What does Ti do?

[The Exception]

Because you have weak Ti. Anything heavy on Ti like what Jung writes will be too difficult for you.

It's not that its difficult, its because it bores me that I have difficulty concentrating. Big difference.

[Aiss]

It's not that its difficult, its because it bores me that I have difficulty concentrating. Big difference.

That's exactly how I feel about heavy Ti stuff, I can't focus on it. In comparison, parts of Psychological Types I've read were surprisingly enjoyable where I expected something more technical, boring and structured

I rather think Jung must have been a dynamic type at least, and leading intuitive function is almost a given, so IEI makes most sense.

[Crispy]

ILI is also a dynamic type with a leading intuitive function

[Aiss]

ILI is also a dynamic type with a leading intuitive function

It doesn't change the fact that IEI makes most sense.

[Gilly]

The trenches have been dug.

[strrrng]

.
All people are interested in archetypes, that's why fairytales exist, according to Jung. I guess it comes down to WHY Jung spoke about these things. IEI is an interesting suggestion. I'll think about it.

I don't think he posited an interest in archetypes as the reason for fairy tales; rather, a need to assimilate psychic experience into something that gives reality a concrete form (primitives assuming that unconscious patterns were occurring externally, so stones had spirits, etc.). It's more that people need archetypes -- but the way in which he depicts the relentless yet generally shallow manner of illustrating them, doesn't exactly point to an interest imo, just some herd-like need to draw a picture that sounds neat and feels good.

Thought about it. He could easily be a smart LII on a scientific journey to map out the psyche. His approach was empirical. He used dreams and stories of patients to create patterns. He always said it wasn't natural for him to dig like he tried to do, and that Ni-egos could do it naturally, while he had to push limits to go into his unconscious. He also warned people about things in there. I think LII>IEI. Another possibility is he was IEI E9 and talked about IEI E4s as the unconscious masters.

his approach was empirical because he knew that accumulating observations and direct experience was the only way his ideas would be accepted as even marginally valid by the psychological and scientific community as a whole. it's not like all IEIs are bound to consider themselves maudlin romantics who can't systematize patterns.

also, I haven't heard about his self-proclaimed lack of natural skill at digging.

@ Strrrng: a LII could easily get frustrated with Te. And I still find Jung's Se-description far worse. Can't even remember what was wrong with his Te one... What enneagram type would you give Jung, and why?

really? I thought his Se description was pretty on point, despite being fairly short. with Te, he basically conveyed bitterness and impatience with the "majority of the population" utilizing such an overly-concrete style of thinking that was too contingent on its own standards, and made sure to intersperse jabs about Te's inability to read between the lines.

[Gilly]

I don't think he posited an interest in archetypes as the reason for fairy tales; rather, a need to assimilate psychic experience into something that gives reality a concrete form (primitives assuming that unconscious patterns were occurring externally, so stones had spirits, etc.). It's more that people need archetypes -- but the way in which he depicts the relentless yet generally shallow manner of illustrating them, doesn't exactly point to an interest imo, just some herd-like need to draw a picture that sounds neat and feels good.

What constitutes genuine interest other than necessity? Now you're just being selfish. You don't need all the "real" archetypes to yourself.

[strrrng]

no, for the masses. it wasn't implicit in his theory that all people were interested in them. at least, in terms of really examining and understanding them. they were just inevitable imprints that were left on experience, so sure, people took some intrigue because of that, and perhaps sat in caves drawing diagrams, but look at the majority: they just wanted something or someone else to embody an archetype fully to make things easier.

interest and necessity? are you interested in food?

[crazedrat]

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.)

No, that's the best part. It's public humiliation mixed with the masses annoyance and resentment. But I guess you could also have a 'dunce button' layed over all their posts which people can scroll by and press, then hear a tune.

maritsa, you might as well stand on a farm and brand cattle with a smile.

lollll

[Gilly]

interest and necessity? are you interested in food?

Ok.

[strrrng]

No, that's the best part. It's public humiliation mixed with the masses annoyance and resentment. But I guess you could also have a 'dunce button' layed over all their posts which people can scroll by and press, then hear a tune.

lol this is nuts. my sense is that there would be too many infractions to make it worthwhile though. some would just get it as their permanent user title.

[krieger]

Jung typed himself as Base Ti. Time to wrap things up boys. You can't always win. Those of you who can't find the Ti in his works should look at the last few chapters of Psychological types, which have his notorious term definitions inside them. Here's a sample:

I call an attitude (q.v.) abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates (q.v.) a portion of the object, felt to be essential, to abstract contents already constellated in the subject. The more abstract a content is, the more it is irrepresentable. I subscribe to Kant's view that a concept gets more abstract "the more the differences of things are left out of it," in the sense that abstraction at its highest level detaches itself absolutely from the object, thereby attaining the extreme limit of irrepresentability. It is this pure "abstract" which I term an idea (q.v.). Conversely, an abstract that still posesses some degree of representability or plasticity in a concrete concept (v. Concretism).

[strrrng]

I would enjoy cleansing the person in your avatar with an air pressurizer.

[Gilly]

Jung's depiction of Ni is, admittedly, rather hopeless. But he could just be projecting.

[tcaudilllg]

I've never been able to read more than a few pages of Jung's work at a time. Brain overload by then... the words are processed but their meaning isn't.

[crazedrat]

Not much real life substance can be attached to what he says. It's all very invisible.

[strrrng]

Have you read any of his analysis of fairytales, dreams and symbols? Shallow is NOT a word I'd use.

not his analysis, the broader manifestations in the general public (i.e. memes -- sterilized archetypes).

Of course. I didn't say IEI was unheard of, and your scenario is possible. But you don't know his motivations or what order he did things in, do you? And if not, why try to prove your point through imagination?

Why do YOU think he's IEI?
(not looking for more explanations, just your opinioin/reason)

I'm not proving it through imagination. he explains his position, along with other ones in the intellectual community, in fair depth in 'The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.' and I'm saying that the reason I gave for him being an empiricist is much more valid than a presumption of him being LII because of it.

also, I already generally outlined the IEI issue some posts back; so, unless there are more specific aspects to discuss, I don't see the point in rehashing it.

I admit I haven't read his descriptions for years, and that I didn't care about types back then, but I think he wrote that Se leading was more or less only found in men, and that these men were the most brutal and crude, the lowest of mankind, or something like that? Correct me if I'm wrong. At least he gave creativity of thoughts to Te-egos. I possibly remember only the unrelated parts. I took little interest in this part of Jung, as his work on psychoanalysis was more interesting.

I don't recall that about Se, though I do remember him describing repressed, unconscious Se manifesting in a crude, primitive fashion in Ni egos.

[Gilly]

I've never been able to read more than a few pages of Jung's work at a time. Brain overload by then... the words are processed but their meaning isn't.

You just have to sort of let go and let it get inside you. If you try to go word by word and take it all apart, it's futile; you have to let what's in between the lines stand out.

[strrrng]

You just have to sort of let go and let it get inside you. If you try to go word by word and take it all apart, it's futile; you have to let what's in between the lines stand out.

that's pretty much how I feel about it. I don't think his meaning can be appreciated unless you've focused on similar things through personal experience, which to me signifies a greater substance than what you could find in a normal discourse on psychological mechanics.

[krieger]

INTjs here on the forum, including tcaudilllg and myself, can not read each others' abstract writings either without extensive training.

[Gilly]

INTjs here on the forum, including tcaudilllg and myself, can not read each others' abstract writings either without extensive training.

Get back in your hole, you pretentious piece of crap.

[krieger]

My previous post expresses an empirical fact that tcaudilllg will confirm (we have talked about this extensively in the past). If an INTj says he has trouble reading Jung's most abstract works, this says very little about Jung's type.

[strrrng]

and what does it say if an IEI finds his writing style and ideological focus extremely native?

[krieger]

Subjective confirmation bias.

[strrrng]

what? I find him native and easy to read, independent of socionics. and I happen to be IEI. stop making assumptions.

[krieger]

A vague subjective assessment that is contingent on a variable criterion (at what point do you start calling something "extremely native") doesn't override the objective fact that Jung typed himself as Base Ti. If the guy that first identified the types and worked with them for over 20 years can't figure out his own type, socionics might as well be thrown out of the window. The two options here are to sensibly and objectively call him an INTj, or to embrace complete absurdism by calling him INFp guided by nothing more than subjective landscapes that change in form with every perspective taken on the issue.

[Trevor]

Some people here probably think it would be cool to be Jung's identical.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[munenori2]

You just have to sort of let go and let it get inside you. If you try to go word by word and take it all apart, it's futile; you have to let what's in between the lines stand out.

I was about to post but you said it first.