hes obviously a ILE because no one else could come up with such a cluster fuck of a theory and get tons of people to follow it more or less
hes obviously a ILE because no one else could come up with such a cluster fuck of a theory and get tons of people to follow it more or less
that's Augusta, dudeOriginally Posted by 5dolladogsoup
oh w/e that Augusta dude is ILE for sure tho lol
removed as it was old and outdated
Last edited by Zero11; 08-06-2017 at 11:22 AM.
If he is anything, he is Not, and I repeat, Not my dual. Too contemplative. I'll probably have my own red book of my own one day...
But yeah. 5w6. Not 9w1. A 9 can see themselves as a 5, but a 5 can't see themselves as a 9. Just saying, I'll probably become a psychologist like Jung. Hope the field isn't strictly dominated by serious democrats.
Oh, and I almost identified as INTj, but I know a couple, and they are mean at times. Unless the person in question is an ENTj. Either way, glad to know that my choice of profession is well traveled by the Beta.
In the first video, he's talking about semi-dualism. Second video he's being... Hrrm. Never experienced this. Hrrm. I need to think. Oh. Ok. He's hyper analyzing his motives, like with what I do. That lead to my 6w5 typing as you said before.
Last edited by Alomoes; 01-12-2015 at 12:35 AM.
I changed my mind. I used to think he's LII (or ILI), but anyone who believes in synchronicity is liable to be a IEI. That looks more like Vortex cognition (acausal connection), not Holographic-panoramic/DA.
probably 9w1
Last edited by Amber; 03-22-2015 at 04:32 PM.
what type do you identify with? do you see him as an identical?
He is either ILE or LII. Would bet on LII, but wouldn't discard ILE either. Also, there was a period where he self typed himself as an LSI.
...with all that said, I can't read his work. It's like you're yanking my nails out. I give up after I read some 5 pages(at most!) and am totally exhausted by it. He most certainly is not gamma because he has no Te(or at least visible). It's as if all his work is just thereabouts let's explain SOMETHING.
edit: from his second video he said that he "simply can't believe so and so if he has no proof to base a theory upon". Now, in order to find his type, we would need to recognise this. Is it TiNe or NiTe behaviour?
Last edited by nondescript; 09-19-2015 at 11:26 AM.
Try his "Tavistock Lectures". In "Psychological types" only X chapter may be read as other part contains too much water.
Yeah, the TL was my desire to read. The PT is really wtf, full of...whatever. You are right.
he's definitely alpha NT (personally i'm convinced at this point that he's ILE based on my own experience with this type, but i guess, LII makes sense too )
I find it pretty hard to believe that LII/ILE (especially) would invest so much time on mysticism. On the other hand Jung had somewhat systematic approach. He wasn't actively practicing it.Yes, there are same patterns between cultures etc but I don't see Ne in it. It is more like Ni valuing.
Well, he did say that he considered himself a TiNi or NiTi...
That's why he is so hard to type, because none of these invented systems fits him. Because there has been some kind of misunderstanding on reader's behalf when reading Jung. Keep this in mind: reading Jung is like reading a law textbook-you have to pay attention to EVERYTHING. And most people inferred FiSeNiTe (and socio model and various others) not on good visible practice and on proof but on pure hypothesizing and the quote that the aux is completely different from base. Now, what did Jung mean by that is unknown. If he were alive, I wouldn't be surprised if he admitted to "sloppy expression" and clarified it.
I am also one of those who favour the XXYY model-namely FiSiNeTe. Developed into a full TIM, it'd look like this: FiSiTiNi / TeNeFeSe . Which is fully compatible with Jung's teachings because he did say that when a person is introverted all his perceptions, judgments, feelings and stances are introverted as well. And if we take a look at the modified TIM I suggested earlier, we cam see that an ESI is actually consciously fully introverted-it's just that he won't actually use the last two in the conscious block(or use them to a small degree). Now, Jung did also say that a full blown into / extro vert would need to get hospitalised but two things if you will. First, I think he was referring to extreme cases of x-version where a person either didn't want to communicate at all with the wrold / didn't leave in it(sorta avoidant or cathatonic behaviour) or couldn't keep its mouth shut even if its life depended on it and spilled secrets, confidental info etc all over the place(kinda egoistic or histrionic behaviour). Second, a fully developed TIM of ESI that looks like this: FiSiTiNi / TeNeFeSe actually uses two introverted and two extroverted functions-the sum is exactly the same as in current understanding, the balance has been preserved and the idea has been fully developed.
Now, beyond confirmation bias or learned behaviour, can anyone really tell me I'm wrong with the straight face? Because I am not and the facts are on my side
LSI
Beta NF. Jung: "I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic (Fe), mythological way of thinking and speaking (Ni)"
how would an ILI or LII say something like this?
I do agree that he is Ni ego. Im not sure about anything else but I have generally thought IEI is a very strong possibility if not the strongest. I continue to find it hilarious that he looks like my grandpa who was an artist (fits with beta NF but I don't know his type because he did not speak much at all).Beta NF. Jung: "I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic (Fe), mythological way of thinking and speaking (Ni)"
how would an ILI or LII say something like this?
Well, here's the thing -- when people say Jung thought of things like NiTi and FiSi, etc, that's part of the truth -- the real truth is Jung didn't assign attitudes to every function, only to the ego and to the unconscious.
His emphasis was overwhelmingly to introversion-extraversion as an attitude of its own right, even beyond its connection with functions. Theories like socionics are very very cognition-y, so things get a little different -- the way it seems to be we deal with stuff like NiTi is to say something like ILI's Ni/Ti are both strong, but the ego's perceiving-judging dynamics have more to do with NiTe dynamics.
It's also worth noting that it makes more sense for e/i to complement each other if in connection with information processing strictly -- like sure, just like we appeal to perception and judgment we appeal to inner and outer reference to make our points.
Jung's introversion-extraversion included many personality characteristics he *associated* with people of an inner vs outer bent/appeal, and these personality characteristics might occur more one-sidedly (just as eg one might be very J in the MBTI). Just as it makes sense to be an extreme J, but not to use rational functioning without nearly any perceiving, it also might make sense to be an extreme introvert in Jung's sense, but when addressing various styles of information processing, we might find it relevant to address how outer and inner reference points are both handled.
ILE
I should also note that, while he always called himself a thinking type (ie closest to our logic type), he also was of the view that type is nothing static.
I think that's significant, though it's not necessarily going to suggest an easy typing. But FWIW my inclination is that if he sort of "grew into" himself, one should figure out which seemed to be most him; for which one figures out which were the most superior IE/functions and which appeared to more just fulfill a role for the given time, and thus had a more relative significance.
Anyway my take -- I think those who think he's N-dominant in modern systems may well have a point. It's well worth noting that Jung thought of type as not static -- so while he did call himself a (in his definitions!) Ti-dominant with auxiliary S at first, he revised this to suggesting he generally was at variance with S, and was more of an intuitive. To arrive at an answer for him, we want to consider him holistically then. I'd agree Psychological Types seemed like it could come from a pretty T place, but I'd not say all of the rest of his work and life speaks to that.
I go with Jung on many things over the modern systems, but the definition of N is not one of them in that I think the revised version is more equal in pairing equally well with T and F. Jung's version focused on what I'd call the "internal" aspects to N, which go better with F.
As a result, I find although Jung was correct in that in his system, he was no intuitive of clear order, and was too logic-based to be so, in modern systems I think he likely is N > T.
I am not very settled beyond that, but if he were an NT he'd be the N-subtype, not the T-subtype in my books.
I have difficulties jumping board the F train because even with inter-system differences, I'm not sure given the sheer clarity with which he knew in his own system design that he is a thinking>feeling type, that I can easily overlook this.
An interesting point though is Jung almost always suggested something along the lines of preferring to "tell facts" as they are, and has an aversion to theorizing independent of experience, and something tells me he also would be averse to the kind of system-creation typical of socionics. While in his school this just meant he was balanced in intuition/thinking, I'd say in modern schools, it leans him N>T, but it also makes me wonder where he stands on Te/Ti -- some part of me wonders if his philosophy there fit ILI more than other NTs (there is 0 doubt in me that by HIS school of thought he was introverted>extraverted thinking). And for what it's worth he did consider himself as having difficulties with extraversion+feeling.
On mysticism, note Aushra the ILE went into it later in life apparently?
It would not surprise me for some N-bases to go into it, even if T>F. It's true a lot of mystics have somewhat F-y bents, like harmony with the universe and yadda yadda.
A fact sometimes overlooked about Jung that I consider relevant by far is that he wasn't quite your typical harmony-seeking unity-seeking guy, not like some eastern spiritual philosophers. If anything, he seemed to somewhat resist the idea of separation and differentiation ever being quelled for a more complete unity, and resisted the idea of dissolving the personal ego.
To me, some of this seems to come from an enneagram 5 influence (not necessarily saying his main is enneagram 5 but I think it's probably an influence).
I found his books and lectures very hard to read. He's alpha / LII, not a bit of ILI in him.
I think he is likely either the same type or mirrors with nietzsche who i type Beta NF. Nietzsche is not exactly a walk in the park to read either, if you are trying to get a sense of what he actually means.
Edit: Im not discounting ILI either. I do agree he can be hard to understand but I think any type employing heavy Ni and Ti can be.
Last edited by Contra; 01-04-2016 at 11:49 PM.
Reminds me of SEE old people lol.
He had some odd superstitions and such concerning Ne related concepts.
Most criticism of Jung revolves around poor structure and overly-metaphysical stuff. This leads me to believe he has Ti and Ne in his super-ego.
I will note that indeed, Jung typed Niezsche as something similar to what he typed himself in late life. I think he typed himself as introverted thinking-intuitive, with inferior feeling and sensation, and Nietzsche as Ni>Ti>Fe>Se or something like that.
How one converts between models then depends. I'm inclined to agree with what silke suggests in a certain interpretation I'm making of her words, in that I think in Jung's system to a greater extent than in socionics, people employing intellectual modes of knowing automatically were appealing to the thinking function, whereas we make T more squarely about logic focus. Jung's cluster of stuff defining a thinking function orientation did involve logic, but some of it fit better in what we today appeal to as part of N.
From Jung's standpoint most philosophical thinking was T, but from the more modern standpoint, it does not discount F nearly as much.
Which one does he display more of as an individual? Fe? Or Ni?Beta NF. Jung: "I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic (Fe), mythological way of thinking and speaking (Ni)"
how would an ILI or LII say something like this?
Although he says this, he is simultaneously consciously Ti-ing, lol.
LII
Has very developed Ni, and is Ti valuing.
Last edited by Pink; 01-05-2016 at 07:44 PM.
ILE (sx/sp)
"For the ENTp, thinking and fantasizing - are two inseparable things. While thinking, the ILE fantasizes; while fantasizing, he thinks.
Representatives of this type show phenomenal abilities in many different spheres of intellectual creative activities, generating ideas and proposing hypotheses, which leave the achievements of their current era several centuries behind. Their contributions to the development of society's intellectual progress cannot be overvalued. Prominent representatives of this type are rightfully considered to be founders of many scientific directions and schools. Discovery of new horizons and new perspectives in scientific, artistic, and socio-political spheres - is their greatest purpose."
Added: https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/ili-ni/
The VI best fits ILI-Ni.
Not coincidentally, Jung displays a similar output of force as other Socionics New Wave exemplars for ILI-Ni.
Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-21-2018 at 04:21 AM.
I'm going by socionics britannica's "podlair" inspired view of "Ni", were he's a clear example of an interpretive-perceiver (as opposed to directive-perceiver). Interpretive-perceivers interpret the world so they end up with a distorted view of reality.
And that is done on a "theoretical framework" so you never see where exactly he's coming from (this annoys objective "Ne" information types because they like to verify such interpretive views with observations).
Secondly SB's new view of "logic" is interesting - conceptual reasoning (conceptual-logic) is what the so called "F/ethical" types have. Those types are logical but aren't interested in "factoids" as much as the idea they push. Jung's "logic" isn't a precise adherence to facts and it shows which is why his reasoning isn't easy to explicitly articulate and follow. (Which is instead something SB's "pedantic-logic" "T/logical" types have hence much more explicit and precise - you see it clearly in both NTs & STs, NTs apply their precision to fantastical ideas)
The guy is information-wise IEI but with clear Delta quadra values, given his humanitarian and empathetic angle, unlike the beta conquest-idealism combo
Last edited by Soupman; 03-22-2018 at 08:39 AM.
You don't type Carl Jung. Carl Jung types YOU. FOREVER. WITH HIS EVERLASTING TYPOLOGIES>
good bye
To me he looks logical, and it's Ti. Seems like LII. Note that some NT types go crazy and get involved into strange stuff and make their imagination lead them which is when they make strange analogies, comparisons, and also in that old times mysticism and alchemy were popular too. I am not sure if this can be explained by socionics IEs because I've seen this in all types but in intuitives it's the most elaborate. He wasn't acting like scientist but more like a free spirit.
This kind of behaviour makes people type him as ILI and IEI but working with imagination is not reserved to these two types and doesn't mean he's Ni lead, especially when his writings are purely technical I would say no to IEI. Being like free spirit can be true for both Ne and Ni ego types. Maybe even more likely for Ne types, because it involves exploring number of phenomena, but this can be true for all types.
He doesn't VI as ILI, more like LII. He doesn't have any Ni features.
Also the things which he was interested in doesn't say much about him. He was interested in these subjects because they were either popular at the time, or there wasn't much else available.
I see all arguments for Ni very weak and not convincing.
Maybe Jung was a bit mental. Like slightly paranoid. I think that would explain a lot ;-)
Only Jung can type Jung, Carl.
And where we think he is wrong, - it's we are wrong as do not understand his transcendental truth.
good bye
Well, von Franz typed herself as introverted thinking intuitive (it is on YouTube) and in the same interview she mentioned that Jung was the same type. It is very hard to go against that statement just by acknowledging shared history between those people and their working history.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
But Troll Nr 007, socionics isn't Jungian type, so she can't know his socionics type.
trololol.
good bye
- You are still typing me?
ILI, his descriptions of functions suggest Se Te Ni are favored towards Si and Ti that basically were useless in his eyes.
Reply With Quote
