JUngs' type theories and mainsterma scientific research

[Dioklecian]

How mainstream are type theories?

[Dioklecian]

Feel free to comment on specific mentions you might have seen about Jung, or quote them, or tell where to find them, etc.

[oyburger]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists. I don't know what scientists think of socionics as I don't think it's well known by many western psychologists.

[Joy]

psychiatrists and psychologists are generally familiar with jung typology, but do not use them in clinical settings (at least from my experience)

[Dioklecian]

My understanding is that Jung has been blacklisted for political reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

[Dioklecian]

psychiatrists and psychologists are generally familiar with jung typology, but do not use them in clinical settings (at least from my experience)

Did you discuss type theories with them? What was their reaction?

[Dioklecian]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists. I don't know what scientists think of socionics as I don't think it's well known by many western psychologists.

Socionics is quite unknown in the west, but Jung is very well known in pop culture at least. What I don't know is whether type theories are accepted in the mainstream academia?

[Joy]

Jung didn't come up, specifically. I brought up socionics. My therapist said that it could cause a problem with treatment if I'm too into type theories.

[Dioklecian]

Jung didn't come up, specifically. I brought up socionics. My therapist said that it could cause a problem with treatment if I'm too into type theories.

Why is that? The problem that is, it would seem to me that the moreinformed you are, the better it is. And what treatment was that? Psychoanalysis or cognitive...etc?

[Joy]

I wanted cognitive behavioral therapy. we talked for a few sessions and he asked me what I was hoping to achieve through therapy. I told him that I wanted to learn healthier thought processes. he told me that I seem very healthy, although I am stressed out. he thought I was handling the stress rather well and said that he didn't think I needed therapy.

I think the reason that he thought typology could be a problem with therapy is because someone who thinks they know everything and is obsessed with a theory would be difficult to work with.

[oyburger]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists. I don't know what scientists think of socionics as I don't think it's well known by many western psychologists.

Socionics is quite unknown in the west, but Jung is very well known in pop culture at least. What I don't know is whether type theories are accepted in the mainstream academia?

I minored in psychology in college and my understanding was that while it was important to study what he did, his theories weren't taken very seriously anymore, same thing with Freud.

[Dioklecian]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists. I don't know what scientists think of socionics as I don't think it's well known by many western psychologists.

Socionics is quite unknown in the west, but Jung is very well known in pop culture at least. What I don't know is whether type theories are accepted in the mainstream academia?

I minored in psychology in college and my understanding was that while it was important to study what he did, his theories weren't taken very seriously anymore, same thing with Freud.

I agree about Freud, and probably Jung too, however they continue to have the personality tests, like the big 5 etc, but I think their interpretation is somewhat different from what Jung was talking about.

[oyburger]

I agree about Freud, and probably Jung too, however they continue to have the personality tests, like the big 5 etc, but I think their interpretation is somewhat different from what Jung was talking about.

My professors said over and over again that the modern versions of Jung's tests were invalid especially when used in job interviews.

[Dioklecian]

I agree about Freud, and probably Jung too, however they continue to have the personality tests, like the big 5 etc, but I think their interpretation is somewhat different from what Jung was talking about.

My professors said over and over again that the modern versions of Jung's tests were invalid especially when used in job interviews.

THats' extremely interesting, could you try to remebr al lthat he said, how he justified it, etc.

[oyburger]

I agree about Freud, and probably Jung too, however they continue to have the personality tests, like the big 5 etc, but I think their interpretation is somewhat different from what Jung was talking about.

My professors said over and over again that the modern versions of Jung's tests were invalid especially when used in job interviews.

THats' extremely interesting, could you try to remebr al lthat he said, how he justified it, etc.

It wasn't just one but most of them. The consensus was that one test administered by some HR person wasn't enough to determine someone's personality. But even the concept of giving or denying someone a job based on personality type was wrong. A type might have the propensity to act a certain a way, but that doesn't mean that this individual would. There was also the argument that for some people the tests are easily manipulable. As someone who's had to take a test like this for a job, before I had any of my psychology classes, I can attest to that.

[Dioklecian]

I agree with those comments he made, but did he deny the existence of types as envisioned by Jung?

[Joy]

why do you care how mainsterma JUngs' type theories are anyways?

[Dioklecian]

why do you care how mainsterma JUngs' type theories are anyways?

I would like to find some accedemic discussion of his ideas about functions. Do you know of any?

[Joy]

nah, I'm not too into Jung

sorry

[oyburger]

When all the different psychological theories were introduced, none of the professors would give their opinions on them. We would only study their history, and how different theories influenced other theories. The professors didn't want to influence our preferences and what we decided to be true in each theory.

[Dioklecian]

When all the different psychological theories were introduced, none of the professors would give their opinions on them. We would only study their history, and how different theories influenced other theories. The professors didn't want to influence our preferences and what we decided to be true in each theory.

But there must be academic discussion of the validity of various claims..

[Cone]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists.

Jung is probably more applicable as a social theory than anything else, anyway. The big thing about Jung is his psychological type theory is that it is too vague and abstract to really be of any immediate help. It is more of a potential than a theory. The theory is really left to be developed and interpreted by others. Thus, the question is then: has anyone interpreted it correctly? Most psychologists say 'no'.

BTW, my psychology textbooks make a passing glance at Jung's self/shadow/persona/whatever theory as a contrast and comparison to Freud's Ego/Superego/Id theory, but none have ever mentioned anything about psychological type other than the MBTI conception of his extravert/introvert dichotomy.

[Joy]

cone, your avatar is creepy

[oyburger]

When all the different psychological theories were introduced, none of the professors would give their opinions on them. We would only study their history, and how different theories influenced other theories. The professors didn't want to influence our preferences and what we decided to be true in each theory.

But there must be academic discussion of the validity of various claims..

The professors would usually state that some theories are presently more accepted than others, but there are always some professionals who use the less accepted ones. Take Freudian psychotherapy. Most professionals, especially research professionals think that for the most part it's a crock, but you can always find a psychologist who still practices it. I think Jung's theories are currently in this category, though not so much as Freud's.

I think what hurt him the most in maintaining validity in the modern era was his mixing of psychology and ancient mythology; collective consciousness and archetypes are usually looked down upon as unscientific.

[oyburger]

BTW, my psychology textbooks make a passing glance at Jung's self/shadow/persona/whatever theory as a contrast and comparison to Freud's Ego/Superego/Id theory, but none have ever mentioned anything about psychological type other than the MBTI conception of his extravert/introvert dichotomy.

Unless you study his work on an independent basis this is about all a general psychology or personality class is going to tell you about Jung. But think the same amount of limited information is given to all theories especially personality theories, simply because there are som many and a semester only lasts so long.

[Dioklecian]

If I remember from my psychology classes as the years progressed, most psychologists rejected most of Jung's theories except for some social psychologists.

Jung is probably more applicable as a social theory than anything else, anyway. The big thing about Jung is his psychological type theory is that it is too vague and abstract to really be of any immediate help. It is more of a potential than a theory. The theory is really left to be developed and interpreted by others. Thus, the question is then: has anyone interpreted it correctly? Most psychologists say 'no'.

BTW, my psychology textbooks make a passing glance at Jung's self/shadow/persona/whatever theory as a contrast and comparison to Freud's Ego/Superego/Id theory, but none have ever mentioned anything about psychological type other than the MBTI conception of his extravert/introvert dichotomy.

I have noticed that too, why is that?

[oyburger]

BTW, my psychology textbooks make a passing glance at Jung's self/shadow/persona/whatever theory as a contrast and comparison to Freud's Ego/Superego/Id theory

Most of this is connected to his archetype theories.

[Dioklecian]

BTW, my psychology textbooks make a passing glance at Jung's self/shadow/persona/whatever theory as a contrast and comparison to Freud's Ego/Superego/Id theory

Most of this is connected to his archetype theories.

Yes, in the texts I have talk about the collective unconscious, into/extro, but mainly his critique of Freud.

[oyburger]

Yes, in the texts I have talk about the collective unconscious, into/extro, but mainly his critique of Freud.

Are you taking a general psychology class?

[Dioklecian]

Yes, in the texts I have talk about the collective unconscious, into/extro, but mainly his critique of Freud.

Are you taking a general psychology class?

i did before, but now I have to work with some psych books for another course.

[Cone]

cone, your avatar is creepy

It is from Paranoia Agent, my new favorite mini-anime.

[Joy]

lol I know, that's why I said it's creepy

I didn't particularly care for Paranoia Agent myself.

[oyburger]

A personality class will go more indepth with his theories, but only to a certain level. Unless you go to a graduate school that will let you focus on Jung, your best bet to learn more about his theories is find some of his published works and read them outside of class and decide for yourself whether they're valid or not. That's how most professionals decide what school of thought they belong to. And like most things, psychology has trends that fade in and out. I think if someone can scientifically validate Jung's typology it might regain public momentum.

[Dioklecian]

A personality class will go more indepth with his theories, but only to a certain level. Unless you go to a graduate school that will let you focus on Jung, your best bet to learn more about his theories is find some of his published works and read them outside of class and decide for yourself whether they're valid or not. That's how most professionals decide what school of thought they belong to. And like most things, psychology has trends that fade in and out. I think if someone can scientifically validate Jung's typology it might regain public momentum.

I have already done to some degree the self study, I think. However I find that I am working in vacume, no one else is doing quite what I am doing.

[oyburger]

A personality class will go more indepth with his theories, but only to a certain level. Unless you go to a graduate school that will let you focus on Jung, your best bet to learn more about his theories is find some of his published works and read them outside of class and decide for yourself whether they're valid or not. That's how most professionals decide what school of thought they belong to. And like most things, psychology has trends that fade in and out. I think if someone can scientifically validate Jung's typology it might regain public momentum.

I have already done to some degree the self study, I think. However I find that I am working in vacume, no one else is doing quite what I am doing.

Then maybe you can revive Jung. I took an interest in Jung when I was in middle school because my father had been such a fan and I did self study then but by the time I got to college and took psychology classes I was no longer interested because it wasn't very scientific. I agree with others in that his typology descriptions are too vague, but I think Jung originaly approached his theories with more of a philosophical mindset.
Someone needs to build on his original ideas I think.

[Dioklecian]

How come your father was a fan? Did he study Jung?

[oyburger]

How come your father was a fan? Did he study Jung?

When he was in college he did, in fact I still have a couple of his old Jung books lying around. By the time I discovered Jung, he was no longer a fan, for many of the same reasons I no longer was in college. But in the 70's mystacism was big and Jung could be thought of in those terms, especially the collective conciousness idea, and my dad experiemented with many theories bordering on mystacism during that time. He minored in psychology too, but later completely rejected the idea of psychology as "bullshit" as he put it.

[Dioklecian]

How come your father was a fan? Did he study Jung?

When he was in college he did, in fact I still have a couple of his old Jung books lying around. By the time I discovered Jung, he was no longer a fan, for many of the same reasons I no longer was in college. But in the 70's mystacism was big and Jung could be thought of in those terms, especially the collective conciousness idea, and my dad experiemented with many theories bordering on mystacism during that time. He minored in psychology too, but later completely rejected the idea of psychology as "bullshit" as he put it.

Interesting, what is his type?

And what is his profession?

[oyburger]

ESTj or ISTp I'm not 100% sure, I asked about it here http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4575

He works for the Government testing missile configurations as far as he tells me, but he can't tell me details.

[Dioklecian]

ESTj or ISTp I'm not 100% sure, I asked about it here http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4575

He works for the Government testing missile configurations as far as he tells me, but he can't tell me details.

Whats' his education if I may ask?