Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
Wrong. Read the following excerpt and perhaps you will understand. Why would Jung specify "extraverted IRRATIONAL types"??? Use your Ti; If an Extraverted sensation type included ESFj and ESTj, then why would Jung label them as extraverted irrational when they are not? Plus, he already has a a section on extraverted rationals and their commonalities.Originally Posted by Pinocchio
10. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence. But, since the unconscious, in spite of its separation from the conscious subject, is always reappearing on the scene, the actual life of the irrational types exhibits striking judgments and acts of choice, which take the form of apparent sophistries, cold-hearted criticisms, and an apparently purposeful [p. 469] selection of persons and situations. These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive, stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous. To the rationally orientated mind, the real character of such people might well appear rationalistic and purposeful in the bad sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and, therefore, quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely orientated by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to the rational judgment. Finally, it may even appear to a rationally orientated mind that such an assemblage of accidentals, hardly deserves the name 'psychology.' The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational; for he sees him as something only half alive, whose only aim in life consists in fastening the fetters of reason upon everything living, and wringing his own neck with criticisms. Naturally, these are gross extremes; but they occur.
From the standpoint of the rational type, the irrational might easily be represented as a rational of inferior quality; namely, when he is apprehended in the light of what happens to him. For what happens to him is not the accidental-in that he is master-but, in its stead, he is overtaken by rational judgment and rational aims. This fact is hardly comprehensible to the rational mind, but its unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational, when he discovers someone who can set the ideas of reason above the living and actual event. Such a thing seems scarcely credible to him. It is, as a rule, quite hopeless to look to him for any recognition of principles in this direction, since a rational understanding is just as unknown and, in fact, tiresome to him as the idea of making a contract, without mutual discussion and obligations, appears unthinkable to the rational type. [p. 470]
This point brings me to the problem of the psychic relation between the representatives of the different types. Following the terminology of the French school of hypnotists, the psychic relation among the more modern psychiatrists is termed I 'rapport'. Rapport chiefly consists in a feeling of actual accord, in spite of recognised differences. In fact, the recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord. If we make this feeling conscious to a rather high degree in an actual case, we discover that it has not merely the quality of a feeling that cannot be analysed further, but it also has the nature of an insight or cognitional content, representing the point of agreement in a conceptual form. This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition. The rational would say that rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance. If, by some accident, the objective situations are exactly in tune, something like a human relationship takes place, but nobody can tell what will be either its validity or its duration. To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees a humanity of quite singular beauty. Accordingly each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. Although a psychological conscientiousness of [p. 471] this kind is by no means usual, yet it frequently happens that, notwithstanding an absolute difference of standpoint, a kind of rapport does take place, and in the following way. The one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.
Psychic relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance. For our present-day culture the extraverted attitude is the governing principle in the problem of human relationship; naturally, the introverted principle occurs, but it is still the exception, and has to appeal to the tolerance of the age.
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
Why does introverted thinking imply extraversion and introversion? Is this a mistake?When Jung states "Introverted Thinking", that's a type which is both "Extroverted" and "Thinking". He also states "Extroverted Rational" - is there such function as Re?
Extraverted Rationality is a category created by taking the qualities that are common to Fe and Te (The extraverted rational functions).
By "Extraverted rational type" Jung means a type that is dominated by Extraversion and Rationality (DERRR). Thus, the "Extraverted Thinking" type is primarily rational (PRIMARILY RATIONAL MEANS DOMINATED BY THINKING IN THIS CASE).
but where you have really erred is here:
JUNG DESCRIBES THE EXTRAVERTED THINKING TYPE AS PRIMARILY ORIENTED BY THINKING AND EXTRAVERSION.
"It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type."
- Jung, Extraverted Thinking
So "introverted Thinking" could not describe an IXTp BECAUSE those types are not "mainly ruled by reflective thinking" (They are ruled by either sensation or intuition!) !!!@!!@!@!@!@!@
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
Can you read the damn article already lol???
11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions
In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]
For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.
The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter of two animals or monsters.
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
how stupid are you? Jung demonstrates an explicit relation between primary function and temperament, which he defines by extroversion/introversion and rationality/irrationality. he further elaborates on auxiliary functions, which implicitly acknowledges the possibility of an extroverted type using introverted thinking, though not to the same degree as his base function. all of this is in accord with the premises of socionics. you are mindlessly splitting hairs.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Removed at User Request
Wrong. He explicitly states that only specific functions can be auxiliary to the primary function.
"Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function: thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought."
also, regarding your demands for "evidence" that proves the sameness of Jung and Augusta's functions -- I call bullshit. your entire "critique" adds up to: Augusta used different theoretical terms than Jung, therefore they describe different things. yet the point remains, that there is clear correspondence in both the basic ideas of functions and the descriptions of their manifestations. so, given that there is no empirical evidence proving or disproving that, yes, they were both viewing reality with identical lenses, I prefer to operate on the assumption which the patterns are in favor of: common phenomena giving rise to slightly different theories.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I shall read this thread someday. And draw something awesome from it.
ANTICIPATION!!!
I was under the impression Jung's functional arrangement assumed all other conscious function had the opposite attitutde to the leading one - so if a leading thinking type with auxiliary intuition introverts thinking, it follows that they consciously extravert intuition, sensing and feeling? Jung doesn't so much differentiate extraverted/introverted functions as say that one introverts/extraverts a function, which makes it different enough to form a separate psychological type - more different, in fact, that the choice of auxiliary does.
One way or another, if we want to deal with relations of socionics to Jungian psychology, we should remember these are not independent, that both Augusta and Myers-Briggs interpreted Jung's writing to construct a model he might or might not have in mind. And most authors, including these two, interpreted types as meaning "leading with X function", which is the assumption that socionics is based on - therefore introverted thinking type corresponds to LxI, not because Jung explicitly defined it as a separate function, but because it was used as a basis for socionics determination of Ti and these types.
Removed at User Request
Don't bother wasting your time. Run while you still can.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I've read this before somewhere, but I don't believe you can infer this directly from Psychological Types. Nevertheless, I'm rereading the book, so i'll be on the lookout for it.
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
Sure, when I finish the book...
The end is nigh
If you havein your Ego-Block it makes of you Pontius Pilate.
Ein neuer Mann
Ashton can I see those Jung type descriptions you were linking people? Want to see if its the same thing I read.
Thanks. It's the same, but I suck at relocating these things I happen to come across.
Merry Rationals are the most hypocrite of all the types.If you have
Actually that makes perfect sense. Pontius Pilate as ENTp explains exactly why he gave into the crowd -- he was scared for his Fe.
An LII would have insisted that Jesus be spared, because to do otherwise would have been unjust.
actually Jung described himself as "an introverted thinker with strong intuition." superficially it points to LII, but it's quite frequent that IEI-Ni's think of themselves as introverted thinking types (i.e. I am mbti INTP and initially self-typed LII in socionics).
furthermore, his idea clearly show an Ni+Ti preference. the collective unconscious is a synthesis of patterns that exist independent of context, and possess an implicit structure. the focus on latent archetypes in general seems more Ni/Se influenced, because it satisfies the mindset's need to isolate specific forms that can manifest in any instance.
the function he bashes the most in his descriptions, is Te. it is also, ironically, the longest description. but the frustrations he expresses center around overly-mechanized thinking that sterilizes broader insight (granted, this was during a time when psychology was still seen as pseudo-science and mystical revelation by a fair portion, and when materialism took a decent toll on some minds).
he also demonstrates shades of arrogance toward Si, in talking about how it can't "exceed the sensory perception" and such, while giving Ni the credit of basically grasping archetypal images.
4w3-5w6-8w7
These shades of arrogance is sometimes why I mistake INTj's for ISFp's in their writing...but yes, he is LII
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
So it's settled. Jung is INFp-Ni.
huh? the structure in Jung's ideas is an emergent feature of more abstract patterns and processes he observed. this is how Ni feeds Ti. there's an assumed structure, but it doesn't fully crystallize until everything else has been filtered out (because it's based on Fe). also, while he considered himself an empiricist, his interest centered around, essentially, the 'plunge into the depths.' no, I don't see any other type being as curious about this sort of psychic journeying as IEIs, and am very hard-pressed to believe an LII would devote his life to researching mythology and cultural symbolism to formulate a complete idea of archetypes. actually, it's a good contrast to freud, who is some Ti-ego. freud was deconstructive and etiological in his method; he focused on behavioral manifestations and then reverse-engineered things to understand broader causes of neuroses. jung wanted to find an implicit unity within the psyche (not just for analytical purposes, but largely in part to solidify a 'personal journey' of sorts), and investigated as much as possible to see how this 'undercurrent' gave rise to all the different fluctuations in human nature. much less dry, and far more interesting from... an IEI pov.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Freud is ENTp
You observe the contrast very well...Ti
This lack of Ti is what I say Silverchris, B&D and Craze guy don't have...Thanks of the model.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
are you implying that I am a Ti type
4w3-5w6-8w7
There needs to be a punishment weaker than banning which mods can dish out for people being stupid.
lol @ him pegging adolf
4w3-5w6-8w7
Ti activations look like Ti types in their analysis of Ti matters.
Dynamicism
You misunderstood me. I do believe that he is LII.
Like for you.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I think a mod should be able to 'dunce' a persons profile for a day. The persons avatar is replaced with a picture of a dunce or a clown or something indicating their dumbass behavior. The stupid quote which was the infraction is put into their signature. Then have their signature play some clown music for a brief time when a page is first loading.
he's just right
4w3-5w6-8w7
LoL... I'm not even arguing my type with you. Why would I? Almost every person you type is typed wrongly. Why would I care if you typed me wrongly?
Reminds me of when someone replaced Maritsa's avatar.
The dumbest part of your suggestion is that music isn't tied to any particular spot on the page - it would just play when someone opened the thread. What's that supposed to mean? Funny thread?
Actually... wait, that's a great idea. We should have an option to associate clown music with our threads when we create them! "This thread is a joke. Please do not take it seriously." (To avoid abuse, there would have to be a limited list of tunes to select from.)
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
That's true of me. I have difficultly concentrating on text that's heavy on this sort of stuff.Because the things Jung speaks at great length about all tend to be pet-peeve subjects ofegos, especially other Ni-INFps. Archetypes, mythology, spirituality, mysticism, cathartic transcendence, deep intrapsychic journeys into one's own mind, etc. If you haven't noticed, INTjs rarely take extensive interest in such matters. They have no meaning whatsoever to most INTjs.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
have you even read any of his work?
4w3-5w6-8w7
maritsa, you might as well stand on a farm and brand cattle with a smile.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Reply With Quote
