were, EIIs?

And when you have listened to Jung in the interview you should go an read Psychological Types, where he states that he is a rational type and where it is completely obvious that he favours Ti over Te. If you then have a minimum of capacity for logical reasoning, you can put the pieces together in your brain.

Besides from that, anyone who can't see that Jung is an INTj in that video is incompetent at typing. It doesn't matter that Jung was correct about his own type. Even if he would have been wrong about it, it is totally obvious that he was an INTj in Socionics.

[crazedrat]

ONE TWO THREE FOUR.
........
..........
.............
...............
! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~
! ~ ! ~
....
~~
!~!~!~!~
....
~~
....!!....!!!!......!!.....
!!!!~~~~
....!!....!!!!......!!....
! ~ ! ~ ! ~
!!
! ~ ! ~ ! ~
!!
....
WELL EVERY HIGHWAY THAT I GO DOWN SEEMS TO BE LONGER THAN THE LAST ONE THAT I KNEW ABOUT, OH WELL
....
....
AND EVERY GIRL THAT I WALK AROUND SEEMS TO BE MORE OF AN ILLUSION THAN THE LAST ONE THAT I FOUND, OH WELL
....
.....
AND THERE'S SO MANY IN FRONT OF ME WEARING CANES AND RUBY RINGS, ITS LIKE AN ITALIAN EXPLOSION WHEN HE SINGS
WITH EVERY CHANCE TO SET HIMSELF ON FIRE, HE JUST ENDS UP DOING THE SAME THING

! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~
! ~ ! ~
....
~~
!~!~!~!~
....
~~
....!!....!!!!......!!.....
!!!!~~~~
....!!....!!!!......!!....
! ~ ! ~ ! ~
!!
! ~ ! ~ ! ~
!!
....
WELL EACH BEAUTIFUL THING THAT I COME ACROSS TELLS ME TO STOP MOVING AND SHAKE THIS RIDDLE OFF, OH WELL..
....
~~~.~~~.
~~~~.....
AND THERE WAS A TIME THAT ALL I WANTED WAS MY ICE CREAM COLDER AND A LITTLE CREAM SODA, OH WELL OH WELL! ..
AND A WOODEN BOX AND AN ALLY FULL OF ROCKS WAS ALL I HAD TO CARE ABOUT, OH WELL OH WELL!
..
! ~ ! ~
NOW MY MIND IS FILLED WITH RUBBER TIRED AND FOREST FIRES AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS WHERE I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO AT WHICH POINT GOD SCREAMS AT ME THERE'S NOTHING LEFT FOR ME TO TELL YOU
!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~!~!~
NOTHING LEFT FOR ME TO TELL YOU~
~!~!~!
..
~!~!~!
..
~!~!~!..
!!!...!.
!.

[Expat]

Expat, you mention Jung's reaction and withdrawal to his house by the lake as an EII reaction. But as IEI was also mentioned, and that reaction could well be IEI too. I am not saying Jung was IEI but I have not left that out completely. (I think Jund is ILI>IEI>LII).

Lots of types could react in that way, but what called my intention is that he specifically mentioned how the only thing that seemed to give him peace was the "throwing stones in the lake" thing, and he wasn't sure why. However, I agree that it could mean lots of things.

Jung had a very expansive mind, extremely strong Ni. He looked at many fields and cultural phenomena and tied them together in a whole complete concept. His interest in alchemy and focus on personal creativity (just look at how he loved to paint mandalas) and the sculpture in his yard that he cut from a stone.

I don't see that as inconsistent with EII or LII at all.

The main reason it is hard for me to see Jung as ILI is that he feels 'positive' to me. ILI's can be 'dry' and 'dreary' and 'negative' in that they often suck energy from me (woody allen yuk). I get none of that from Jung. On the contrary he energizes me and I feel I 'get' his concepts easily. Also in the videos on youtube he feels quite warm and 'positive' to me.

I know what you're saying, and that is another reason why I thought EII. But it does not rule out ILI.

General question: Would an ILI put so much effort into promoting personal creativity as a way to connect with your inner self/unconscious?

ILI according to wikisocion:

"ILIs naturally possess a strong command of logical systems such as formal logic and mathematics. However, they tend to be very skeptical of extensively systematic explanations of real-world phenomena. While they readily acknowledge the usefulness of many proven systematic, mathematical, and symmetrical systems in science, they tend to be disdainful of theoretical and practical models that describe an absolute reality or that do not have some empirical basis. The ILI vision of reality, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise, is that of one self-contained universe of too many processes and mysteries to count."

Jung is famous for his 'larger than the self' theories - like the collective unconscious as an extension of the personal unconscious.

Isn't that the main criticism of Jung in academic circles, that he is too 'mystical' [draws too far going conclusions from personal experiences] rather than 'scientifc' [completely based on empirical evidence]?

Wikisocion has an interesting take on the ILI role in life:

The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.

Ok, after having rambled (sorry T types) my way here I think Jung is ILI. (I realized I had problems typing Jung as ILI because of a schewed image of what ILI's can be)

I think that what you described is a manifestation of leading ; the difference is that the ILI's is fed by , and the IEI's, by . In my opinion, if one of the two, Jung is of the former; also, his view of the Introverted Intuitive type is precisely a "critique" of +, although extremely unfair:

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition.

[Phaedrus]

you are right, he may be LII. I am not convinced on either LII or ILI.

Watch the interview and you will be convinced.

His own words certainly seem to dismiss LSI-Ti.

Yes, and he is totally different from any existing ISTj. ISTjs can't be like Jung is in that video.

Most of my resistance to the idea of LII, comes from him being very open minded and willing to consider even the most bizarre and abstract of theories; where LIIs tend to focus more on the concrete.. their perceptions being derived from Ne & in the name of achieving Si.
I am wondering if, once a certain level of intelligence is reached, functions begin to converge.

I have met more than one LII in real life that has been very similar to Jung in the respects you mention here. Jung is just like my own INTj father in many ways, not only in their thinking but they are also exactly the same in their outward expressions, for example facial expressions and manner of speaking.

It is also worth considering MBTI & Socionics were not developed at this point in time. An ILI would strongly identify with both Te and Ti.

But an ILI would not identify with all aspects of Ti. Read Psychological Types again and study in particular the passages where Jung compares Ti with Te and connects the latter with modern science (read: positivism, empiricism ...) and disassociates himself from it. Jung does not like Te, not in any form. His attitude is clearly anti-creative Te.

Very easily they could see themselves as a strong thinker, I think; and to some extent falsely associate Ni with thinking .. particularly given Jungs somewhat ~off~ interpretation of introverted intuition as a prophetic function .. his Ni description seems to me he was projecting his own experiences, which were unique to him, into his work.
You can't read the Ni description he wrote and tell me it wasn't written almost like a mental autobiography.

I can, and I have done it. Have you really missed that Jung writes about Ni from from a distance, that he is an outside observer of Ni and that he clearly does not understand what Ni really is? His description of Ni is not made from a leading Ni perspective, and that's why it looks so strange and can be quite misleading, especially if you are an ILI and thus will have some trouble identifying with it.

But you are on to a very important thing here. It is obvious that Socionics has incorporated a lot of what Jung has said about intuition, including his own experiences in the "mental autobiography" you have in mind, into its understanding and descriptions of , and that is a mistake that is still causing major problems for socionists.

In essence, in Socionics is too heavily influenced by what Jung has written about intuition in general, perhaps based on the false assumption that Jung was an ILI, which seems to be the most generally accepted type for Jung among socionists. But all those socionists that believe that Jung was an ILI are clearly wrong, and the proof for that is in the videos and in Jung's writings. This mistake MUST be corrected. Jung was an LII. Period.

If he was around today I'm sure we could type him.

Jung is around today. Just watch the videos.

I honestly didn't expect anyone to care enough to freak the fuck out like you did.

You had to take an undeservedly big part of my general frustration with people's stupidity and ignorance. The facts are in plain view to see, and yet people are blind to them. You are smart enough to see the truth if you really bother to look into it. As for most other people on this forum and the forum as a whole, they are probably doomed.

Anyway, I cannot watch the video because my computers sound card is malfunctioning, so I am going to step out of this debate and let you two go at it.

Make sure that you can see the video in a near future. It is a unique and extremely important material. Every socionists should definitely see it, especially those who have the erroneous belief that Jung was an ILI.

[Phaedrus]

No, you're right. Based on that exchange, the case for ILI is clear.

Based on this, the case for Expat's incompetence as a socionist is clear.

[crazedrat]

you may be right on LII, and it is a good point that the his Ni description is quite inadequate. That is what convinces me he is not ILI.. thinking about that. His psychoticism (or whatever was with that decade long mental collapse he had) is probably the explanation behind his abstract & bizarre theories. LII-Ti would be it though, not LII-Ne

[Park]

fwiw, Jung believed he was an introverted thinker with an archaic (meaning unconscious, weak, and hence in the superid) intuition function.

Yes.

[Wittmont]

It is true that Jung typed himself as a Thinking type, rather than an Intuitive type. Not sure how far you can translate that in socionics terms tho. Is it as easy as saying that Thinking types are LII, LSI, LIE and LSE? And Intuitive types are ILI, IEI, ILE and IEE and therefore Jung has to one of the former?

[Expat]

It is true that Jung typed himself as a Thinking type, rather than an Intuitive type. Not sure how far you can translate that in socionics terms tho. Is it as easy as saying that Thinking types are LII, LSI, LIE and LSE? And Intuitive types are ILI, IEI, ILE and IEE and therefore Jung has to one of the former?

I don't think you can say that.

I think that if you understand socionics understanding of the elements and types, as in model A, it is clear that they are not identical to Jung's functions. It is a source of great confusion to those who think that in order to understand socionics all they have to do is understand Jung's typology.

If you get into the mind of a socionics ILI, and read Jung's understanding of Introverted Thinking and Introverted Intuition, I think that ILIs are at least as likely - and probably more - to see themselves in Jung's Introverted Thinking than in his Introverted Intuition.

I think the only types that are likely to identify more or less unreservedly with Jung's Introverted Intuition - even discounting the "mystics and cranks" thing - are Beta NFs.

(On the other hand, if an extreme -focused ILI like reyn_til_runa corrects me on this, I will stand corrected.)

[Phaedrus]

How many people have seen the Jung interview by now? How many of you have accepted the fact that Jung is an INTj? It is your duty to watch the video, and you have no choice but to recognize Jung as an LII.

[hellothere]

I think that if you understand socionics understanding of the elements and types, as in model A, it is clear that they are not identical to Jung's functions. It is a source of great confusion to those who think that in order to understand socionics all they have to do is understand Jung's typology.

if this is the case, then should we ignore what he says about being "thinking and not feeling" in the following?

far from diagnosing himself as Ti, he diagnoses himself as thinking, intuitive, and not feeling -- while asking the interviewer to make the diagnosis rather than anything resembling a systematic response. and all the while he maintains self-detachment from his theories as well as the fundamental uncertainty of it all -- his theories being, in his mind, only a series of observations about the tendencies of the functioning of the human mind.

what i'm asking is that if socionics functions != jung's functions, and thus we ignore the first part of the above, does the rest of Niffweed's description allow for a distinction betweeen ILI and IEI?

[Expat]

what i'm asking is that if socionics functions != jung's functions, and thus we ignore the first part of the above, does the rest of Niffweed's description allow for a distinction betweeen ILI and IEI?

niffweed's point was about how Jung chose to respond, rather than about how Jung saw himself. Jung was saying, "here's the information I have; you decide on what it means". He wasn't being coy; he was offering Te rather than Ti. As for seeing himself as "not feeling", I think many Ni-focused IEIs might say the same; so, I would answer "no" to your question.

[Phaedrus]

niffweed's point was about how Jung chose to respond, rather than about how Jung saw himself. Jung was saying, "here's the information I have; you decide on what it means". He wasn't being coy; he was offering Te rather than Ti.

You are an idiot, Expat. You have recently become really bad at typing, and you don't understand the functions correctly.

As for seeing himself as "not feeling", I think many Ni-focused IEIs might say the same; so, I would answer "no" to your question.

In fact, in some respects you are extremely bad at typing.

[aestrivex]

if this is the case, then should we ignore what he says about being "thinking and not feeling" in the following?

fair enough i guess, although it seems reasonable that even if they aren't exactly the same, they are in a lot of way at least decent approximations. from that perspective

what i'm asking is that if socionics functions != jung's functions, and thus we ignore the first part of the above, does the rest of Niffweed's description allow for a distinction betweeen ILI and IEI?

i suppose IEI is reasonable from the excerpts provided, but overall i think that the overall picture of the thinking style that jung presented was predominantly based on Ni observations and largely directionless and unconcerned with Ti.

even if this is a bit tainted and speculative, i think jung was sort of so consistenly loose and disorganized with the overall picture of his conclusions that i'd have some difficulty as seeing him operating from a Ti-HA perspective. compared to jung, many IEIs seem to have more of a structural component to their ideas.

[Phaedrus]

i suppose IEI is reasonable from the excerpts provided, but overall i think that the overall picture of the thinking style that jung presented was predominantly based on Ni observations and largely directionless and unconcerned with Ti.

This is so completely false that it is unacceptable that you think that. How wrong should a person be allowed to be? A person with your intelligence simply must be able to understand this correctly. And yet you don't. I don't get how that is possible. It probably must have something to do with the fact that you haven't studied these things enough. You haven't read enough material, and you haven't compared the described functions and types with reality.

There is no question about the fact that there is a whole bunch of people who have to totally incorrect understanding of and LIIs in general. That has always been the case on this forum. And it is a very bad thing indeed. Jung is actually a prototype LII, and that Socionics and socionists in general are blind to that fact is pathetic and disgusting. How can people be so damn stupid and incompetent?

Right now I can see only one realistic way to change this miserable situation, if it is possible to change at all. My advice to the members of this forum is to forget and ignore everything that Expat and his gang members say about the types for the next month or so, and instead use that month to really study all the material that Smilingeyes has posted on this forum. Smilingeyes knows what he's talking about, and, more importantly, he has explained the types correctly, thoroughly, and pedagogically. So if you read his material with a fresh mind, without prejudices, you will hopefully realize what you didn't understand before and in the process gain a much better and much more correct understanding of the socionic types.

This forum is currently brainwashed by people who consistently present false ideas about the types of famous people and forum members, based on an incorrect understanding of some of the functions. We have seen this irritating phenomenon many times in the past as well. It is not easy to get a firm grasp of the extent of the misunderstandings and misconceptions floating around, but I have definitely observed it in relation to the and the functions. Some idiotic statements have also been made about .

So start from scratch, those of you who are still willing to do what it takes to know the types the way they really are and not the way they are misrepresented by Expat and others. Don't assume that you know the basics, because it is not unlikely that you actually don't in some important respects. Be open-minded and read Smilingeyes's material, which is still the best that this forum has to offer. Some forum members know that what I say here is true, and you can of course listen to them too.

[Wittmont]

Heh, Jung seems plenty structured to me

I had dinner with the family last night, and my LII sister in law reminded me very much of Jung in that video (the vibe that is, she is young and pretty )
But the way she talked and the 'feel' she projected, her 'aura' or whatever, was extremely similar to Jung's. Especially so since she was in a positive mood.

Edit: oops, I wrote this as a reply to Niff's post above Phaedrus's didn't see the latter until after I posted.