Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

[Rick]

I found a very interesting source - probably the best out there:
"Analysis of the Personality of Adolph ******...", written 1943 by a well-known psychologist. You can download it at http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/lib...onovan/******/

"The proper interpretation of ******'s personality is important as a step in understanding the psychology of the typical Nazi, and - since the typical Nazi exhibits a strain that has, for a long time, been prevalent among Germans - as a step in understanding the psychology of the German people. ******'s unprecented appeal, the elevation of this man to the status of a demi-god, can be explained only on the hypothesis that he and his ideology have almost exactly met the needs, longings, and sentiments of the majority of Germans."

I recommend reading at least Segment 2, which contains a summary of the entire report.
(15 minutes later)
Wow, Segment 3 is great, too. Enough said. Everything I could possibly have said about ****** is in there. What a great psychologist. He resolves the contradictions so effectively -- how ****** is both a neurotic and yet a "highly effective person."

[Rick]

Even though ****** was a neurotic, we can still type him fairly easily, because he had a clearly structured information field. From this man's analysis it is clear that ****** had an extremely strong component. On my site I state that the "spiritual program" of is emotional coalescence with the object of adoration, and absolute worship. This is what ****** "bought" the Germans with -- his total, utter devotion to Germany. Not only that, but he did everything possible to instill adoration and emotional devotion to himself among his closest aides and among the population at large -- and was extremely successful. This is not something many types are capable of achieving, and it would make the vast majority of types highly uncomfortable. Yet I keep seeing it in prominent EIE's (teachers, professors, artists) I come across; they feed off the adoration, and it stimulates them to ever greater feats of serving "the cause" (music, the arts, or whatever it is that they appear to be serving so selflessly). I have not observed this particular kind of behavior in any other type. Other types can also be devoted, but they don't have this quality of "emotional coalescence" with their cause. In addition, the "cause" EIE's serve is always something abstract and lies in the past (preserving the traditions of the Great Arts) or the future (achieving the Greatness of Germany, with "Greatness" as an abstract, subjective quality rather than a concrete measurement). In this cause there is no room for pluralism or questioning the foundations of the cause; it is something to be believed in as an Absolute. I think Dr. Murray's depiction of ****** fits my description here.

The fact that ****** was 'socionically' effective is apparent. He had people and systems organized to serve his every need. No important channel was ignored, except, perhaps, in the more personal areas of his life, where his neuroses came from. As Dr. Murray says, ****** was not psychologically isolated, and effectively found like-minded people and resonated well with heads of power structures.

[Rick]

Oh my god, just read Segment 4's summary of ******'s "abilities and effective traits" (pg. 6 and 7). It's right down the lines of strong and .

Enough said, in my opinion. I'm reasonably convinced.

[Rick]

Sorry for being so disorganized here, but just read the last segment and forget the rest. This report sounds like a socionic portrait. I'm in awe.

[Rick]

In light of this topic, I have outlined what I see as the principles for typing famous people:
http://www.socionics.us/practice/famous.shtml
I think that if we don't recognize these principles or some variation thereof, we have no solid criteria for typing famous people whatsoever.

[Olga]

I did enjoy reading you article and how you analysed ****** on the forum. It all sounds very convincing. I just wish it would be as simple as that:
Thus, we expect to find that famous people with complex achievements clearly display their strong functions and have people around them who effectively complement their weak functions. We do not need to peer deeply into the muck of people's repressed fears or read everything that has ever been written about them to understand their socionic type. It should basically lie on the surface; the only real issue is assigning the correct name to these obvious qualities.
I guess if we shall start to dig deeper than we shall find something where the types cross, where they differ from the original type description and surely it will not help! However, you showed how to do it and from now on we shall hopefully get more analysis like that about other famous people. That would be a good exercise. I would agree that it is good to be focused and try to separate more graphic/ovious from something which is not that important, inferiour when we type.
I still need to make my mind though and I might need to re-type people I know. It would be interesting to hear from those who is still not convinced. Could they bring up some of the ******'s behaviour which is not in agreement with ENFJ type?

[Rick]

Thanks, Olga. I think the most interesting part of this all is to look at the way Dr. Murray summarized ****** in his last segment (see link above). Dr. Murray successfully separated neurotic qualities from normal, well-developed healthy qualities, making it much easier for us to type ******. If ****** were some kind of "repressed and psychologically mutilated ILI," for example, we would not see all the -related powerful strengths that ****** displayed with great skill and confidence. I think Dr. Murray's very successful attempt to show "the big picture" of ******'s functioning is the kind of thing we should try to do with our typings.

[tcaudilllg]

You may argue that ****** had strong feeling, however, can you argue he didn't have strong thinking? Official Nazi documents illustrate a man who had strong critical facilities even in his youth.

[Rick]

We don't have to prove that he had weak thinking. We just have to prove that his feeling took higher priority and defined his interaction with others.

[tcaudilllg]

We don't have to prove that he had weak thinking. We just have to prove that his feeling took higher priority and defined his interaction with others.

Now wait a second. What is feeling? Are you defining it with values/ethics... or emotions?

Seems the guy was a bit lacking in the ethics department.

[Rick]

Neither. I'm referring to socionics ethics.

[MysticSonic]

How does actively cultivated Fe result in a nationalistic mentality?

[Rick]

How does actively cultivated Fe result in a nationalistic mentality?

Nationalism is essentially an emotional (non-rational) self-identification with one's nation and willingness to promote national interests as if they were one's own. Extreme nationalism, or at least ******'s version, required people to give up individual motives and create a unified nation-level motivational force. ****** understood that people would act and obey if they were mobilized emotionally. He himself came to completely identify himself with the German nation, essentially giving up his own self-identity, and thus came across so convincingly to the German people. cultivated at the national level doesn't necessary have to result in nationalism, but it would lead to more emotionally uniting group experiences, which, if taken too far, could lead to fascism. That's my view.

A good example of what I'm talking about would be the September 11th terrorist attacks. The entire nation went through a very powerful collective emotional experience, which resulted in a rise of national self-identity and willingness to take action together. Over time the emotional effect of this event wore off, and the sense of unity was lost. The more collective emotional experiences people go through, the tighter group identity becomes and the more self-identity weakens. The difference between Alpha Quadra and Beta Quadra is that in Alpha Quadra this is done for enjoyment ( + ), while in Beta it is done for abstract causes ( + ). ****** tried to continually revv everyone up emotionally to keep them mobilized, united, and believing in him and his Great Idea. He was largely successful, and it took years and years for the emotional effect of his rule to wear off. To a certain degree you could say the same of other totalitarian leaders, but if you look at people like Stalin or Lukashenko (both LSI's), they simply use force and organizational means to exert influence, without projecting any particular emotional energy -- unlike ******, who not only won the adulation of millions of Germans, but also his close associates!

[Olga]

I think I am going to start to ask Rick more questions from now on :wink: .

I would like to understand better the differences or similarities between three types ESFJ, ESTJ, ENFJ. The two people I know and typed as ESFJ :

1. Talk a lot about themselves and can be intrusive (they can wake you up or do not care much about what you want as long as they want to talk...and of course about their matters!

2. They both are good at cooking and generaly are very tidy and like tidiness and will not keep rubbish in the house, rather thorugh everything and regeret later than to keep. Look after themselves, clean and tidy appearance.

3. Both are good or like kids.

These people are (a man and a woman) have qualities which would remind Hilter, like emotional power and closed mind. As if they can listen to you but not really hear what you say. If Hilter was ENFJ, the only thing that puzzles me, who are these people I know? Description of ENFJ, as far as I remember, says that they are not that good to look after themselves, hidden agenda is .

The question basically is why Hilter could not be definetly ESFJ or ESTJ. My mum is ESTJ and she is a very hysterical lady and very logical, that is why wedid not get on well. I have read a description of one of the famous russian person who was ENFJ and it sounds disgusting:he used emotions to get where he wants to and it seems that their emotions are on the surface only. I do not support the idea about good and bad types but you do get from time to time in a trap like this.
I remember something has been already mentioned about Delta quadra (ESTJ) and Alfa quadra ( -pleasure!). Can we say that ****** was a very typical ENFJ by his appearnce or by his effective persona?
If we all could come to the united opinion about ******'s type we could suggest to add him to the famous people album? Why don't we have one for this forum?

[tcaudilllg]

The only thing I agree with about ****** is that he was an N. That's all. He was definitely one of those. He was so N, he'd shower after every summer speech. He couldn't stand introverted sensing, nor extroverted sensing.

Question: do the ENFJs here believe they are capable of doing what ****** did?

[Rick]

Question: do the ENFJs here believe they are capable of doing what ****** did?

Hm, that's like asking if I'm capable of writing Huckleberry Finn because I'm the same type as Mark Twain. Only Mark Twain was able to write Huckleberry Finn, and only ****** was able to do what he did. But other people of his type tend to use similar -related methods to reach their goals.

In addition, ****** had a number of neuroses that contributed to his career development.

[Rick]

Olga:

The question basically is why Hilter could not be definetly ESFJ or ESTJ. My mum is ESTJ and she is a very hysterical lady and very logical, that is why wedid not get on well. I have read a description of one of the famous russian person who was ENFJ and it sounds disgusting:he used emotions to get where he wants to and it seems that their emotions are on the surface only. I do not support the idea about good and bad types but you do get from time to time in a trap like this.
I remember something has been already mentioned about Delta quadra (ESTJ) and Alfa quadra ( -pleasure!). Can we say that ****** was a very typical ENFJ by his appearnce or by his effective persona?

I have also known a "hysterical" LSE. But her hysteria was not directed at influencing people emotionally. It was a logical sort of hysteria; she would get mad at people for not doing their work right and would go off on long rants and constantly express exasperation. But the "point" of all this was not to influence people's emotions, but to get them all to do things correctly.

I haven't yet made a collection of ******'s photos, but some of his expressions seem somewhat typical. I'd have to do more work on that. But note the sternness and complete dedication that he exudes in his photos.

A Russian politician you probably know of - Zhirinovsky - is commonly seen as a ******-type figure. He is also usually typed as EIE, and also pursues a radically nationalist agenda and is constantly playing to the crowd. The difference is that he seems to take himself slightly less seriously than ****** did. He is also less repressed sexually and simply has perversions as opposed to complete sexual repression as historians suggest ****** had.

[tcaudilllg]

Question: do the ENFJs here believe they are capable of doing what ****** did?

Hm, that's like asking if I'm capable of writing Huckleberry Finn because I'm the same type as Mark Twain. Only Mark Twain was able to write Huckleberry Finn, and only ****** was able to do what he did. But other people of his type tend to use similar -related methods to reach their goals.

In addition, ****** had a number of neuroses that contributed to his career development.

Neuroses? What might they be and how may they not be related to type?

And what type as Mark Twain, by your estimation?

The problem I have with your assessment is that you are saying that a person is this type because of this, and then affixing all of the abnormalities associated with them to something you suggest is completely unrelated to type. (like a psychological disorder, or a neurosis) Neuroses have a very definite nature: they reflect an attempt to use a conscious function in a situation that requires an unconscious function, with the personality being aware that the unconscious function is inadequate. Therefore there exists a state of inner frustration by the personality, a failure to adapt. I should note that Jung is the authority on neuroses.

If you are going to demonstrate ******'s neuroses, then you need to demonstrate the conflicts between his functions. Otherwise you can't claim that they existed, and you can't justify their existence as conflict possibilities within an ENFJ's psychology.

[Mariano Rajoy]

ricks the shit. he can claim whatever he wants.

[Rick]

Neuroses? What might they be and how may they not be related to type?

Different types tend to develop different kinds of neuroses. This was demonstrated by Jung and many other typologists.

And what type as Mark Twain, by your estimation?

IEE

The problem I have with your assessment is that you are saying that a person is this type because of this, and then affixing all of the abnormalities associated with them to something you suggest is completely unrelated to type. (like a psychological disorder, or a neurosis) Neuroses have a very definite nature: they reflect an attempt to use a conscious function in a situation that requires an unconscious function, with the personality being aware that the unconscious function is inadequate. Therefore there exists a state of inner frustration by the personality, a failure to adapt. I should note that Jung is the authority on neuroses.

If you are going to demonstrate ******'s neuroses, then you need to demonstrate the conflicts between his functions. Otherwise you can't claim that they existed, and you can't justify their existence as conflict possibilities within an ENFJ's psychology.

I lost you here. You are asking for a kind of analysis that I don't currently do (i.e. demonstrating conflicts between functions), because that's not the way I see things. In the case of ****** I think Dr. Murray did a superb job of separating ******'s normal healthy strengths from his various weaknesses and neuroses. For typing purposes I would simply take those strengths and give them a name.

[Rick]

The only thing I agree with about ****** is that he was an N. That's all. He was definitely one of those. He was so N, he'd shower after every summer speech. He couldn't stand introverted sensing, nor extroverted sensing.

Question: do the ENFJs here believe they are capable of doing what ****** did?

Now a question for you, since you are so critical of the things I'm writing. Can you elucidate on what you mean by "he couldn't stand introverted sensing, nor extraverted sensing?"

[tcaudilllg]

The only thing I agree with about ****** is that he was an N. That's all. He was definitely one of those. He was so N, he'd shower after every summer speech. He couldn't stand introverted sensing, nor extroverted sensing.

Question: do the ENFJs here believe they are capable of doing what ****** did?

Now a question for you, since you are so critical of the things I'm writing. Can you elucidate on what you mean by "he couldn't stand introverted sensing, nor extraverted sensing?"

He was not one to sit back and enjoy the simpler things in life. He was always, always daydreaming, or discussing an idea. The diaries of his generals describe regular monologues about every "racial" or militarily strategic idea imaginable. He did not dress flashily: indeed, he was almost always in official dress, even among his contemporaries. He had very few close friends: everyone around him had some use to him of some kind. He spent most of his youth living alone. He would think critically about the words of speakers he heard, and how they resonated with their audience. He cared very little for what other people thought about him.

When he discussed the Jews, he was apt to describe them as a "disease". He describes this sense of disease in a way that is very graphic and devoid of external influence, almost as if he equated the nation of Germany to be his own body. He spent a great deal of time concocting new reasons to hate the Jews. His was a personal hatred for them, not a shared one.

This link between the introverted sensing concept of disease and the nation of Germany seems to me the most effective argument for his being a person who did not differentiate themselves from their social environment. Now by "failing to differentiate", I'm not talking about affixation to the extroverted notion of object; rather, I'm suggesting he did not distinguish between the object and the subject in the first place. He identifies his subjective self with the German nation, an idealized object.

EDIT:
...In regards to whether or not ****** was a feeling type, I think it needs to be made clear how feeling differs from psychosis. ******'s belief that the Jews were what he thought they were was very, very irrational. There is also the problem of his inability to put himself into the shoes of those he persecuted--even though he had more Jewish friends than non in his youth. That in itself, for me, rules out F.

Another thing: he succeeded. He played a very delicate psychological game in which he won bloodless victories over several nations, by playing people's fears and desires against each other. Had not the world drawn the line at Poland, he would have continued trying to psychologically cajole people into getting his way. I don't think a J could have managed the things he did. His speech, I should mention, had the precision of a P....

[Rick]

Okay, this is all quite good, actually. Thank you. My impression was also that ****** had a sort of "sick " that was always on his mind. It's normal to try to simplify certain aspects of one's own life (especially one's 4th function), but his attempt to turn it into a national strategy shows that he projected this personal pain onto the nation as a whole -- as you say, equating the nation of Germany to his own body. I think in light of my EIE version we can say that ******'s strong emotional connection with his country was normal and healthy, but his projection of his own "pet peeves" onto the whole country was definitely both abnormal and unhealthy.

It seems that most totalitarian leaders have exactly this problem. Rather than simply being content with using their strong functions, they foist an "eliminate my 4th function threat" program on everyone.

[tcaudilllg]

Okay, this is all quite good, actually. Thank you. My impression was also that ****** had a sort of "sick " that was always on his mind. It's normal to try to simplify certain aspects of one's own life (especially one's 4th function), but his attempt to turn it into a national strategy shows that he projected this personal pain onto the nation as a whole -- as you say, equating the nation of Germany to his own body. I think in light of my EIE version we can say that ******'s strong emotional connection with his country was normal and healthy, but his projection of his own "pet peeves" onto the whole country was definitely both abnormal and unhealthy.

It seems that most totalitarian leaders have exactly this problem. Rather than simply being content with using there strong functions, they foist an "eliminate my 4th function threat" program on everyone.

And there is the question: why did he try to project his own weaknesses onto the perceived enemy of his group?

[Rick]

EDIT:
...In regards to whether or not ****** was a feeling type, I think it needs to be made clear how feeling differs from psychosis. ******'s belief that the Jews were what he thought they were was very, very irrational. There is also the problem of his inability to put himself into the shoes of those he persecuted--even though he had more Jewish friends than non in his youth. That in itself, for me, rules out F.

Another thing: he succeeded. He played a very delicate psychological game in which he won bloodless victories over several nations, by playing people's fears and desires against each other. Had not the world drawn the line at Poland, he would have continued trying to psychologically cajole people into getting his way. I don't think a J could have managed the things he did. His speech, I should mention, had the precision of a P....

Here I disagree. types can have all sorts of irrational sentiments (irrational in the nonsocionic sense of the word). I also don't see much of a tendency to put oneself in others' shoes among types. They tend to see things too categorically to put themselves meaningfully in others' shoes. That is more typical of EII's and IEE's. The fact that he played on people's fears and desires so effectively is actually a strong argument in favor of ethics. I don't understand your statements about J and P. Dr. Murray shows that ****** was not at all flexible in his reactions to unplanned events. They hit him very hard and put him out of commission for lengthy periods before he could recover.

[Rick]

And there is the question: why did he try to project his own weaknesses onto the perceived enemy of his group?

It might have been because he had unresolved personal problems in this area stemming from his own childhood, as Dr. Murray suggests. Perhaps no one corrected his distorted perception of these weak areas in time.

[tcaudilllg]

EDIT:
...In regards to whether or not ****** was a feeling type, I think it needs to be made clear how feeling differs from psychosis. ******'s belief that the Jews were what he thought they were was very, very irrational. There is also the problem of his inability to put himself into the shoes of those he persecuted--even though he had more Jewish friends than non in his youth. That in itself, for me, rules out F.

Another thing: he succeeded. He played a very delicate psychological game in which he won bloodless victories over several nations, by playing people's fears and desires against each other. Had not the world drawn the line at Poland, he would have continued trying to psychologically cajole people into getting his way. I don't think a J could have managed the things he did. His speech, I should mention, had the precision of a P....

Here I disagree. types can have all sorts of irrational sentiments (irrational in the nonsocionic sense of the word). I also don't see much of a tendency to put oneself in others' shoes among types. They tend to see things too categorically to put themselves meaningfully in others' shoes. That is more typical of EII's and IEE's. The fact that he played on people's fears and desires so effectively is actually a strong argument in favor of ethics. I don't understand your statements about J and P. Dr. Murray shows that ****** was not at all flexible in his reactions to unplanned events. They hit him very hard and put him out of commission for lengthy periods before he could recover.

I've had enough. There are too many disagreements in our experience. I've known plenty of ENFJs who could put themselves in other people's shoes. ******'s type? xNxx, and I'm done.

Here's a person of ******'s type. Justify her as ENFJ.

http://i-cunt-hear-you.livejournal.com/

[Rick]

******'s type? xNxx, and I'm done.

If you had to choose one of the 16 socionic types for ******, which one would you pick?

[tcaudilllg]

******'s type? xNxx, and I'm done.

If you had to choose one of the 16 socionic types for ******, which one would you pick?

I don't think he matches any of them. Even if I had to, I wouldn't.

[CuriousSoul]

If you had to choose one of the 16 socionic types for ******, which one would you pick?

In my (current) opinion ****** only really makes "sense" if we presume that he was a heavily distorted INFJ. I'll get back to this later...

[tcaudilllg]

Let's not forget: aside from his family he didn't even have normal relationships. He was a characteristic raving madman. His desire to be Germany completely dominated his life. Not even love proved a match for the "German spirit" within him.

He didn't have a single relationship that was not associated with his effort to be fuhrer. Not one.

There is a movie out, called Downfall. If you want to understand ******, watch that movie.

[Olga]

I think I am mostly convinced. I just need to know INFJs from personal experience. There is an actro on my mind but I cant rmember his name..!
By the way, it fits perfectly to what I said initially about ISFJ. I just made a mistake by compating with ESFJ. ESFJs can be selfish probably due to the second creative function but it looks like INFJs can be complete Psycho withthe creative as if they go too far from the ground with their emotions.

If you remember I talked before in my article (about irrationality) that feelings or emotions are irrational in their origins as opposed to the logic or rationality of mind. If we comapre feelings and emotions, we can attach a positive, romantic tag to the word "feeling" as going deep inside and powerful, superficial or surface tag to the word "emotion" or "motion" . If I consider that Jesus was as the best known version of ISFJ with the strongest than it is possible to suggest that ****** was the worst possible version of ENFJ with the strongest . I do see the sense in contrasting God and Devil as living in people and expressing themselves through them.

The question may arise why Jesus could not be INFJ who has as a base function? And why ****** could not be ESFJ who has as his base function?
I think my questioning is in line with Rick's principles as I focuse on the base functions - the face or the true self.

[Rick]

If you had to choose one of the 16 socionic types for ******, which one would you pick?

In my (current) opinion ****** only really makes "sense" if we presume that he was a heavily distorted INFJ. I'll get back to this later...

Please do. I would like to see an explanation of your position.

[CuriousSoul]

I wonder if the name "Eva Braun" has been mentioned ONCE in all of this?

It should be. :wink:

Indeed. :wink:
Life has a funny way of sneaking up on you...

(I'll get back to ******, I promise. )

[Olga]

Tha actor I thought is Robert De Niro. I believe he is an obvious ENFJ according to the discussion of ****** and he plays a neurotic ENFJ in the film based on true story "Honor of man".

I don't know why in my head I always associate him with another big actor Allpachino. I love them both!

[Taylor Selseth]

That's simple. Jung presented descriptions of 8 types in his Psychological Types (1920), and these descriptions, without any corrections, were later accepted by both Myers and competing analytical psychologists as descriptions of Dominant functions.

At the same time, Myers revised Jung's concept of rationality (judgment) / irrationality (perception), you know how.

Augusta read the same Jung's work, Psychological Types (1920), and it also served as a basis of description of Program functions of the socionic types. However, Augusta found several inconsistencies in descriptions of these functions, and later she presented REVISED descriptions of all the 8 functions in her Duality of Human Nature (1982). She presented extraverted functions as energy-spending and introverted as energy-saving, and eliminated from the original Jung's descriptions everything that contradicted to this concept. In fact, she had to correct descriptions of only 2 functions, Se and Si; the remaining 6 functions were left almost intact.

At the same time, she left Jung's concept of rationality (judgment) / irrationality (perception) "as is".

Therefore, both Myers and Augusta revised Jung in their own way, and this is the reason of contradictions between the two theories.

If I remember correctly, Myers came across Jung's work on psychological type while she was working on her own model of temperament and personality, which she then fused with Jung's ideas. Apparently, or so I have read, Jungian psychologists actually detest the MBTI for various reasons, like botching the description of Sensing types and creating a common "Sensors are un-intellectual dumb jocks" misconception. There used to be a very good message board called Typology Central that promoted a "pure" form of Jungian psychological typology and Jungian psychology more generally, but it disappeared about a year ago.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

If I remember correctly, Myers came across Jung's work on psychological type while she was working on her own model of temperament and personality, which she then fused with Jung's ideas. Apparently, or so I have read, Jungian psychologists actually detest the MBTI for various reasons, like botching the description of Sensing types and creating a common "Sensors are un-intellectual dumb jocks" misconception. There used to be a very good message board called Typology Central that promoted a "pure" form of Jungian psychological typology and Jungian psychology more generally, but it disappeared about a year ago.

That forum is still around.

[superunknown]

If I remember correctly, Myers came across Jung's work on psychological type while she was working on her own model of temperament and personality, which she then fused with Jung's ideas. Apparently, or so I have read, Jungian psychologists actually detest the MBTI for various reasons, like botching the description of Sensing types and creating a common "Sensors are un-intellectual dumb jocks" misconception. There used to be a very good message board called Typology Central that promoted a "pure" form of Jungian psychological typology and Jungian psychology more generally, but it disappeared about a year ago.

We Jungian Purists at TypologyCentral are alive and kicking.

[InvisibleJim]

My sides.

[Taylor Selseth]

That forum is still around.

Ack, I meant Typology Nation.