Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 102

Thread: Carl Jung's Type Revealed

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Carl Jung's Type Revealed

    He was ENFp-XNFx.

    1)
    2)
    3)
    4)
    5)
    6)
    7)
    8)


    Observes relationship between objective deduction and current events.

    Assumes role as a mover of reality in accordance with objective demands.

    Observes feelings in the context of accepted possibilities.

    Observes what possibilities may be considered in the context of
    feelings.

    Receives suggestive data concerning the relationship between perceived
    reality and the relational dynamics of objects within it.

    Estimates dependence of relational dynamics on the nature of the
    reality perceived.

    Experiences personal knowledge of the evolution of the psyche.

    Determines nature of the internal dynamics of the psyche.
    Example of suggestive content from Jung's view
    We can never know what evil may be necessary to produce good by entandromia, nor can we know what good may ultimately lead to evil.
    - Carl Jung

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well let's assume that your crosstype theory has meaning.

    Now you said that it works like an algorithm where what the fist function produces is taken by the second block and passed through, but:

    Observes Introverted ThinkingExtraverted Sensing

    relationship between objective deduction and current events.

    Assumes Extraverted SensingIntroverted Thinking

    role as a mover of reality in accordance with objective demands.


    Now, wouldn't it be coherent to say that assumes relationship between objective deduction and currect events as a mover of reality in accordance with objective demands?

    This way you could actually produce a type-description by just listing the options.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll get back to you on this.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    TC, what I love about you is that you state, definitavely and specifically, that certain people have certain types, such as Einstein and Jung, and then you change your opinion on them. You are just like Dio.

    What do you make of Jung saying he was Introverted Thinking? That's in many ways the opposite of what you claim him to be. If anything, it shows how far your system is from Jung's original Psychological Types.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    TC, what I love about you is that you state, definitavely and specifically, that certain people have certain types, such as Einstein and Jung, and then you change your opinion on them. You are just like Dio.

    What do you make of Jung saying he was Introverted Thinking? That's in many ways the opposite of what you claim him to be. If anything, it shows how far your system is from Jung's original Psychological Types.
    A type wouldn't have been so obsessed with his own feelings as to express them in his academic work. I can't imagine Jung being dominant.

    But this is an improved system and moreover, my final stance on Jung's type. It will never change again, because it is now objectively right.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    TC, what I love about you is that you state, definitavely and specifically, that certain people have certain types, such as Einstein and Jung, and then you change your opinion on them. You are just like Dio.

    What do you make of Jung saying he was Introverted Thinking? That's in many ways the opposite of what you claim him to be. If anything, it shows how far your system is from Jung's original Psychological Types.
    A type wouldn't have been so obsessed with his own feelings as to express them in his academic work. I can't imagine Jung being dominant.
    Well, according to Jung, a Ti type WOULD (and a Te type wouldn't).

    But this is an improved system and moreover, my final stance on Jung's type. It will never change again, because it is now objectively right.
    ... ummm... ok....
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung looks like an INTj on V.I., and Rocky is right; Jung believed that he was an introverted thinker. If Jung was mistaken about his own type, we may start to question almost everything he said -- and as a consequence even Socionics would start to look suspect.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    If Jung was mistaken about his own type, we may start to question almost everything he said -- and as a consequence even Socionics would start to look suspect.
    not at all.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why? I think it's reasonable to assume that if Jung isn't considered Ti by socionics standards, then socionics standards are different from his original functions.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Why? I think it's reasonable to assume that if Jung isn't considered Ti by socionics standards, then socionics standards are different from his original functions.
    that is a different issue.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I use Jung as a complementary typing tool, because I think that what he says about the types, including the introverted thinking type, makes sense. Now, if Jung was not an introverted thinker I would like to have an explanation for that. How could he be so mistaken? And are his function descriptions -- and more importantly his type descriptions -- clearly different from the descriptions in Socionics in a way that inevitably would result in different typings in at least some cases?

    If Jung was wrong, I could be wrong, because I lean on him in my own typings. Therefore it is of paramount importance to me that I see as clearly as possible the relations between Jung's theory and Socionics. Lately I have thought that at least one or two of the most central typings in Socionics are probably mistaken, because they seem to make no sense in relation to what Jung says about the types. At the moment I am more inclined to believe that Jung was right than that Socionics is right about everything.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it is very much possible to be totally mistaken about one's type - after all we can only be directly aware of our own consciousness.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    If Jung was wrong, I could be wrong, because I lean on him in my own typings. Therefore it is of paramount importance to me that I see as clearly as possible the relations between Jung's theory and Socionicsg.
    Otherwise your little autistic fucking castle of shit falls apart?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    If Jung was wrong, I could be wrong, because I lean on him in my own typings. Therefore it is of paramount importance to me that I see as clearly as possible the relations between Jung's theory and Socionics.
    Otherwise your little autistic fucking castle of shit falls apart?
    Maybe. I don't mind if it does. That would be interesting. But to make that happen someone will have to come up with a good explanation for the obvious problems that are there in plain view to see for anyone who bothers to look. So far nobody seems to be willing to try that (except me).

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I'm saying is that he was an ENFp who looked at the world through INFj glasses.

    I don't think he was an INTj at all. In particular, his ideas have no substance. He hung on to crazy notions at times like "I am a reincarnated so-and-so from XYZ era." When Freud struck out with his psychoanalytic theory, Jung said he "was obliged by conscience to choose a different path". Finally, he famously attacked Freud not by calling him "an idiot", as an INTj -always- would (by some phraseology or other), but by illuminating his subjective state in the context of his movement.

    Rocky:
    Learn psychology, dumbass.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    I'm in fact challenging your entire system, not saying Jung was the same type as you. Maybe you can understand it that way.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Rocky:
    Learn psychology, dumbass.
    Ahaha, the constrast of the blutness of this affirmation with the crackpottery of the first part of the post cracked me up
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    What I'm saying is that he was an ENFp who looked at the world through INFj glasses.
    INFj makes more sense than ENFp, especially since INFjs are rather similar to INTjs on V.I. But if we read Jung's biography we can see that he matches socionic INTj type descriptions rather well, for example in the his talents and interests profile.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I don't think he was an INTj at all. In particular, his ideas have no substance. He hung on to crazy notions at times like "I am a reincarnated so-and-so from XYZ era."
    Yes, Jung had crazy ideas. But I have seen the almost exact same phenomenon in at least one real life INTj (who definitely not is ENFp or INFj or any other F type. He is a very clear T type). I am inclined to think that every person with a religious world view is brainwashed and deluded -- by others or by themselves -- and that can probably happen to any type under the wrong circumstances.

    But what Jung says about the types still makes sense. It is evidently much more likely that your crosstype theory is bullshit, tcaudillg, than that Jung was an ENFp.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think an INTj would know an INTj if he saw one. How about it: who here counts Jung as their identical?

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I don't think he was an INTj at all. In particular, his ideas have no substance. He hung on to crazy notions at times like "I am a reincarnated so-and-so from XYZ era."
    Yes, Jung had crazy ideas. But I have seen the almost exact same phenomenon in at least one real life INTj (who definitely not is ENFp or INFj or any other F type. He is a very clear T type). I am inclined to think that every person with a religious world view is brainwashed and deluded -- by others or by themselves -- and that can probably happen to any type under the wrong circumstances.
    BTW, what's the rationalization that a Ti type would be less likely to do something like that then a Te type, even if *all* Ti types aren't like that (disregarding if you are Ti or Te or whatever).

    But what Jung says about the types still makes sense. It is evidently much more likely that your crosstype theory is bullshit, tcaudillg, than that Jung was an ENFp.
    Finally, a Phaedrus post I can agree with.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I think an INTj would know an INTj if he saw one. How about it: who here counts Jung as their identical?
    That's a poor typing method... not everyone in the same type is so similar that they have to instantly recognize their identicals, and sometimes people like to claim others from different types as their own for subconcious reasons.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If the world is round and my head is is an oval rectangle with a torus placed at the centre of the brain, is the solar system omeomorphic with my cranium? I want niffweed to respond.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To doubt my theory at this point is idiotic thinking. Surely at this point many agree with me on that.

    I'm studying to be a psychologist, Rocky. What are you studying for?

    I'm going to be working with people around the world to make socionics a household word. Who will you be working with?

    Jealousy does not become you, Rocky. (or does it?)

    To the rest of the doubters:
    Explain how an INTj asserts the existence of archetypes when no one before them has. Explain how an INTj conceives of a system of typology that so deeply penetrates into the subjective experience of a person as to provide a window into their very souls. Explain how an INTj conceives of these ideas with little-to-no previously organized research material to draw from, and I will consider my theory dead. (which will never happen because to do so successfully is an impossibility)

    I know a girl who is Jung's type. She even VIs with him. She's not INTj.

  24. #24
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    She even VIs with him.
    She takes pixes with him? He's still alive?

    Besides this is valid only if the girl's uterus has the same euler number's as jung's cranium, that is to say both objects are omeomorphic with hitler's testicles.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  25. #25
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I think an INTj would know an INTj if he saw one. How about it: who here counts Jung as their identical?
    That's ironic considering that you are probably more like Jung than any other INTj on this forum IMO - but I'm not convinced Jung was INTj. If he was, his would have been a lot stronger than his , despite it being 'obvious' his intuition was strong - there are some weird forms of .
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  26. #26
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,314
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    To the rest of the doubters:
    Explain how an INTj asserts the existence of archetypes when no one before them has.
    Probably the same way an INTj asserts the existence of crosstypes when no one before them has.

    (btw, i'm not saying whether or not jung is/isn't intj...only suggesting a possible explanation... as requested :wink: )
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  27. #27
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    To the rest of the doubters:
    Explain how an INTj asserts the existence of archetypes when no one before them has.
    probably the same way an INTj asserts the existence of crosstypes when no one before them has.
    case closed tcaudligg, she pwned you, her argument is omeomporphic to an XXXx with chuck norris placed as main actor instead of vin diesel
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  28. #28
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung's theories didn't come to him because he was a special trained psychologist - though they may have influenced him later e.g. Freud. Also, much of Jung's data for psychological types etc. came from his analysis of mental ill people - all he had to do was his job in the way he saw fit.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Jung's theories didn't come to him because he was a special trained psychologist - though they may have influenced him later e.g. Freud. Also, much of Jung's data for psychological types etc. came from his analysis of mental ill people - all he had to do was his job in the way he saw fit.
    Yes but he drew very few objective conclusions, most of which he failed to elaborate on in any detail. Most of his writings describe processes of internal development. In fact, he found himself unable to avoid discussion of these processes in his writing. It is this analysis of process that has lead Jungian analysts to conclude that familiarity with Jung is not enough; he must be understood through years of reading and rereading his works.

    CONSIDER, Jung may have been a thinking subtype.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    To doubt my theory at this point is idiotic thinking. Surely at this point many agree with me on that.
    This isn't even about Jung, but God, get over yourself.

    I hope you remember when you first got here and talked about crosstype I remained open-minded for a long time even when most thought you were crazy right away... and building on that, who are these "many" that agree with you? Do they even exist?

    I'm studying to be a psychologist, Rocky. What are you studying for?
    Chemistry, psychology, and business (I haven't narrowed it down yet).

    But if you are study psychology, then I wonder how oblivious you are to the scientific method? You seem to assume your conclusions are common sense and well-accepted without scientific backing for any of it. I hope even you admit that?

    Jealousy does not become you, Rocky. (or does it?)
    I'm not jealous of you.

    To the rest of the doubters:
    Explain how an INTj asserts the existence of archetypes when no one before them has. Explain how an INTj conceives of a system of typology that so deeply penetrates into the subjective experience of a person as to provide a window into their very souls. Explain how an INTj conceives of these ideas with little-to-no previously organized research material to draw from, and I will consider my theory dead. (which will never happen because to do so successfully is an impossibility)
    ???
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    381
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    To doubt my theory at this point is idiotic thinking. Surely at this point many agree with me on that.

    I'm studying to be a psychologist, Rocky. What are you studying for?

    I'm going to be working with people around the world to make socionics a household word. Who will you be working with?

    Jealousy does not become you, Rocky. (or does it?)

    To the rest of the doubters:
    Explain how an INTj asserts the existence of archetypes when no one before them has. Explain how an INTj conceives of a system of typology that so deeply penetrates into the subjective experience of a person as to provide a window into their very souls. Explain how an INTj conceives of these ideas with little-to-no previously organized research material to draw from, and I will consider my theory dead. (which will never happen because to do so successfully is an impossibility)

    I know a girl who is Jung's type. She even VIs with him. She's not INTj.
    this is the worst post i've ever seen
    lol

  32. #32
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    Chemistry, psychology, and business (I haven't narrowed it down yet).
    go for chem!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  33. #33
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    much of Jung's data for psychological types etc. came from his analysis of mental ill people - all he had to do was his job in the way he saw fit.
    People say that now and then. But is there evidence that he only saw the types in his patients - not all of which were really "mentally ill"?

    @tcaudilllg: I don't think it's a good idea to make Socionics a household world and teach it in high schools.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky

    Chemistry, psychology, and business (I haven't narrowed it down yet).
    go for chem!
    Why?



    @xiuxiu: lol, you're probably right.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  35. #35
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've always been inclined to believe Jung was an ILI. He seems to have a fluid, description-based style and never appeared dogmatic or categorical. He is known for his emphasis on the soul, unconscious, dreams, symbols and archetypes, and facing death, which are all common themes. He didn't create a clearly defined ideology like Freud. If he were a socionics EII or IEE, we would have to explain what appears to be a hopeless drift from Jungian typology.

    Jung's type may be related to the ILI/LII controversy. What exactly did he say about it himself? He left his type out of his book. Here's what I found on a forum:

    And lastly, I also like having that little bit of reassurance that I'm not the only person like me out there. I think that is a concern a lot of INTPs have for some reason.

    And, maybe the whole system is skewed to the INTP end of the spectrum because that was Jung's own "type", so that other types see it as a misjudgment of themselves where those of us who like it (a vast majority whom are -NT- types) don't see those misjudgments because we ourselves are also blinded by the same personal perceptions...

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    I've always been inclined to believe Jung was an ILI. He seems to have a fluid, description-based style and never appeared dogmatic or categorical. He is known for his emphasis on the soul, unconscious, dreams, symbols and archetypes, and facing death, which are all common themes. He didn't create a clearly defined ideology like Freud.
    I know that Dmitri Lytov also thinks that Jung was an ILI. There was an interesting (but rather short) discussion about Jung's type on his forum, where at least two Russian (?) socionists disagreed with Lytov on typing Jung as an ILI. At least one of them was an ILI himself, I think, and I agreed with him that it is hard for an ILI to see Jung as an identical. I don't remember the exact arguments, but I might have them stored somewhere on my computer, if they are not still available on Dmitri's forum (if that still exists).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Jung's type may be related to the ILI/LII controversy. What exactly did he say about it himself? He left his type out of his book.
    Yes, but not entirely. It seems very clear that he sympathizes more with the introverted attitude in general than with the extraverted attitude. That is evidently clear when he for example discusses the differences between extraverted and introverted thinking. Also, from reading his autobiography it is impossible to see him as an extravert in my opinion. In Psychological Types he indirectly says that he is a rational type:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] 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 the observer, who perceives and judges from without. For such an observer could easily arrive at an opposite judgment, especially if he has a merely intuitive apprehension of the behaviour of the observed, and judges accordingly. 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. If observation is restricted to behaviour, without any concern for the domestic interior of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and accidental character of certain unconscious manifestations in the individual's behaviour than of the reasonableness of his conscious purposes and motivations. I, therefore, base my judgment upon what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore. This circumstance aggravates the difficulty of a lucid presentation of psychological matters to a degree not to be underestimated, and immeasurably increases the possibility of misunderstandings. The discussions which develop from these misunderstandings are, as a rule, quite hopeless, since the real issue is never joined, each side speaking, as it were, in a different tongue. Such experience is merely one reason the more for basing my presentation upon the subjective conscious psychology of the individual, since there, at least, one has a definite objective footing, which completely [p. 454] drops away the moment we try to ground psychological principles upon the unconscious. For the observed, in this case, could undertake no kind of co-operation, because there is nothing of which he is not more informed than his own unconscious. The judgment would entirely devolve upon the observer -- a certain guarantee that its basis would be his own individual psychology, which would infallibly be imposed upon the observed. To my mind, this is the case in the psychologies both of Freud and of Adler. The individual is completely at the mercy of the arbitrary discretion of his observing critic -- which can never be the case when the conscious psychology of the observed is accepted as the basis. After all, he is the only competent judge, since he alone knows his own motives.
    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

    On V.I. I think that Jung looks more like other LIIs on the Internet, and he is also more similar to my father, whom I have typed as LII. Jung and my father also have similar type profiles, with a natural talent for studying the natural sciences etc. My father is also clearly more interested in the things Jung was interested in, for example the supernatural. It is much easier for me to see them as identicals than to see myself and Jung as identicals. If that is wrong, and if Jung really was an ILI, it suddenly becomes possible for me to see my father as an ILI. But then a lot of other things in Socionics don't make much sense to me anymore, for example the quadras and the Reinin dichotomies. One thing that is almost absolutely certain anyway (but you may think that it is beside the point) is that my father is a very clear example of an INTJ in MBTT, rather similar to UDP in both test results and attitudes, whereas I am a very clear example of an INTP in MBTT.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Yes, but not entirely. It seems very clear that he sympathizes more with the introverted attitude in general than with the extraverted attitude. That is evidently clear when he for example discusses the differences between extraverted and introverted thinking. Also, from reading his autobiography it is impossible to see him as an extravert in my opinion. In Psychological Types he indirectly says that he is a rational type:
    Also, in Psychological Types he says of the Introverted Intuition type, "Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type" which also implies that Jung was _not_ Ni (rationally oriented), but I don't think that was ever a question.

    I think the question is "Is Jung's Introverted Thinking the same as socionics' Ti"?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Also, in Psychological Types he says of the Introverted Intuition type, "Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type" which also implies that Jung was _not_ Ni (rationally oriented), but I don't think that was ever a question.
    I completely agree with that. If Jung was an introverted intuitive (in his own sense) he must have been totally confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    I think the question is "Is Jung's Introverted Thinking the same as socionics' Ti"?
    Yes, and I can see them as identical (= talking about the same referent in slightly different words). One slightly disturbing fact though, is that my INTJ father identifies more with how Ni is described in MBTT than with Ti, whereas it was the opposite for me at the beginning. Now, when I have studied the types of some philosophers in more detail, I think that I can see more clearly that I am probably not the same type as Kant, and my general philosophical outlook has always been much closer to philosophers such as Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell than to Kant. Wittgenstein is a special and problematic case, that is still not finally settled.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me see... I've got a silver bullet to torpedo your antiargument once and for all. In particular, all the INFjs on this forum should have some difficulty understanding Jung, just as INTJs have difficulty understanding Einstein.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Let me see... I've got a silver bullet to torpedo your antiargument once and for all. In particular, all the INFjs on this forum should have some difficulty understanding Jung, just as INTJs have difficulty understanding Einstein.
    So?

    1) Who said Jung was INFJ? We were talking about Ti.
    2) Even if he were, how can you be sure everyone types themselves correctly?

    It's all circular.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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