Sigmund Freud

[Beautiful sky]

SLI

[noid]

Up

Freud did not invent his theories, he got bits and pieces of information from traditional sources and after conbining them, modernized them. If you understand the concept of the ying/yang and how it relates to to everything around you, you can understand and start to grasp these things. Most people do not take the time or know how to do that, so they never really fully comprehend the theories as they stand.

I suspect people are going to jump in and say I am an idiot, but that is basically the truth if you really want to know.

You are not an idiot you say actually the truth, he just repeat what Dostoievsky, Nietsche (to my knowledge - there is probably other) said in some new fashionned term with an epic obsession with sexual gratification (he seem to have issue with that). Ne is here, for sure. Even perhaps Te (making a guy who have an intellect entirely turned outside - quite possible). My bet is INFj (logic of "because of"... This is why I put it most likely), or ENFp. ENTp or INTj stay highly possible.
He took some year to discover that neurotic try to repress a vanity, or are the protection of an imaginary goal, while it's exactly what Dostoievsky said in "the idiot" he probably read. What a discovery....

The most catastrophic things is that Freud didn't mix his theory with Jung personnality type... It would have been wonderfull

[Hitta]

Freud was wrong on several things imo(especially some of the opinions he formed based on his theories) and to me left several of his concepts incomplete(which some of them were somewhat rectified by later psychoanalysts) but overall I find him to be the most misunderstood psychoanalyst/philospher known. Some of the mis-associations of Freud are even apparent in the majority of the forums interpretations of model A and how the psyche is assembled at different levels. Take the Oedipus Complex for example, most people on the forum would attribute Freud as trying to make an argument on how males are attracted to their mothers; but quite frankly all Freud was attempting to do is convey how the human mind tags things at the Id level of the psyche. You are a male baby born, the first female you come in contact with is your mother. The mother creates an origin for all further interactions with the female sex. The psyche builds up and the ego develops. Soon you've got all these opinions on women and what you like or dislike, but the origin point, the original tag that was created was always dependent on the mother. In socionics the Id functions are set as background functions to sort of denote the same exact thing. If one were to go clean a room, the mind would have a natural unconscious inclination to see what was dirty... this natural background process represents the id. The id functions aren't your alternative processes like whats often preached on the forum, they are intertwined with our ego ones, and are essentially the same thing on a different level of the psyche.

[xerx]

More like Sigmund Fraud.

[Kill4Me]

xerx, elaborate.

[noid]

I think actually Jung is a SLI or less likely SEI. Sublimation of Ne type of person.
You can now throw stones on my head.

[HERO]

Ever since civilization began, people have debated how evil came into the world and what they

can do to combat it. The prevailing view has held that evil results when a child’s innate

destructive instincts are not redirected into goodness, decency, and nobility of character by a

liberal dose of corporal punishment.

Today, no one seriously believes in the old wives’ tale that the devil smuggles a changeling into

the cradle, forcing us to inflict a strict upbringing on the diabolical offspring to bend it toward

submission. But from some quarters we do hear the serious contention that there are such things

as genes that predispose certain individuals to delinquency. The quest for these rogue genes has

inspired many a research project, even though the hypotheses behind it fly in the face of the

facts. No advocate of the “congenital evil” theory has ever, for example, explained why

suddenly, at the turn of the twentieth century, a spate of children with “bad genes” was born who

would later be utterly willing to do ******’s bidding.

Sufficient scientific evidence has been marshaled to refute the notion that some people are just

born bad. This absurd myth, encountered in almost all cultures, has been effectively exploded. It

is dead, but it refuses to lie down. We know today that the brain we are born with is not the

finished product, as once thought. The structuring of the brain depends very much on events

experienced in the first hours, days, and weeks of a person’s life. And there is mounting evidence

that the brain is capable of being modified throughout life, and certainly in the early years. The

capacity for empathy, for example, cannot develop in the absence of loving care. The child who

grows up neglected, emotionally starved, or subjected to physical cruelty will forfeit this

capacity.

Of course, we do not arrive in this world as a clean slate. Every new baby comes with a history

of its own, the history of the nine months between conception and birth. In addition, children

have the genetic blueprint they inherit from their parents. These factors may determine what kind

of temperament a child will have, what inclinations, gifts, predispositions. But character depends

crucially upon whether a person is given love, protection, tenderness, and understanding in the

formative years or exposed to rejection, coldness, indifference, and cruelty. Many very young

murderers, barely more than children, were born to adolescent, drug-dependent mothers—

conditions that we know often go along with extreme neglect, lack of attachment, and

traumatization.


In recent years, neurobiologists have further established that traumatized and neglected

children display severe lesions affecting up to 30 percent of those areas of the brain that control

emotions. The explanation is that severe traumas inflicted on infants lead to an increase in the

release of stress hormones that destroy the newly formed neurons and their interconnections.

In the scientific literature there is still next to no discussion of the implications of these

discoveries for our understanding of child development and the delayed consequences of traumas

and neglect. But this research confirms what I described almost twenty years ago in For Your

Own Good, based not on experiment but on analytic work with my patients and a close

reading of historical educational literature. In that work I quoted extensively from the manuals of

the so-called schwarze Padogogik (“poisonous pedagogy”), which insisted on the

importance of drumming the principles of obedience and cleanliness into babies in the very first

days and weeks of life. Studying this literature helped me understand what made it possible for

individuals such as Adolf Eichmann to function like killer robots: they had accounts to settle

dating back to their earliest days. They had never been given the opportunity to respond to the

violence done to them in their youth. Their destructive potential was the product not of

Freudian death drives but of the early suppression of their natural emotional reactions.

Books containing monstrous advice about “good” parenting to drill the baby into obedience,

disseminated by educators like Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber in Germany in the second half of

the nineteenth century, went into as many as forty editions, so we can conclude that most parents

read them and acted—in good faith—on their recommendations. They beat their children from

the outset because they had been told this was the way to make them into decent members of

society. The children thus treated did the same with their children.

They didn’t know any different. Among that generation of traumatized children, some would

become ******’s adherents, adulators, and henchmen. In my view, it was the direct result of their

early drilling. The cruelty they experienced turned them into emotional cripples, incapable of

developing any empathy for the suffering of others. They had time bombs ticking away in their

minds: they were unconsciously awaiting an opportunity to vent on others the pent-up rage inside

them. ****** gave them the scapegoats they needed.

The latest discoveries about the human brain might have been expected to bring about a radical

change in our thinking about children and the way we treat them. But old habits die hard. It will

take unequivocal legislation and large-scale informational campaigns before young parents will

be able to free themselves of the burden of inherited “wisdom” and stop beating their children.

Only then will it be all but impossible to give one’s child a slap “inadvertently.” Only then will

the power of newly acquired knowledge get in the way of the hand raised to deal the

“unthinking” blow.

These thoughts, which I have set out in much greater detail in my book Paths of Life, will

perhaps suffice to suggest the immense significance I ascribe to the experiences undergone by

infants in the first days, weeks, and months of their lives. To be sure, later influences can undo

some of this damage, particularly for a traumatized or neglected child who encounters a helping

or an enlightened witness. But such empathic individuals can be of real help only if they do not

downplay the consequences of early deprivations. Unfortunately, such sensitivity is rare, even

among so-called experts in the helping professions.

For a long time, the significance of the first few months of life for the later adult was a neglected

subject even among psychologists. In several of my books I have tried to cast light on this area

by discussing the lives of dictators such as ******, Stalin, Ceausescu, and Mao and demonstrating

how they unconsciously reenacted their childhood situation on the political stage. Here, however,

I want to turn my attention away from history and gaze instead at the present.

Are we so loath to tap the rich source of childhood because we know that frightening spirits lurk

there? The reluctance is understandable, for as soon as we attempt to empathize with the

situation a child is in, we are certain to encounter the ghosts that haunted our own childhoods.

Many people would do anything to avoid confronting those spirits and having to experience

themselves once again as small, helpless children. And yet an encounter of this kind can give

them back the vitality and sensitivity that have been lost to them for a lifetime.

-- The Truth Will Set You Free by Alice Miller; pp. 13-18

[HERO]

Before there was Alice Miller, there were few voices telling the truth about our betrayal of our children.

As she points out in this book, Freud and most psychoanalysts were little different from others

in blaming children for their own abuse. Freud once called a girl patient “hysterical” who was molested

by her father (the father was a friend of Freud’s) because she complained about her molestation. It was

children’s sensuousness that was to blame for sexual assaults by adults, he declared, because “the

sexual constitution which is peculiar to children is precisely calculated to provoke sexual experiences of

a particular kind [seductions].” Karl Abraham, Freud’s associate, also believed the molestation of his

child patients was “desired by the child unconsciously.” Most psychoanalysts since then have continued

to label patient reports of childhood sexual abuse merely the victim’s “wishes.” As one psychiatrist

wrote, “I was taught in my . . . early years in psychiatry, as most of us were, to look very skeptically upon

the incestuous sexual material described by my patients . . . Any inclination on my part, or that of my

colleagues in the training situation, to look upon these productions of the patient as having some reality

basis was scoffed at and was seen as evidence of our naiveté.”

Nor has opinion really changed much in either academia or psychiatry. Scholarly academic

journals have recently praised pedophilia as “nurturant” and advocated abolishing laws against sex with

children. The American Psychiatric Association’s current diagnostic manual claims pedophilia is only a

psychiatric disorder if it bothers the pedophile; otherwise, having sex with children is healthy. In fact,

when I gave a speech at a recent A.P.A. convention showing that the majority of children in history were

sexually abused, the audience reacted by wondering if incest isn’t after all not really pathological, since

so many have done it.

--Lloyd deMause (1998), Preface to Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society’s Betrayal of the Child





http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html


‘For the rest of his life, in fact, Freud reiterated his belief that these clear memories of

incestuous attacks were real. In 1905 he wrote, "I cannot admit that in my paper on 'The

Aetiology of Hysteria' I exaggerated the frequency or importance of.. the effects of

seduction, which treats a child as a sexual object prematurely..." (1) Later, he repeatedly

wrote such statements as that "the sexual abuse of children is found with uncanny

frequency among school teachers and child attendants.. and fantasies of being seduced are

of particular interest, because so often they are not fantasies but real memories." (2)

Furthermore, he considered the incestuous memories of such patients as Katharina, Rosalia

H., Elisabeth von R. and the Wolf Man as reality, not fantasy, saying of such traumatic child

abuse "You must not suppose.. that sexual abuse of a child by its nearest male relatives

belongs entirely to the realm of fantasy. Most analysts will have treated cases in which such

events were real and could be unimpeachably established..."(3) He even called his own

memories "genuine" of having been sexually molested as a little boy by his nurse, who had

not only forced him to perform sexually and, he reported, "complained because I was

clumsy," but also, he said, washed him in water that contained her own menstrual blood. (4)

Therefore, regardless of all that has been written about the subject, an unbiased reading of

Freud's works shows that whenever he confronted clear evidence of sexual molestation, he

called it seduction, not fantasy. There was no "great reversal," no "suppression of

seduction," no "betrayal of the child," no "assault on truth."

Freud's courage in acknowledging the extent of childhood sexual molestation was not

shared by the majority of his colleagues. Most, like Jung, simply avoided the topic. Others,

who noted that large numbers of their patients had clear memories of incestuous rape,

blamed the victim, saying, like Abraham, that the molestation "was desired by the child

unconsciously [because of an] abnormal psycho-sexual constitution..." (5)


http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incites.html

1. Freud, Standard Edition. "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality." Vol. VII (1905). p. 86.

2. Freud, Standard Edition. "Three Essays," p. 148; "Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis." Vol. XVI (1917), p. 370.


3. Freud, Standard Edition. "Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis." Vol. XVI (1917),

p. 370. It is true that Freud then went on to say that whether seduction had occurred in

reality or in fantasy, "The outcome is the same, and up to the present we have not

succeeded in pointing to any difference in the consequences, whether fantasy or reality has

had the greater share in these events of childhood." Ibid. Today a psychotherapist would

say that it certainly makes a difference whether incest occurred in reality or not. It would be

important, for instance, to know whether Freud's father was or was not the "pervert" Freud

called him--especially since, like most German children of his time he slept with his parents

in infancy. The point here, however, isn't whether Freud's every clinical opinion is held

today. It is only that Freud didn't deny that real childhood seduction all too often occurred in

his patients and in the society around him.

4. Sigmund Freud, The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, Drafts and Notes: 1887-1902. New York: Basic Books, 1954, p. 220.

5. Karl Abraham, "The Experiencing of Sexual Traumas as a Form of Sexual Activity." In Selected Papers of Karl Abraham. London: Hogarth Press, 1948. p. 48. Abraham's blaming of the victim is particularly clear in his case of the woman who was raped by her uncle in "On the Significance of Sexual Traumas in Childhood for the Symptomatology of Dementia Praecox. "In Karl Abraham, Clinical Papers and Essays on Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books, 1955, p. 14.





Ever since civilization began, people have debated how evil came into the world and what they

can do to combat it. The prevailing view has held that evil results when a child’s innate

destructive instincts are not redirected into goodness, decency, and nobility of character by a

liberal dose of corporal punishment.

Today, no one seriously believes in the old wives’ tale that the devil smuggles a changeling into

the cradle, forcing us to inflict a strict upbringing on the diabolical offspring to bend it toward

submission. But from some quarters we do hear the serious contention that there are such things

as genes that predispose certain individuals to delinquency. The quest for these rogue genes has

inspired many a research project, even though the hypotheses behind it fly in the face of the

facts. No advocate of the “congenital evil” theory has ever, for example, explained why

suddenly, at the turn of the twentieth century, a spate of children with “bad genes” was born who

would later be utterly willing to do ******’s bidding.

Sufficient scientific evidence has been marshaled to refute the notion that some people are just

born bad. This absurd myth, encountered in almost all cultures, has been effectively exploded. It

is dead, but it refuses to lie down. We know today that the brain we are born with is not the

finished product, as once thought. The structuring of the brain depends very much on events

experienced in the first hours, days, and weeks of a person’s life. And there is mounting evidence

that the brain is capable of being modified throughout life, and certainly in the early years. The

capacity for empathy, for example, cannot develop in the absence of loving care. The child who

grows up neglected, emotionally starved, or subjected to physical cruelty will forfeit this

capacity.

Of course, we do not arrive in this world as a clean slate. Every new baby comes with a history

of its own, the history of the nine months between conception and birth. In addition, children

have the genetic blueprint they inherit from their parents. These factors may determine what kind

of temperament a child will have, what inclinations, gifts, predispositions. But character depends

crucially upon whether a person is given love, protection, tenderness, and understanding in the

formative years or exposed to rejection, coldness, indifference, and cruelty. Many very young

murderers, barely more than children, were born to adolescent, drug-dependent mothers—

conditions that we know often go along with extreme neglect, lack of attachment, and

traumatization.


In recent years, neurobiologists have further established that traumatized and neglected

children display severe lesions affecting up to 30 percent of those areas of the brain that control

emotions. The explanation is that severe traumas inflicted on infants lead to an increase in the

release of stress hormones that destroy the newly formed neurons and their interconnections.

In the scientific literature there is still next to no discussion of the implications of these

discoveries for our understanding of child development and the delayed consequences of traumas

and neglect. But this research confirms what I described almost twenty years ago in For Your

Own Good, based not on experiment but on analytic work with my patients and a close

reading of historical educational literature. In that work I quoted extensively from the manuals of

the so-called schwarze Padogogik (“poisonous pedagogy”), which insisted on the

importance of drumming the principles of obedience and cleanliness into babies in the very first

days and weeks of life. Studying this literature helped me understand what made it possible for

individuals such as Adolf Eichmann to function like killer robots: they had accounts to settle

dating back to their earliest days. They had never been given the opportunity to respond to the

violence done to them in their youth. Their destructive potential was the product not of

Freudian death drives but of the early suppression of their natural emotional reactions.

Books containing monstrous advice about “good” parenting to drill the baby into obedience,

disseminated by educators like Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber in Germany in the second half of

the nineteenth century, went into as many as forty editions, so we can conclude that most parents

read them and acted—in good faith—on their recommendations. They beat their children from

the outset because they had been told this was the way to make them into decent members of

society. The children thus treated did the same with their children.

They didn’t know any different. Among that generation of traumatized children, some would

become ******’s adherents, adulators, and henchmen. In my view, it was the direct result of their

early drilling. The cruelty they experienced turned them into emotional cripples, incapable of

developing any empathy for the suffering of others. They had time bombs ticking away in their

minds: they were unconsciously awaiting an opportunity to vent on others the pent-up rage inside

them. ****** gave them the scapegoats they needed.

The latest discoveries about the human brain might have been expected to bring about a radical

change in our thinking about children and the way we treat them. But old habits die hard. It will

take unequivocal legislation and large-scale informational campaigns before young parents will

be able to free themselves of the burden of inherited “wisdom” and stop beating their children.

Only then will it be all but impossible to give one’s child a slap “inadvertently.” Only then will

the power of newly acquired knowledge get in the way of the hand raised to deal the

“unthinking” blow.

These thoughts, which I have set out in much greater detail in my book Paths of Life, will

perhaps suffice to suggest the immense significance I ascribe to the experiences undergone by

infants in the first days, weeks, and months of their lives. To be sure, later influences can undo

some of this damage, particularly for a traumatized or neglected child who encounters a helping

or an enlightened witness. But such empathic individuals can be of real help only if they do not

downplay the consequences of early deprivations. Unfortunately, such sensitivity is rare, even

among so-called experts in the helping professions.

For a long time, the significance of the first few months of life for the later adult was a neglected

subject even among psychologists. In several of my books I have tried to cast light on this area

by discussing the lives of dictators such as ******, Stalin, Ceausescu, and Mao and demonstrating

how they unconsciously reenacted their childhood situation on the political stage. Here, however,

I want to turn my attention away from history and gaze instead at the present.

Are we so loath to tap the rich source of childhood because we know that frightening spirits lurk

there? The reluctance is understandable, for as soon as we attempt to empathize with the

situation a child is in, we are certain to encounter the ghosts that haunted our own childhoods.

Many people would do anything to avoid confronting those spirits and having to experience

themselves once again as small, helpless children. And yet an encounter of this kind can give

them back the vitality and sensitivity that have been lost to them for a lifetime.

-- The Truth Will Set You Free by Alice Miller; pp. 13-18

[xerx]

nevermind

[Absurd]

Depends on how far are any of you willing to go concerning his "philosophy" on autism, schizophrenia, anorexia and Tourette's syndrome. I mean, if you all think you're going to treat those by talking, Freud is your guy.

And to counter what xerx wrote about homophobes, heh well, Freud thought schizophrenia is caused by homosexuality. So not only these homophobes are homosexual, schizophrenics are as well...

[noid]

His methods entirely depended on a-priori assumptions and his claims were unfalsifiable. Much of psychoanalysis rests on the therapist's own idiosyncrasies; the therapist would project his own hunch as to the patient's problems, and any denial of the conclusion by the patient would only be seen as further proof of repression.

200% agree

[Amber]

EII

[Not A Communist Shill]

EIE

[Not A Communist Shill]

apparently the only known recording of Freud's voice:



he did this interview when he was suffering from the painful jaw cancer that led to his death.

[strrrng]

As far as psychoanalysis goes, I always preferred Lacan, whom I type ILE, which makes me think LII for Freud, based on the slight differences in the way they write/present their ideas. It's kind of hard to qualify because of how convoluted Lacan is, but basically, Lacan never strays from whatever premise(s) he's employing, whereas Freud, in a way similar to Marx, tends to contextually alternate a little more, or at least never fix a definite trajectory. That being said, I haven't read much Freud, and it was years ago, so I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

[Kill4Me]

ILI-Te 5w6 sp/sx is an easy call here.

Freud first off presents with the cold, detached, solitary gestalt of 5w6. Fortressed off quality, heightened selectivity in transfers of energy with others, and a throughline of self-absorption in intellectual pursuits shows no social instinct in sight.

Freud's body of work has that one-of-a-kind, never been done before quality that belies a unique inner reality. Ni-dom permitted Freud access into the unconscious mind, understanding it, exploring it, reading it. This is not the type of information Ti processes. Freud's psychoanalysis aimed at getting people more in touch with Ni by liberating themselves from the underlying "thing" in their unconscious driving a pattern state. In a nutshell, Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought and that is exactly what Freud set out to do. I believe he accomplished it.

Since Freud is a Te-subtype, he was able to compromise enough of that inner reality in order to be competent at a field of study, but his net gain still contained enough untamed Ni to set off a movement. The unique techniques and concepts he came up with reflects Te-creative quite nicely. The ego-superego-id trinity provided a dry, simple, practical external structure for many of his insights. This external structure gave his Ni a framework through which to operate. Ni-doms also show up more as having an affinity for free-association/stream of consciousness (freud, joyce, Cassidy).

Ti/Ne does not have the requisite cognition for Freud's type of transgression. Ti/Ne are data collectors extraordinaire, categorizers and correlators of systems but rarely reinvent the wheel. Ti-lead approaches insights through a more mechanical "go where the evidence dictates" process that cuts off inner knowing. Ne-creative winds them up with a whole tangential shitload of platitudes in its stead. In contrast, Ni/Te has to rely less on data collection because inner knowing is a key feature of Ni cognition and with that counter-intuition. Ni transgresses the status quo by positioning itself as a subject who counter-intuitively knows.

Any alpha argument raised is without merit. Quadra values is a thing of the past and dissolving the Quadra Values Mythology has been a core platform of Stackemup Typology since the inception of Socionics New Wave.

[vesstheastralsilky]

I find it truly tragic how the modern profession now bears no resemblance to the ideas and related notions of its founding fathers. It seems unjust that a purely biological-belief-driven bureaucratic professional fellowship hijacked the industry and prestige of its Alpha NT founders. That Jung was abandoned as well as Freud is even more tragic. Only mostly lay people still seem to esteem any of their ideas. The profession needs a revival in the spirit of classics but updated for the times. Socionics offers promise in this if only there were more consensus and professional acceptance (instead of endless pathologies that can be misconstrued to suit anybody as is powerfully convenient to do so).

Freud and Jung were both Alpha NTs.

[Singu]

Only pretentious dickwads are into Freud, Jung or Lacan, and that's why those people can't ever come up with anything important or relevant.

However it is true that we need an "update" in psychology, because psychology has stagnated for decades and there hasn't been any great progress, even after the "cognitive revolution". AI research has stagnated in the same way because there hasn't been any progress in psychology.

So how can there be a progress? Somebody needs to come up with a "grand explanation" for how our mind works, how consciousness works, etc, in the same way that Newton and Einstein came up with a "grand explanation" for gravity that catapulted physics, in the same way that Darwin came up with a "grand explanation" for the Theory of Evolution that catapulted biology, in the same way that Dalton came up with atomic theory, Mendeleev came up with the Periodic Table that catapulted chemistry...

So once we have the "grand explanation" set, then I think that we could have a "strong AI" in a matter of years, and not decades or even centuries. There will never be a "strong AI" or an understanding of how the human mind works, without someone coming up with an explanation for how they work.

[WVBRY]

I find it truly tragic how the modern profession now bears no resemblance to the ideas and related notions of its founding fathers. It seems unjust that a purely biological-belief-driven bureaucratic professional fellowship hijacked the industry and prestige of its Alpha NT founders. That Jung was abandoned as well as Freud is even more tragic. Only mostly lay people still seem to esteem any of their ideas. The profession needs a revival in the spirit of classics but updated for the times. Socionics offers promise in this if only there were more consensus and professional acceptance (instead of endless pathologies that can be misconstrued to suit anybody as is powerfully convenient to do so).

Freud and Jung were both Alpha NTs.

Why does it sound to me like you're arguing that alpha NTs are automatically good? Don't you think you should strive for more neutrality in how you type people, not just based on personal like and dislike (which is how you come off to me)?

You certainly aren't the only person to do this, but your post stands out to me as a pure value judgement, expressing disappointment with the "industry" because its current state of affairs displeases you, which leads you to think that since you self-type as SEI, Freud and Jung (whom you like) must be alpha NTs?

[vesstheastralsilky]

Why does it sound to me like you're arguing that alpha NTs are automatically good? Don't you think you should strive for more neutrality in how you type people, not just based on personal like and dislike (which is how you come off to me)?

You certainly aren't the only person to do this, but your post stands out to me as a pure value judgement, expressing disappointment with the "industry" because its current state of affairs displeases you, which leads you to think that since you self-type as SEI, Freud and Jung (whom you like) must be alpha NTs?

Strawman arguments galore.

[WVBRY]

Strawman arguments galore.

Not really. They are not meant to be arguments at all, more like observations. But since I am not sure due to not being in your head, I am more like asking.

I'm confused about your reasoning is all. Yes, you're right that I'm assuming it's bs, but if I was sure it was bs, I would have just said it was bs. At this point what you wrote looks like bs but I wanted to give you a chance to defend yourself.

Just trying to prod you to see what your reasoning was, but if you don't feel like explaining, I'm cool with that.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I was thinking about making a new thread about Freud but then I saw this one. I've spend quite a lot of time reading about him six months ago and I think I can limit his type to EIE or LIE. it's really tricky, but I'm very sure that he values Ni and Se and that he's has an intuitive type. I wish there were more videos of him that I could analyse but there's not much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj2JFI4BsRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyZWEtBQzJ0

I also read a couple of love letters between him and his wife and they are filled with quite a lot of emotions, very passionate, and they initially made me lean towards EIE, but then there's a comment from Dmitry Golihov on Fi as suggestive function (LIE) that I thought was very interesting:

"If he has feelings for someone, he can turn a blind eye to everything, as he is very suggestible by love - it makes him blind. It's a feeling that warms him contrary to all common sense."

later on, these love letters became very pragmatic. another thing to also keep in mind is his relationship to Jung who is imo a clear IEI. as EIE they would have a mirror interaction and as LIE it would be supervision.

there's also an interesting comment from Freud on money, he once said "Money is laughing gas to me", which makes me think of the hidden agenda "to be wealthy" (for EIE and LIE).

so yeah, still debating on his type but leaning more towards LIE for now. would like to hear more opinions.

[khcs]

Sigmund Freud - Angry Humanist

[The Reality Denialist]

ILE quite likely. Jung diagnosed him as blatant extravert which brought in the conflict. [Probably the rarest, dominant subtype]

[on a peaceful hiatus]

ILE quite likely. Jung diagnosed him as blatant extravert which brought in the conflict. [Probably the rarest, dominant subtype]

hmm, I would argue that you see Ne aspects in him because it is a 4 dimensional function for EIE and LIE. looking at his life, I do not see him as Si valuing type at all. much of his work focused on unconcious Ni aspects, which is the undervalued 7th function for ILE.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

it is also interesting to read what Dmitry Golihov wrote on Ni as creative function (EIE and LIE)

These types like to find internally contradictory people, "dig" in them and create in them internal harmony and mood. They make for great artists, because they know how to and love to "become" one with an image of a man and play a role from his worldview. They are able to understand the essence of complex internal situations and make for potentially good analysts. Often it is difficult to find employment for them, as their "product" is the internal conflicts of man and essence, and to penetrate so far, into "the soul" of man, you just need to have permission. Often become unstable, vulnerable, fragile, just so that they can harmonize themselves, and sometimes can start to torment and tear into themselves and dig into their own issues. They have a difficulty finding adequate application to their creative function in the world, since it is not in high demand - not everyone wants someone else to dig into their internal states. Their product - bold ideas, principles, systems of belief and knowledge that they bring into the world and promote. But they do this beautifully, creatively, elegantly, not forcibly imposing them but promoting them in interesting ways. Search for internally contradictory situations, like to grasp their essence. Often realize themselves in art and writing, as this is also a good way to use the function. They are able to enter into various internal psychological states. A good speaker, as he is able to influence positively on the internal state of others. Their product is the "wholeness" of the internal state, and therefore they can find success in field of psychology, because it means that they are the healers of souls. In life they loved to dramatize everything. Everyone around becomes informed about the slightest change in their mood or internal state. Usually they are very fond of "making mountains out of molehills", for them this is a way to find work for their second function. The more they become exposed - the greater the realization of their personality in the world.

this also applies to jordan peterson (a LIE) for example, who's probably the most famous clinical psychologist right now.

Jung said that Sigmund Freud was an extroverted logical type, and I think he was right here.

[The Reality Denialist]

hmm, I would argue that you see Ne aspects in him because it is a 4 dimensional function for EIE and LIE. looking at his life, I do not see him as Si valuing type at all. much of his work focused on unconcious Ni aspects, which is the undervalued 7th function for ILE.

His focus was entirely static. Explaining rather than immersing.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

another thing that speaks against ILE is that it would be a Mirage relationship with Carl Jung, which is a good relationship for irrational types. Sigmund Freud also cut off the contact to many people who disagreed with him, which makes me think that he was an extroverted rational type. there's really no evidence leaning towards ILE.

my personal opinion is that he was a normalising subtype (which is just an intuitive guess, there's no way to prove that now). there seems to be a higher focus on introverted functions, making him very introspective for an extroverted type. I cannot see him being a dominant subtype.

[Breather]

IEI-Fe 1w2

[The Reality Denialist]

I fail to see Ni.

[Not A Communist Shill]

He had mountains of Ni.



“Woe to you, my Princess, when I come. I will kiss you quite red and feed you till you are plump. And if you are forward, you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle little girl who doesn't eat enough, or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body.”

[Adam Strange]

He had mountains of Ni.



“Woe to you, my Princess, when I come. I will kiss you quite red and feed you till you are plump. And if you are forward, you shall see who is the stronger, a gentle little girl who doesn't eat enough, or a big wild man who has cocaine in his body.”

Clearly the Harvey Weinstein of his time.

[ooo]

another thing that speaks against ILE is that it would be a Mirage relationship with Carl Jung, which is a good relationship for irrational types.

oh, it's a year I've been trying to find this theory again, I'm pretty sure I've read it from Gulenko but can't remember the context and where I've read it..

it went like: irrationals are attracted by their mirage, while rationals are more attracted by their semi-duals...

can you help? :/

[on a peaceful hiatus]

oh, it's a year I've been trying to find this theory again, I'm pretty sure I've read it from Gulenko but can't remember the context and where I've read it..

it went like: irrationals are attracted by their mirage, while rationals are more attracted by their semi-duals...

can you help? :/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LJb0y5f8Pg

[Adam Strange]

oh, it's a year I've been trying to find this theory again, I'm pretty sure I've read it from Gulenko but can't remember the context and where I've read it..

it went like: irrationals are attracted by their mirage, while rationals are more attracted by their semi-duals...

can you help? :/

You can probably figure this out by yourself.

First, it depends on what you mean by "attraction". Note that half of the Mirage couples are on the same compatible sexual axis (Victim-Aggressor or Caregiver-Infantile) as their duals, and half are not.
The half that are not sexually compatible with their Mirage partners are on the same compatible sexual axis (Victim-Aggressor or Caregiver-Infantile) as their Semi-duals.

So half the Socion is going to be sexually compatible with their Mirage partners, and the other half with their Semi-duals.

Sex alone, though, does not a relationship make. I'm sexually compatible with my Mirage partner (LSI's IMO are fantastic in bed) but we have very different social needs. And I've been having lunch and dinner with my Semi-dual EII secretary for years. I can and would take her anywhere, except to bed. Lol.

(I'm waiting for that ESI who has both virtues. )

[The Reality Denialist]

Cigarette is not a cigarette. That is pretty classic base Ne. If we can say what Ne does it says stuff like that the stuff you keep between your lips is non concrete penis.

[Alomoes]

You're saying Freud was bad at judging psychological distance when you say that Freud was Fi polr. You know what psychology is right?

INFj seems about right. But I mean, hey, you go for what you want.

He was Si valuing though, you can see it by his love of coke. A lot of Ne users I know will go for coke, cigarettes, and other stimulants. Personally, drugs are stupid in my opinion.

Note, I cleansed this of irrelevant information. I had a whole tirade where I went into why he's got poor logical skills, and his relations with Jung, ILI. It's interesting, because he was indeed a neurologist. Also, Allport would be LIE, along with the high school psych teacher I never met was some form of gamma NT. That'd be another topic for another day though.

Also, I'm tempted to quote one of Gordon Ramsey's monosyllables that you guys think a psychologist is Fi polr. See, I'll explain.

ENTp is good at gauging intelligence. Imagine I'm sitting here, and I'm trying to work out a problem. ENTp is sitting over there. I'm having trouble. He'll try and solve my inability to solve the problem. Chances are though, if I can't do it, he can't either. No offence. We both use the same functions, and I have stronger logic.

Now, the INTj will be able to solve the problem, he'll just never tell me he did it.

Similarly, ENFp will come over here, and ask what I'm doing. Then nod and leave.

The INFj will say something interesting to someone, and I'll go and see him to see about solving my problems. Then I'll realize he's insane. Good news, I like the insane. Bad news, I'm too far gone to be reasoned with.

Similarly, I'll come over there, see you're working on a problem, watch, and give unprompted advice. My advice will always be honest and as factually verifiable as I can. I'm adding that part, because I actually know how I think.

ENTp knows how they think as well, but they focus more on how other people think. I do that too, I'm just not as good. Which is why I usually prune all that stuff out.

Imagine a person who knows exactly how to prove their idea to someone else by what they say and do. That's essentially ENTp. They're not looking beyond content. Which is why when they're suddenly yelled at randomly, you'll get a very strong reaction of "why are you doing this to me?". Meanwhile, I'll be standing here listing the reasons. Wanna see a grown man cry? Yell at an ILE. I've seen it happen where an SLI was being completely oblivious, and accidentally insulted one repeatedly. Insulted me too, quite repeatedly. Difference is, I shut up and worked through the logic, and he broke down.

See, thing is, she was right. Also, SLIs should not be psychologists. No offence. That's big nurse level oof.

[The Reality Denialist]

We have very little material of him... He managed things by making it formal.

[Alomoes]

You want me to pull up his books? For reference?

[ooo]

lol, all the assiduous cocaine users I know are Se egos. LSI, ESI, SLE, a bunch of SEEs...