is the ENTp's primary function.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
simple way to know - did he work in groups and teams? or was he a loner? from my understanding, he was a loner - introvert.Originally Posted by MysticSonic
"simple way to know - did he work in groups and teams? or was he a loner? from my understanding, he was a loner - introvert."
No, that's not a way to know.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
in the end it doesn't really matter. it's just a personality and a way of thinking. the part that matters is how he used his brain compared to other people. as there are many intj/p or whatever mixes... but not all of them rise enough in fame for everyone to know who they are and what they did.
Yes, but could the personality have been responsible for the fame?
his personality seperates him from the rest. insisting he's right and no one else knows what their talking about. many cave in under pressure like that, he didn't. he was different, i guess that makes you just different enough to be famous... but personality is still just a frame work for other things.
ENTps can be loners, any extrovert can be a loner in fact ... it really is not a very good way to determine whether someone is introverted or extroverted.
And I am back to thinking Einstein is an ENTp ...
Carl Jung's Socionics Type (old discussions)
I was just wondering if anyone had ever noticed that Jung VI's well as an INFj...
http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl...-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html
David Keirsey has him down as INFj on his website.
If I recall, most socionicists call him INT?, with some major controversy over the J/P dimension.
Anyone want to poke guesses at what he really is? We haven't had one of these threads in too long a time.
I certainly wouldn't discount the INFj possibility. INxx certainly.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Ti valuing 100%. Either INTj or INFp.
4w3-5w6-8w7
ESE.
I am less inclined to dismiss the INFj possibility nowadays than I was before. He is not a typical INTj, and he is not a typical INTp either. He doesn't really fit any of those two types very well, so maybe the explanation lies elsewhere. I am not sure of his type, and I have never been. To solve this mystery once and for all would be great.
INFp very focused on Ti agenda
4w3-5w6-8w7
In his relationship with Freud, Jung held very tightly to his suggested position as surrogate to Freud himself -- he talks very dearly and meaningfully to Freud in letters -- an INTj never would do this and an INFp would probably consider it meaningless. It's very Fi behavior.
Jung often talked about compassion... there is no type more compassionate than INFj.
Jung regarded himself as a Thinking type rather than a feeler or intuiter or sensing type.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
Interesting that he could be an INFj. Im not a person who has studied Jung, but his work on dreams, sociology, spirituality, collective unconscious seem to be creative Ne to me? I just looked at wikipedia and it said
"Jung emphasized the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern people rely too heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and appreciation of unconscious realms".
That doesn't seem like a Ti thing to say. I can see an INFj saying that.
Haha i cant believe i could bag the man, but my INFj friend considers himself "extremely intelligent" so its possible he was confused about this. Haha as ironic as it seems.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
jung is ILI.
On what other grounds than the fact that he is considered to be that type by many socionists?
Me too and I'm ethical.
-----
Jung's archetypes and such is a clear indicator for Ni dominance. Between ILI and IEI, I take IEI.
[| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
no he's not. He typed himself as a Ti-base type and, regardless, was Ti valuing.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Carl Jung
I think that the general consensus is that Jung is either an LII or an ILI, but the question is, which one?
I can make arguments for either type.
LII: Jung identified himself as an introverted thinker, and that's how he created the introverted thinking profile, upon which the Socionics introverted logic function is based. Further, it is obvious that Jung is some kind of intuitive, excluding LSI as a possibility.
ILI: The introverted thinking profile implies that Jung's introverted thinker can be harsh or maybe even bitter. This is more consistent with ILI than LII. Also, I was talking with someone about his work, and they mentioned that a lot of artistic types identify with it. This implies that his work is more intuitive than logical, as it is very spiritual or mystical in nature. In particular, that points to introverted intuition being the function behind it.
I'm inclined to think ILI, because the introverted thinking function, as Jung described it, is not too far off from the way an ILI might think. So, if it can apply to either type, then ILI is more consistent.
However, my conclusion is not set in stone, so I'm interested to hear what others here might think.
Jason
i think he's clearly ILI.
He's not Te valuing. Ni-INFp.
zzz
Imagine Jung banging Augustine in the ass.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I have.
Jung is definitely an LII. The proof that Jung is an INTj/LII is in this interview, consisting of four videos:
It is totally, and indisputably obvious that it is an INTj talking. If you can't see that, you don't know how to spot an INTj.
Yes, Jung correctly identified his own type.
No, both ILIs and LIIs can be harsh and bitter (though in slightly different ways). ILIs are usually more aggressive than LIIs, both in behaviour and debate.
In general LIIs clearly have a more spiritual and mystical bent than ILIs. And LIIs are more inclined to believe in God and other superstitions. That's just an empirical fact, the truth of which you can check yourself if you observe the types in reality.
No, it definitely does not. It's just a myth that such things have anything to do with. It is one of the mistakes that socionists have made, and that mistake is still not corrected in the type profiles, even though the empirical evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
No. You don't understand the functions -- not the socionic ones and not Jung's desriptions of them. It is extremely obvious that introverted thinking, as Jung describes it, isand Subjectivist. Extraverted thinking, as Jung describes it, is clearly
and Objectivist. You simply must try to understand this crucial difference. The creative
interesting, since right here, in this old thread you suggested that if jung's tendencies towards symbolism, dreams, etc etc that were all facets of Ni -- which you did not dispute as facets of Ni; rather, you accepted the mystical aspects (perhaps "internal mental constructs" are more appropriate designations) as obvious aspects of the internal mental turmoil -- perhaps even similar to that expressed in jung's Ni description -- were actually correct and were features of jung's personality, then it was possible that jung was merely very stupid and poorly self-aware, or that jung's Ti = socionics Ni.In general LIIs clearly have a more spiritual and mystical bent than ILIs. And LIIs are more inclined to believe in God and other superstitions. That's just an empirical fact, the truth of which you can check yourself if you observe the types in reality.
No, it definitely does not. It's just a myth that such things have anything to do with
here, otoh, you dispute these as facets of Ni; a contradictory interpretation.
also, the idea that belief in god is an LII trait can be refuted by the minimal prevalence of theism among obviously LII subjectivist philosophers such as kant and hegel.
He is not easy to type. I will go with INTj for the moment; it's definitely true that most of his writings (let me except psychological types for the moment) contain highly mystical viewpoints that are rather obscure to understand. This, to me, actually speaks against INTp as a type: oftentimes when a INTp considers himself skilled enough to write a book, he has fine-tuned his ideas to a point where his writing is very clear, concise and to the point - Jung isn't.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No, I did not. You should read what I wrote again -- and read it more carefully this time, because you have obviously misunderstood what I was saying there. All of it is a hypothetical scenario based on the (most likely false) assumption that if what others believe is actually true (but I don't believe that it is true) about the Ti, Ni, Jung's type, etc., then I suggest some explanations for it. But it is rather obvious that they are wrong (and so are you of course) and that Jung was right.
I haven't said that belief in God is an LII trait. Neither have I said that most or even many LIIs actually believe in God. I have only said that belief in God is more common in LIIs than in ILIs, and that the empirical evidence for that is rather obvious. And Kant and Hegel were both theists. They are good examples of the spiritualism that is related to
See the interview, idiot. It is now a proven fact that Jung was an INTj. Check for yourself. Learn how to recognize an INTj by listening to Jung and see him in action.
I don't think there is a good case for INTp.
INTj is possible, but I prefer INFj.
See the whole interview in four parts and accept the obvious fact that Jung was an INTj. The video is available for everyone to see, so there is no excuse for being wrong here. You simply must see it and change your mind. You was not an INFj, and he was certainly not an INTp.
well, yeah, i saw that but the stuff about jung with relation to mysticism wasn't wrong. since its pointless to reason with you i just thought i'd point out your contradictions and move on.
were they. were they theists? ah, i've shown off my complete ignorance of them then. based on my relatively limited knowledge of their philosophies (particularly limited in hegel's case) i sort of assumed they'd be nontheistic.And Kant and Hegel were both theists. They are good examples of the spiritualism that is related to
Ti-ISTj.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Incompetent fool.
why is that?
you don't see some Ni with concepts like the collective unconscious and universal archetypes, and his in rather rambling descriptive style of communication?
Say what again? I didn't hear you.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
That's because I didn't say anything. I wrote it.
Incompetent fool.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Posting Permissions
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"