JUngs' type theories and mainsterma scientific research

[oyburger]

He got a BS, back then it meant more, in Biology and Psychology, he was going to double major in Engineering too but he lacked one math class but he abhors math so he gave up.
And immediately went to work for the Government, but he worked his way up to where he is now.

[Dioklecian]

He got a BS, back then it meant more, in Biology and Psychology, he was going to double major in Engineering too but he lacked one math class but he abhors math so he gave up.
And immediately went to work for the Government, but he worked his way up to where he is now.

Do you have any large frontal pictures of his? I can't quite see his features in the pics you have up. He does seem ESTJ or ISTP from what I can see.

[oyburger]

I don't have any digital pictures of him like that, but I had a bunch of pictures I was going to scan and upload to my photobucket account tomorrow. I can post them then.

[Dioklecian]

THe wedding pictures are fine but they are too small, can I enlarge them somehow?

[oyburger]

Unfortunately no, I got those off of my photographer's website and he keeps the pixel size small so that they can't be copied and printed for free. I've tried enlarging them but they just become a mess of pixels.

[Dioklecian]

I see, thats ok.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Only one of my psych professors accepted any of the type theories. Quite honestly, it probably was not much use to them. Another thing is that the proven and accepted information could conflict.

[Dioklecian]

Only one of my psych professors accepted any of the type theories. Quite honestly, it probably was not much use to them. Another thing is that the proven and accepted information could conflict.

Which type theory did the prof accept?

[Matt the Raver]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

[Dioklecian]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

What are Jung's types then?

[Matt the Raver]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

What are Jung's types then?

They're a set of anecdotes, which are potentially useful for interpreting behavioural evidence.

[Dioklecian]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

What are Jung's types then?

They're a set of anecdotes, which are potentially useful for interpreting behavioural evidence.

What is your type if I may ask?

[Matt the Raver]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

What are Jung's types then?

They're a set of anecdotes, which are potentially useful for interpreting behavioural evidence.

What is your type if I may ask?

I reckon I'm LII

[Dioklecian]

It's kinda interesting to hear a 'vox pop' of the view most psychology academics have on Jung.
The main problem being that he never fealt the need to justify his theories. On an American Lecture tour in 1913 he claimed 'I do not feel the need to pin my colours to the mast of science.'

This seems to have impeded assessment of his ideas to some extent.
My own background is in neuroscience. I have a BSc in Neuroscience and Biochemistry and an MSc in Neuropharmacology.
I'm very interested in behavioural neuroscience, but unless you can give it an objective basis, it becomes little more than psychobabble.
The same's true of Jung's personalities (and socionics by association), which I think of as a set of colourful anecdotes.
That said, my interest in neuroscience started as an anecdote, it's just that it's developed somewhat since then.

I think Jung's theories are more useful for interpreting other experimental data than they are when viewed simply as 'Jungian psychology'.

What are Jung's types then?

They're a set of anecdotes, which are potentially useful for interpreting behavioural evidence.

What is your type if I may ask?

I reckon I'm LII

How and why do you find Jung and his types useful? If I may ask.

[Matt the Raver]

Just 2 specific examples:

1:Anorexia is a form of anhedonia

2bsessive compulsive disorder is the opposite of addiction.

Firstly, I interpret the 4 irrational functions in terms of classical conditioning and are a result of activity in your 'emotional brain' (also called the limbic system)

I reckon the 4 rational functions could be described in terms of what your prefrontal cortex is doing.

Because prefrontal injury can result impulsive, socially inacceptable behaviour and in some cases, an inability to think laterally.

Interestingly, prefrontal activity inhibits serotonin and dopamine release. Serotonin and dopamine are two chemicals, which are very important in regulating mood (the more serotonin and dopamine the better your mood).

In a way, the brain can be viewed as alot of discrete components and whichever ones are most active will dictate your state of mind.

So, loosely speaking, anyone with a dominant irrational function will have a limbic system that is usually more active than their prefrontal cortex.

In individuals with a dominant rational function the opposite is true.

Personally, I can think very rapidly about 3 or 4 things at once, but I'm really not reward driven at all. So for example, sometimes I forget to eat cos I'm too busy thinking about stuff.

People with a dominant introverted rational function are prone to anorexia, which I view as a lack of response to rewarding stimuli (called anhedonia).

Also, people with a dominant Ni function can be prone to obsessive compulsive disorder. By contrast, people with Se as a dominant function can be very prone to addictive behaviour. I go along with Jung's definition that Ni is the opposite of Se.

An addiction is all about getting a stimulus that you want.

Obsessive compulsive disorder is about avoiding a stimlus which is unpleasant

Anyway, I hope some of that makes sense!