Does anyone else think Jung was an ISTJ?
Carl Jung's Socionics Type (old discussions)
Does anyone else think Jung was an ISTJ?
Yes, I do. That's why people are so torn between deciding if he's INTP or INTJ: because he's actually neither.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how he could be an ISTj; please enlighten me.
And, I apologize that I doubt the Guest's honesty in this particular matter, but since I've never once heard anyone put forth the proposition that Jung might be ISTj, I would have to assume that the guest, is indeed, Rocky.
Hey, the more benefactors I can idolize, the better. :wink:Does anyone else think Jung was an ISTJ?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Ouch. Low blow. Come on, do you really think I would that.Originally Posted by MysticSonic
As for Jung, I think that it is very likely he was an ISTj. Everything he did and study he did through, not
. Think about it. He based what he did on everything he physically saw. He used practical facts, obsevations and everything that is the "what is". He did not use any abstract or conceptual thinking. He noticed all the little details, over turned every rock, and recorded what he saw in people. I would really like to see something, anything, that hints towards intuitive thinking with Jung. Even look at the quote here. What he is describing is Extraverted Sensing (BTW, that would be Cone's dual-seeking function as opposed to quasi-identical tension from an INTj :wink: ). In fact, Jung seems to be giving the "FU" to inuition in that quote. I really don't see any reason to believe Jung was intuitive. Hell, doing what he did intuition would probably have been a hinderence.
Jung was INTP.helped him to notice how things will affect him in the future. If I know anithing about the
Semiotical process
I'm just going to point to the collective unconscious and ask you to explain how that isn' t the result of the Ni-Te axis.
And, yeah, Jung is definately NOT an INTj.
Ok, I'm gonna start by bringing something back up from my previous post.
I would really like to hear intuitive thinking from Jung.He noticed all the little details, over turned every rock, and recorded what he saw in people. I would really like to see something, anything, that hints towards intuitive thinking with Jung.
I think people too easily pin an N on people who have actually done something, but this is unfair. I want to introduce you to someone who is the closest person I can think of to Carl Jung, his name is Jon Niednagel. Jon has been working with typology for 3 decades now and discovered much of what he learned in the same way Jung did. And yes, Jon is an ISTj. Jon is still living and breathing yet even he is mistaken to be an intuitive person. When a Harvard pychology professor said that Jon could be a "very talented, intuitive person" he was flattered but still responded by saying, "I’m an Edison who discovers by perspiration, not an Einstein driven by inspiration and genius. I have little intuition.”
And that's where I think Jung lies, too. The kind who discovers by persiration and experience (ISTj) and not the knid driven by inspiration(your INTp). You have to concider HOW people do things and what drives them, not just what they do.
I'm still under the opinion that the "concept" of the collective unconscious is wholly a result of his Ni; that "concept" doesn't seem a bit abstract to you?
I believe unauthorized biographies say he had some weird S&M extramarital affair which speaks of Se as dual seeking. (INTJ is probably the least sexual type) Also both he and Freud were unnaturally obsessed with hysterical women, who tend to be nymphomaniacs. Also his writing style is very measured and understated, a trait of Ni and not Ne. Also the INTP naturally models human behavior in a predictive fashion. INTJs are systemetizers of existing data, not discovers of new (eg they are not perceivers). Jung's great feat was in finding a semblance of order to the mass of psychic content that came his way, and this is why he is often mistaken for INTJ. An INTJ would have had no problem ordering his data, but wouldn't have had the treasure-load that Jung seemed to be dealing with (if we can believe his introspections). Also he was very private. (no Fe dual seeking) Also his face looks more pinched than the flatter INTJ face. Also he is not an ISTJ because that would make no sense whatsoever. (though I applaud the bravery of such a strange guess)
Maybe he had lots of S&M sex with INTJs, plundering their energy and that's why everyone thinks he's an INTJ.
INTj-hidden agenda is.
You have no clue man
Tell that to my ESTj girlfriend.Se seems to encompass many things and sex is one of them.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Don't ESTjs want to ignore that portion of reality, with it being their 8th function and all?
Unless you're saying your girlfriend is a raging sex maniac.
No, I meant that she's completely against the whole sex thing. Not sure why, though.
EDIT: Damn, I meant Si, not Se.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Huh? Did you even read my previous posts? His Se? Edison vs. Einstein?
And you also wrote,That would point more to Se, no?I believe unauthorized biographies say he had some weird S&M extramarital affair which speaks of Se as dual seeking. (INTJ is probably the least sexual type) Also both he and Freud were unnaturally obsessed with hysterical women, who tend to be nymphomaniacs.
Ok, since you missed my point more than James Cameron missed the point with Titanic, I'm gonna throw something else out there. I FIND IT HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN INTUITIVE WOULD EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT JUNG DID. I'm not trying to knock intuitive types, I'm just being fair. Part of the negative of being N is have poor S. They are several things that go along with that. One is that Ns some times can miss some of the important details. Sometimes they see what isn't there. Sometimes they make things up. They are not good at observing behaviors and everything that is right in front of their face. Ns can sometimes fill in without using what is actually there. Jung based what he knew on his observations, not his imagination. He was an Edison, not an Einstein. He recorded what he saw in people. I hope you can open your minds more so you can see this.
::Watches as you completely ignore my post::
hahaa, ok. As for your post:
This is the problem I see with it (and you've done this before). You seem to be convinced the RESULT must be from Ni, therefore he could not be anything other than INTP. By doing this you completley ignore the PROCESS.
I want to share some Thomas Edison quotes with you:
I am not overly impressed by the great names and reputations of those who might be trying to beat me to an invention.... Its their 'ideas' that appeal to me. I am quite correctly described as 'more of a sponge than an inventor....
Genius is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration. Accordingly, a 'genius' is often merely a talented person who has done all of his or her homework.
The first requisite for success is to develop the ability to focus and apply your mental and physical energies to the problem at hand - without growing weary. Because such thinking is often difficult, there seems to be no limit to which some people will go to avoid the effort and labor that is associated with it....
I never did anything worth doing entirely by accident.... Almost none of my inventions were derived in that manner. They were achieved by having trained myself to be analytical and to endure and tolerate hard work.
The three things that are most essential to achievement are common sense, hard work and stick-to-it-iv-ness.....
Many of life's failures are experienced by people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is often a step forward....
This is the ISTj way of thinking. Jonathan Niednagel has it. Thomas Edison had it, and Carl Jung had it.
Didn't Jung destest facts? It seems like he came to his conclusions through speculation of the observed traits of his patients.
Ok, now I like your thinking here. The problem here is that 'facts' often refer to Te, where as you said he, "observed traits of his patients". That is Se. And it is common for ISTjs to be skeptical:
If you look at my previous posts, you will notice that I used words like 'observe' and 'persiverence'.
"That is Se."
How so?
ISTjs are determined people. They strive to see all the little details and observe everything going around them. They see what is actually there. They learn what they know from their 5 senses; they have to experience it. Jon N uses the word empirical a lot to describe it. INTps aren't good at observing people and noticing all of those"empirical" things about them. INTps are dreamers, not stalwarts. They are imaginative, not practical. It is what Edison described as being a spounge, not an inventor.
Jung's Type
Jung exposed himself to various people on a continual basis; this is one of the reasons he understands the human psyche so well.
Clearly this makes him an E
He had an amazing ability to observe and detail his environment.
Therefore, he was an S
His desire to understand people was unparalleled.
No doubt he was an F
He was very motivated to complete his books and present a finshed message to the masses.
So he was a j
Therefore, he was an ESFj. This ends the discussion. No questions asked!
Of course! It's so obvious!
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Carl Jung's Type possibly is...
Hello all! Like to give my thoughts...
Any type that has a strong combinationI would consider to be Carl Jung's.
The
Every individual has their own unique sets of traits and characteristics. Carl Jung noticed that despite the things that distinguisably set a person apart from another, he noticed a pattern in behaviour. In other words, he saw the big picture (in this case all the people he had observed/interacted with) and realized that person Q was similar to O.
For Example: In the image below (Image0) you are the observor, X. Underneath X is a crowd of random characters representing unique individuals.
Image0
Everyone seems different, but through furthur examination you can see that O, Q, D are similar. I, 1, L, and T are alike. V, Y, U are another set, as with B, 8, 3 and finally A, H, F, and E. It's difficult to distinguish and identify the pattern, and it would take a strong Ni to notice this (well it would be easier, relatively), which Carl Jung did but instead with people and personality.
The
Referring back to Image0, although the characters are quite different visually, they all have similarities: O, Q, and D have a large circular shape. I, 1, L, and T all have a vertical line. V, Y, U all open 'up.' And A, H, F, and E all have a horizontal line, 8, 3, and B are really curvy (eh, can't describe it better right now). So it would be logical and resonable if you named each set accordingly:
O, Q, D could be, say, INTj's
I, 1, L, and T could be ESFp's
and so on and so forth; it matter doesn't what order.
It's a specific way of utilizing Te, but this is how I imagine Carl Jung 'classifying' the Sixteen Types.
Conclusion
Carl Jung recognized a pattern through Ni.
Carl Jung grouped what he recognized through Ni through Te.
So what type is Mr. Jung? Well, there are two possibilities, (assuming that my analysis is correct); the INTp, and the ENTj. I'm leaning towards INTp.
Of course, I am open to arguements, and I can be completely and utterly wrong.. One reason I don't think he could be an S type is S's tend to concentrate on specific details. Si on physical experience (past) and Se on physical experiencing (present). Unless he grouped each type by the way he felt physically with each perosn he met...then all I have to say is aiii.
Till next time everyone!
Nice post Greeter. I like it when people take the time to post their opinions. There is one big over sight here- Carl Jung said himself that his dominant function was Introverted Thinking. If we are using socionics (which we are) then that would only leave two types, ISTJ and INTJ.
I'm going to point out some things in your post:
You seem to be thinking that "noticing a pattern in behavior" isCarl Jung noticed that despite the things that distinguisably set a person apart from another, he noticed a pattern in behaviour.
I'm sorry, but he did not see the big picture right away. He was the "spounge", not the "inventor". He didn't come up with ideas. Again you say obsevered/interacted with people. This all has to do with Se. "One percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration".In other words, he saw the big picture (in this case all the people he had observed/interacted with) and realized that person Q was similar to O.
Ni has to do with the conceptual, but Se has to do with the empirical. Carl Jung took his empirical observations about people, he didn't dream anything up.It's difficult to distinguish and identify the pattern, and it would take a strong Ni to notice this (well it would be easier, relatively), which Carl Jung did but instead with people and personality.
I don't think this is about logic. What you are descibing has to do with the 5 senses. Read it again.V, Y, U all open 'up.' And A, H, F, and E all have a horizontal line, 8, 3, and B are really curvy (eh, can't describe it better right now). So it would be logical and resonable if you named each set accordingly:
You are right here. Se has to do with physical experience. But he didn't group people "by the way he felt physically" about them. He took physical observations about them, and recored them. Then he took more observations, and recorded those. He start to make connections between them eventually as he persisted to find more about people; the "spounge".One reason I don't think he could be an S type is S's tend to concentrate on specific details. Si on physical experience (past) and Se on physical experiencing (present). Unless he grouped each type by the way he felt physically with each perosn he met...then all I have to say is aiii.
"f we are using socionics (which we are) then that would only leave two types, ISTJ and INTJ."
He also thought Freud was an extraverted feeling type with inferior thinking; what Jung thought of his type is irrelevant, as Jung is obviously not infallible in terms of knowledge.
"You seem to be thinking that "noticing a pattern in behavior" is Introverted Intution . Actually, Introverted Intution is rather poor in obeserving behaviors and people. They are more about ideas and inspiration. "
I don't know about you, but he did indeed seem to be dreamy and favor inspiration; again, he detested facts, which hinges itself upon the verification of itself via empirical evidence.
"I'm sorry, but he did not see the big picture right away. He was the "spounge", not the "inventor". He didn't come up with ideas. Again you say obsevered/interacted with people. This all has to do with Se. "One percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration". "
This is wrong; he invented an entire hypotheticall psychic contrustction; that seems to be more inspiration than perspiration.
"Ni has to do with the conceptual, but Se has to do with the empirical. Carl Jung took his empirical observations about people, he didn't dream anything up."
Se has to do with volition, the power structure of the enviornment, and feeling the present; in the producing position, an ISTj would only use Se to produce things from their "Ti" mold by obtaining a power through it, or, more commonly, to use their Ti ideas as a means to accomoplish practical goals. It has nothing to do with observing empircal facts; this is completely the realm of Te.
And he was a Psychiatrist, don't you think he would study them in a "sponge" like manner? People've called me a sponge, and I'm certainly NOT a sensor!
This is the reason I brought up the exaple of Jon N. Jon is a living, self-proclaimed ISTJ. He is the one who started BrainTypes. You have to remember that people like Jon N and Jung are EXTRAordinary people, not ordinary. According to what you said it would be impossible for an ISTJ like Jon to do what he did, yet he still did it. Jon's work is much like Jung's work, hence the comparison between them. I also mentioned that people still mistake Jon N for being an intuitive person (and shortly after I wrote that about him, Koneko posted that he thought Jon was a very intuitive person, so thanks for demonstarting that Koneko). So unless you are saying that both Jung and Jon N are WRONG ABOUT THEMSELVES, then both of them are ISTJs.
And by the way, empirical observations are not facts. Jon N uses the word Empirical to describe Sensors and the word Conceptual to describe Intutives.
From Dictionary.com:
em·pir·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
"You have to remember that people like Jon N and Jung are EXTRAordinary people, not ordinary"
That's complete bullshit. They're still servants to their psychic structure, regarldess of how intelligent they are.
"Jon's work is much like Jung's work, hence the comparison between them."
WOW, no it isn't. Jung was a speculative psychiatrist, Jon empirically records data and derives conclusions from that, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
"1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws."
And everything empirical is a fact---although not all facts are derived empirically.
I'm seeing a little more clearly now.
Hi Rocky, thank you for the reply. I actually didn't really take the time to read Carl Jung's personality type, that's entirely my fault. Anyway, here goes...
You're probably right. I'm just starting to learn about Socionics, and I guess I wanted to share how I interpreted some of the functions. Well, at least that's cleared up, although I may have to rethink my understanding for the rest of the functions (grr...
I don't think I said that he saw the big picture right away; just that he did (gradually). Of course I'm not arguing against Observing and Interacting being Se. But hey, anybody can use Se to a certain level and record. I'm just saying that sometimes you have to intuitively know similarities, especially since personality and psychology is more abstract than it is concrete. I guess since Ne is described as 'A strategy or concept emerges based on the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand,' than things would make more sense if he just one day decided that he would talk to a lot of people and through that process noticed similarities.I'm sorry, but he did not see the big picture right away. He was the "spounge", not the "inventor". He didn't come up with ideas. Again you say obsevered/interacted with people. This all has to do with Se. "One percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration".
Dreaming is a little extreme. I feel that Carl Jung knew, beforehand, that as unique as an individual may be, there has to be some factors that makes them alike. Which, in turn, inspired him to start recording empirical observation to find evidence. Just like the physicists that study the Quantum world; they couldn't see a sub-atomic particle, they just had a feeling it was there (Martin Perl is a good example).Ni has to do with the conceptual, but Se has to do with the empirical. Carl Jung took his empirical observations about people, he didn't dream anything up.
Gosh, I should have explained myself. When I meant that certain characters 'looked' similar, I was making an analogy to, for example, how one type thinks, or how another feel, etc. So if V, Y, U all open 'up,' you could say it's analogous to how INFp's are goofy, dreamy, idealistic (head above the clouds, which is 'up'...eh? eh? ...) I always felt knowing, or having an idea of how people thought and such was an intuitive trait.In reference to Image0. I don't think this is about logic. What you are descibing has to do with the 5 senses. Read it again.
Yay, glad I'm right about something!You are right here. Se has to do with physical experience.
Okay my question, how much can you learn about someone's personality by physical observation? Everybody looks more or less different from each other. He would have to record what cannot be seen in order to properly establish the different types (emotions, speech, thinking-patterns, etc.). Like you and I said before, S's is all about the physical. If he said certain people looked, or waved their hands like another than they must be the same or similar. But I hardly think it's possible, look at the problems we have with typing purely through Visual Identification. In addition, instead of using Extravert/Introvert, Sensing/iNtuition, etc, because everything recorded was based on the physical realm, then it would make more sense if he used, Hand-waver/Hand-still (well not so specific and silly, obviously).He took physical observations about them, and recored them. Then he took more observations, and recorded those. He start to make connections between them eventually as he persisted to find more about people; the "spounge"
As with John N., it doesn't surprise me that he is an ISTj. Unlike Jung, John had the privilege of knowing the 16 Types beforehand. And if you look at the way he classifies things it is basically physical or concrete (ie. Front/Back, Animate/Inanimate). Plus, his career seems to be developing and training athletes and most of his work is about the human body which all belongs in the realm of the S types.
Anyway, I thank you again for considering my reply. It took me awhile to hit that 'Submit,' but now it will be much easier.
Later eh!
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Lol, ok. I think you're a little confused hear. When I say physical observations, I'm not talking about VI or body movements. People who are Se physically observe things around them. That includes their emotions, how they react in certain situations, speaking ect. What I'm saying is that Jung physically observed these sort of traits in other.
Yes it does. Ni is the hidden agenda for ISTJs. It is what subconciously drives them, but is not the way they think or interact with the world. It's something in the back of their head that they want, but don't have control over that function like they do with their stong functions. Sometimes you can't pinpoint your hidden agenda because it is subconcious, but it is very powerful. Using Jon N as an example again, he also talks about a visionary future ("BrainTypes will be around long after I have left this earth...").Carl Jung did mention about having profound visions of the future, and it ties to Ni does it not?
That one was me.
Was I too much of an asshole?
No. I was just getting to your post. I had to step away from the computer to do something.Was I too much of an asshole?
This is how I see it in terms of functions.
Te= Facts
Se= Empirical
Se1 leads to Te1. Problem is Se2 doesn't agree with Te1 because Se2 creates his own Te2 through his Se. Se doesn't always have to agree with everything Te.
Well then, since we don't agree on even the most basic aspects of Socionics, we won't be able to get anywhere with this conversation, will we?
My argument was that Jung was determined, noticed all the details and obsevered what was going on around him. Those are
Question for Rocky: In your opinion, how doesmanifest in the personality of Jung?
"The Introverted Thinking Type
Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]
disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.
With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.
The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category."
From http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
I think Jung was a little hard on his own function.
Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete-Love AND SociotypeThey all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category."
If Jung was indeed ISTj he would fit into the category of the "agressive" category.
However, the descriptions from the above quotations fit better with the "infantile" category...sugesting that it is more likely Jung was INTj and not ISTj.
You have to remeber that the type called "Introverted Thinking" lumps together INTJs, ISTJs and all their subtypes. Jung only had eight types.However, the descriptions from the above quotations fit better with the "infantile" category...sugesting that it is more likely Jung was INTj and not ISTj.
EDIT: I wanted to add that what Jung was describing under "Introverted Thinkers" sounds like a strong. He doesn't talk much on the S/N scale, because all Introverted Thinkers don't share those in common. What he was descibing about sex could have been related to a poor
. In this case he's saying that IxTJs could be easily hurt/manipulated emotionally, leaving them sour on relationships. This is not always true, but it is probably a patter he noticed.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
But... IF Jung was indeed ISTj he would have mistakenly stereotyped the entire group of "Introverted Thinking" as aggressors and not as infantile like he did.
Posting Permissions
