I have to disagree with that, actually. The main source comes from the super-ego. An LSI has a phobia of Ne and Si, with a neurosis of Te and Fi. Ni is considered an AUTHORITY function for an LSI; their fear comes more from Ne than anything.Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Rocky is right ... if it was not from the fears induced by the PoLR function, there would not be any reason for a Hidden Agenda. In fact, the 6th function is really an indirect attempt and extreemely flawed and subconscious attempt to make a realization of the PoLR function without aggravating any more anxiety than a person has to ... why else would it be called a "hidden agenda" ... it is a latently subconscious planned attempt to solve a persons conscious fears and issues.I have to disagree with that, actually. The main source comes from the super-ego. An LSI has a phobia of Ne and Si, with a neurosis of Te and Fi. Ni is considered an AUTHORITY function for an LSI; their fear comes more from Ne than anything.
he was intp
end of thread
I wish you were MY laywer.
Ok, let's try and do this with getting emotional and personal. I want you to consider some facts; clean, clear, stuff, that we know about Jung.
FACT: He was a very introverted child.
FACT: Jung has a neurosis/fear for math.
FACT: Jung would sometimes faint when he was afraid of participating in P.E. class.
FACT: Jung disliked learning from books and preached learning through experiencing things instead.
FACT: Jung dislike facts.
FACT: Jung explored and visited several diffrent countries for more knowledge.
FACT: Jung considered himself a rational, thinking, introvert.
FACT: Jung finished and published 40-odd pieces of work.
FACT: Jung had several physical relationships outside of his marriage.
FACT: Jung held his spirituality close to him.
And this is trying to put things out there without any subjective input. If I was doing that, I'd also mention that I believe Jung had more of an assymetrical relationship with Freud (ILE), he was more of a rational thinker than irrational, that he has all the physical qualities of a sensor, and that LSIs have possibaly the best observational skills of all the types.
Happy?
//
i think i should read the thread again, but if i understand you correctly, you're saying he is not INTp, but ISTj? please tell me that's not what you think. also, i am not very familiar with the 3-letter abbreviations you keep using and find them rather annoying since i haven't memorized them yet, so correct me if i'm wrong on that.
tell me about it. most people already voted to stick to the old ones but some people stubbornly seem not to care about that.
I take it back. From those pictures and from what Rocky has said, I believe Jung was in fact INTj.
Would not have much trouble with mathematics.
Sure!
Remember, just having a strong function does not mean that it works in the same way as other types. The "quality" or "use" of the functions is diffrent in diffrent types (such as ratinoality/irrationality).
First, I'd like to take myself as an example. SLIs have a strong Te, right? But Te is our creative function, and we use it IRRATIONALLY as opposed to the rational LxE (ExTJ) types. Putting too much pressure on our second function to be used rationally can become uncomfortable. SLIs don't follow the general rules, laws, etc... the way a rational thinking type does, because they are the irrational thinkers. You can do the same thing with an LII (INTJ). Are they the same as an ILE (ENTP) in breaking down and creating systems? Not quite. They have the same function, but the diffrent order causes them to use the functions diffrently.
Now, take Jung. Sport and that type of thing is usually more enjoyed by the irrationals (not always, though). Forcing an LSI to participate in things P.E. class that he didn't see important would be like strapping an SLI down to rules. Because ILIs are irrationals, they find Se a time of relaxation.
LSI= ISTJ and ILI= INTP (didn't I mention that at the beginning?)
Yes, and that is what I think.
Or some people are just stubbornly not changing. :wink: Considering what socionics is, it is almost an insult to some people (namely it's influences) to confuse it with MBTI. ISTJ etc... are not socionics acronyms.tell me about it. most people already voted to stick to the old ones but some people stubbornly seem not to care about that.
Very true. This is what Jung had to say about Ti:
"Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel."
"Remember, just having a strong function does not mean that it works in the same way as other types. The "quality" or "use" of the functions is diffrent in diffrent types (such as ratinoality/irrationality). "
But, with it being strong, how could have a PHOBIA of using it?
"First, I'd like to take myself as an example. SLIs have a strong Te, right? But Te is our creative function, and we use it IRRATIONALLY as opposed to the rational LxE (ExTJ) types."
No you don't, rational functions are used rationally; rationality and irrationality are not an instrinsic part of the person, but rather an intrinsic part of a particular function. FUNCTIONS are rational/irrational, not the person.
INFp with a strong Ti as a hidden agenda is always a possibility. >.>
"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."
I don't think he had a phobia of Se, mearly the way it was used. I have mentioned things like Jung liking to travel, not perfering to learn from books, etc... which can all be explained be Se. The not liking physical activites as mush as the irrationals thing is just a pattern that I have noticed. I have also seen ESIs ABHOR physical sports, while the IxI types, irronically, enjoy them more. The best way that I can explain this is the IxI's dual-seeking function finds relaxation/enjoyment through sport while having Se as the creative function makes it almost seem like work to the xSI types. Of course they can enjoy sports as any type can, but not typically.
Try thinking of it like this. Put an LSE, an SLI and an EII together. The LSE has a heavy, rational Te. This Te follows rules and structure, guidelines and procedures. It is sequential. The EII, with a dual-seeking of Te, enjoys the LSE's behaviours and thought processes very much; they enjoy following the Te. The SLI, on the other hand, does not like to follow the orderly way of thinking, and might become somewhat uncomfortable if they have to follow the Te's rules, because the SLI follows both Si and Ne; if you are an irrational type then they way you lilve, your "world" is defined by irrationality while the rational is used to either be manipulated or add something in a creative way to your base.
I guess calling it rational wasn't the best way, but I think I described it better above.
Very true, I think the hidden agenda is usually held close to someone once you find it. The problem is your PoLR is usually a hurdle in the way of finding it.
Yeah, I think I understand well what you and Artemis mean...
It's just like he picks up a red shoe and shouts, "Look, this shoe is blue!!"
We say, "What!? Where's blue skin on that???" and he answers, "See, these blue shoes has black strings on it, and this one does." We say we're not talking about what color its string is, and then he says, "Yes. But look! This has a dark gray sole and it has 32 ledges. The blue ones have them, too!!"
After all, we'll understand nothing about the term "blue" he means, or what makes him think its blue. An endless quarrel begins, or everything chills out and everyone leaves.
It's almost impossible to persuade of three things at same time; This shoe looks too red, no way blue. The color of shoe strings or shape of sole are generally not decisive to the shoe's color. If you want to use the word "blue" in different way from daily usage, you must explain it at first, and clearly.
First, let me start off by saying that if you still think Jung is an ILI then I have a nice piece of swamp land that you can buy. Real cheap, too.
Now, if you haven't noticed, I've posted the most information (by far) about Jung and his type than anyone else. In fact, up until this point I wasn't defense at ALL, but explained my point and side well while others have NO basis for their opinion what-so-ever. And if you want to keep ignoring the facts that I have laid out here as unimportant than you just plain don't get it. Everything that I have mentioned is important, but you want to ignore it because it makes your opinion wrong. And, yes, don't let anyone tell you that your opinion can't be wrong; it can. Now, before you start attacking me, I dare you to sift through this entire thread and collect all the information and posts I have made about Jung, and compare it to what everyone else has written. Not even close.
And as for your "warhead to the skull" remark, I can't see how that couldn't apply to anyone more then people who just state their opinon without backing it up and try to argue without any clue as to what they are arguing for. Once you find something actually important and meaningful to say, come back, otherwise stop acting like the jackass here.
And it case anyone is interested I have pulled together some pictures of other guys I suspect to be LSI. (first picture is Jung).
^^ Tom Landry
^^ Gregor Mendel
^^ Jack Nicklaus
^^ Orel Hershiser
you're right, no one in this entire thread has said anything even remotely founded. and regardless of the mountains of information you've supported your claims with, i'm still going to disagree with you that he was not ISTj. what is my basis for that opinion? you are a stubborn ISTp.
p.s. the 3-word abbreviations are really stupid. to even get through your argument, one has to stop for 5 minutes and track down which fucking personality you just rattled off in order to keep up with your hackneyed theory, if one were even so inclined in the first place
Ok, that makes alot of sense. Try attacking me now. (Wait, I'm the stubborn one?) I don't even know where I fit into this discussion, anyways, it was about Jung. And in case you were wondering, I argued that Jung was an ISTJ way back when I still thought I was ENTP, so it couldn't have been a type-bias or anything. I'll throw something else out there. I found this on Dimitri Lytov's site:
Hmm... empirical dispositon as opposed to pure philisophical premises? That sounds like a sensor to me (and I have argued before that Jung's work was mostly empirical).It seems that the achievements of Jung are the fundament and the starting point of socionics. As far as I know, he pretends to demonstrate empirical disposition towards his objects of study (and often remonstrated against the pure philosophical premises when doing science). But as we know and as you mentioned his empirical work was mainly concerning mentally ill people who lived in a very different society (in time and space) from the one Augusta faced in the former USSR.
p.s. they are not my acronyms. They are SOCIONIC acronyms. The four letter are MBTI. Look:p.s. the 3-word abbreviations are really stupid. to even get through your argument, one has to stop for 5 minutes and track down which fucking personality you just rattled off in order to keep up with your hackneyed theory, if one were even so inclined in the first place
The Russian Site
http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index-type.html
RE: Jerry Fawell
Sorry it took so long, but it is possible that Fawell is an LSI.
If you want to know...
Get ready for a shock. Hope you're ready.
Jung was INFx.
What is INFx? INFx is the state of having crossed judgement and perception, such that they are co-dominant in the personality. This is the trait of genius: simutaneous knowledge and understanding of ANYTHING. However, there is a price to be paid.
Because neither of the two meaningful functions is recessive, the energy that would normally be suppressing one of the two is instead supressing another function elsewhere in the personality. In the case of genius, this function is always the recessive of the rational pair. (in Jung's case, thinking)
However, the inferiority of the recessive rational function is not necessarily evident, because the dominance of the other function is so very pure and unmolested. A person can literally feighn thought through feeling, giving them absolute knowledge and understanding of any and all relationships, to the extent that they take the time to analyze them. So it was with Jung.
Cross type can occur in other functions besides. See http://www.cgjungpage.org/talk/showp...48&postcount=5 .
You know, you make a wonderful statement with your message.
Let's all proudly proclaim our speculative knowledge to be fact, whether it be implicity or explicitly!
"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."
umm, since when?INFx is the state of having crossed judgement and perception
One could argue that the philosophical premises of J and P render it impossible for them to be thought of as being equal in some people.
Yes, but WHY MUST JUNG BE A FEELING TYPE? Was Jung really even a genius? Can't genius also be argued to be nothing more than serendipity, i.e. being at the right place at the right time?However, the inferiority of the recessive rational function is not necessarily evident, because the dominance of the other function is so very pure and unmolested. A person can literally feighn thought through feeling, giving them absolute knowledge and understanding of any and all relationships, to the extent that they take the time to analyze them. So it was with Jung.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
OK, in light of both this thread being brought up again, and the discussions about Freud, I have decided to explain Jung's case again, but I'll try and shoot straight this time and keep it as simple as possible.
Systematic logic over practical logic.
Ti is systematic logic, while Te is practical logic. Which one was Jung? Te has more to do with facts, numbers, math, and some sciences. Ti has to do with order, stucture, systems, and typologies! (not making that one up, it's in the definition). Since we know that Jung both distasted facts and math, we can be a little skeptical of him being Te to begin with. Ti fits perfectly for Jung. His body of work was all about systems and classifications.
His relationship with Freud.
I mentioned how the Jung-Freud relationship was an asymmetrical one earlier in this thread, but this was brought up again in another thread. Here is what some of the discussion was like:
… and…
They did not have either a relationship of contrast or quasi-identical (assuming Freud was ILE). If Freud were an EIE, then he would be in a relationship of supervision if Jung was ILI, or semi-duality if Jung was LII. Semi-duality doesn’t fit. We can see Feud was Jung’s supervisor… if Freud was indeed an ILE than it would only make sense Jung was LSI. If we got Freud wrong and he was an EIE (which I doubt) then it would make sense Jung was an ILI.
Jung seemed to admire Freud’s “intelligence” when they first met. Intelligence comes in many forms, but considering Freud’s strength came from his Ne, it only makes sense that it was his Ne that was supervising Jung.
Quadra Values
So which one was Jung? I already talked about his Ti over Te... he was clearly more of an Introverted Thinker who didn’t trust Te as much. So that leaves Alpha and Beta. Did Jung value Si and Ne, or Se and Ni? Considering some things about Jung’s life, like his beliefs and his physical sex life, it leans more towards Beta. Again, this hints more towards LSI than any other type. If he was an LII, then neither of the things I mentioned above would make sense.
Jung’s love for empirical disposition.
Jung always claimed to learn things though experiencing things as opposed to pure mystical or philosophical premises. Some things to consider is that Jung traveled to several different parts of the world, trying to learn what he could about different people. No offense to some people, but even some LII types on here have said that they would prefer to write/learn about something with limited actual experiences. This kind of luxury wasn’t given to Jung. He couldn’t such leach off of other peoples’ systems and experiences to gather and make associations. Also, keep in mind that sensors notice things about and observe people all the time. They pay attention to things like people’s behaviors, expressions, body language, etc… Since Jung made a system largely off of noticing trait in people such as these, it would only make more sense that he was a sensor, too. Intuitive types aren’t as tuned into these types of things, so it would have been less likely for them to notice it. Also, consider that famous quote from Jung again. It describes how he favor the empirical over the conceptual:
“Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul.”
~ Carl Jung.
Jung’s work ethic.
OK, I have mentioned before that Jung completed 40-odd pieces of work. Considering this and all the effort he gave to his work, it would seem he is more of an Introverted Rational type as opposed to an Introverted Irrational. Jung even wrote of the Introverted Irrationals that, “…such types are indeed the most fruitless of men.” Do you really believe that Jung was the irrational type?? Not really... and since we have already seen that he was Ti instead of Te, this makes sense, again.
Visual Identification.
I know a lot of people don’t like to rely on this, but it is just another thing to consider. Jung defiantly has more physical characteristics of a sensor than an intuitive… and he defiantly looks like an LSI to me. For example, Topaz told me that he was surprised in that Jung looks just like two LSI guys he knew. Well, I’ll be damned! It seems to fit again. Even if you don’t trust VI, isn’t it worth considering it when it makes enough sense to believe it?
OK, that’s all I have to say for now. If you go through all of that, and try to put everything together, only one type really makes sense at all; Logical-sensory Introvert.
I don't think that the dynamic between Freud and Jung may be diagnosed so easily. Both were very focused on how they intended to change the world: Jung through his compassionate search for truth, and Freud through his own strength.
But there is someone else who may want to join in this discussion. She may shed much light. No time now though.
Good, and I would like to see her point out how Jung and Freud did not have a relationship of supervision.
Note, I am an ENTp and my father is an ISTj and have had much experience with the relation ... So, I think one would have to point out a whole heck of a lot more if anyone wanted to show diffrently.
I'm not sure she'd be up for the hostility such a debate entails. She appears to be an xxFx, from what my "True Type" test on OKCupid suggests.
She bears an extremely strong resemblance to Jung though, and she seem an ultimate judge of character. She is a -brilliant- writer.
My argument that Jung is not a "logical" personality stems from the dominant convention in his writing of deriving everything from the relationship of the subject to the object. His analysis, too, is haphazard and inconsistent, reflecting what appear to be momentary musings, as opposed to the concrete progression of Einstein's work on physics: uncovering one thing, then not continuing forward with his work until everything that could be impacted by his findings was brought in line with his work. (for example, rewriting Newton's equations to meet the criterion of special relativity) Jung does not demonstrate this focus. Indeed, I was surprised to find that he often completely restated main ideas of his earlier works when they emerged as consequences of his later works, as opposed to refering back to them. (the exception being when he had very much developed the relationships of those ideas in earlier works) I can understand that this may seem "mathematical" proofing to a logical perceiver, but I would ask that in that case Godel's hypothesis be recalled, that demonstrates that a civilization cannot interpret the words of a civilization that phrases their mathematics in the former's script.
A point well made, guest, a point well made. You seem to be an expert of Carl Jung, no?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Repost
Oh I'm sorry. I posted that.I have tried to understand his work as best I can, but I have tried also to understand to where it has its limits and how little it describes of Jung directly. Although taken indirectly, as a statement about who he was, it appears to explain him very well.
Can you tell me what makes this "ethical"?Indeed, I was surprised to find that he often completely restated main ideas of his earlier works when they emerged as consequences of his later works, as opposed to refering back to them.
Couldn't this be explained by him being a sensor?
Feeling anger is not ethical, and yet the feeler experiences it still.
Aren't ethics an effect of unconscious thinking on feeling? (in feelers) Empathic people are not necessarily ethical. Ronald Reagan was an empath by any standard, as is Bill Clinton. Many people would call them both unethical, Reagan for his support of supply-side economics and deregulation, and Clinton for his abuse of executive privileges. The only common thread between them is that they were masters of their relationships with others. Feelers avoid rupturing their relationships: they'll condone genocide and shake hands with the people they are trying to kill. Ethics are subjective in feeling personalities. The relationship is of the most importance.
Note that Jung never says "this causes this" outright. He only explains how the subject relates to the object in a progressive series of situations, each flowing completely into the other. He develops characters, but does not provide them names. Something my friend does, also.
A point I should make: it is possible for functions to share dominance with each other if they are not competing over the same energy. That is, perceived contents may not be apparent to the perceptive function, and judgements may not be seen by the judging function. Along those same lines, intuition may be crossed with sensation, as may have been the case with Jung.
Certainly it is the case with my friend
Feeling anger is not ethical, and yet the feeler experiences it still.
Aren't ethics an effect of unconscious thinking on feeling? (in feelers) Empathic people are not necessarily ethical. Ronald Reagan was an empath by any standard, as is Bill Clinton. Many people would call them both unethical, Reagan for his support of supply-side economics and deregulation, and Clinton for his abuse of executive privileges. The only common thread between them is that they were masters of their relationships with others. Feelers avoid rupturing their relationships: they'll condone genocide and shake hands with the people they are trying to kill. Ethics are subjective in feeling personalities. The relationship is of the most importance.
Note that Jung never says "this causes this" outright. He only explains how the subject relates to the object in a progressive series of situations, each flowing completely into the other. He develops characters, but does not provide them names. Something my friend does, also.
A point I should make: it is possible for functions to share dominance with each other if they are not competing over the same energy. That is, perceived contents may not be apparent to the perceptive function, and judgements may not be seen by the judging function. Along those same lines, intuition may be crossed with sensation, as may have been the case with Jung.
Certainly it is the case with my friend
I think both Reagan and Clinton were logical types. BTW, I also think ****** and Araffat were logics, but let's not get into that here are send this thread off course.
This sound more ike an introverted fnction.Note that Jung never says "this causes this" outright. He only explains how the subject relates to the object in a progressive series of situations, each flowing completely into the other. He develops characters, but does not provide them names. Something my friend does, also.probably... maybe
.
oh... and can you explain what you mean by the cross dominance of functions again? When you say intuition crosses with sensation, do you mean something likeand
dominating together? That would be interesting, but it seems like having one of those only pushes you towards trying to have a strength in the other one. I still don't understand what you are trying to say yet.
Perhaps, but it is more correct to define a natural ethical system, i.e. a system that was not learned verbally, as a system of ethics that have been learned by some sort of automated classical conditioning. We are born with certain emotional instincts. For example, when someone hurts us, we feel pain and thus retract from the painful stimulus. Through conditioning, we learn to associate certain instances with this pain, and thus we learn to avoid them, either directly (running away) or indirectly (avoiding provoking the stimulus by getting along with him). The indirect methods form one's ethical system.Feeling anger is not ethical, and yet the feeler experiences it still.
Aren't ethics an effect of unconscious thinking on feeling?
With this definition, it is difficult to formulate a definition of feeling and thinking, because this process is obviously not type-dependent, at least not initially.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
You're right, Cone, ethics was a poor word to use. It would seem that "feeling" is not necessarily based on "ethics." Do you agree that "focus on the relationship" between the subject and the object, as opposed to the "will" to control the relationship between the subject and the object, is the tenant of feeling?
Rocky, I think you may be confusing "feeling" with "genius". Many logically oriented presidents have been complete disasters on the public relations end, not least of which because they put a premium on what they thought was right ahead of their relationship with the people. Consider Hoover during the Great Depression, or George W. Bush over Iraq. In my experience, thinkers are more inclined to emphasize their control of the object over their relationship with it.
Einstein, to afford the contrast between "logic" and Jung's behavior, is infamous for his controlling relationship with his first wife. For example, contrast Einstein's relations with Mileva with Jung's many adventures with women. The pursuit of the strengthened relationship appears to have been more important to Jung than the practicalities of marriage. (stability, for example)
I'm not sure the case could be well made that Einstein was anything resembling emotional. He seems to me the exact opposite. By contrasting Einstein with other people's personalities, I think we can manage a good working, universal description of the feeling phenomenon.
I don't think Logics are inheridaly more intelligent than all Ethics... nor would I call Jung "genius" level intelligence. Possibaly he was... I don't think it's flat out obvious or even important, though. So, was it possible Jung was an Ethical-sensory Intratim? Maybe... I doubt it, though. That would mean he was in a conflict relationship with Frued which I highly doubt. And if Jung were EII (INFJ), then he would be FREUD's supervisor... also illogical. Besides, do you doubt that Jung was
Certainly not, intelligence is equal between all people who do not experience an intellectual inhibition/damage to the brain.
Genius is never "flat out" obvious. It is a quality that appears only in that it sets those who possess it in a distinct class by themselves. Jung has a large following. A -very- large following, despite the fact that no conclusive scientific evidence has been posited in support of his psychology. (save Socionics, of course)nor would I call Jung "genius" level intelligence. Possibaly he was... I don't think it's flat out obvious or even important, though.
The trait that most defines genius, in my experience, is that people go to the genius for answers. A genius can always give you the answers you seek, so long as you are prepared to accept them, for they may not be what you would prefer hearing. Suffice to say, a genius can give you an answer with confidence.
I don't believe the relationship between Jung and Freud may be explained so simply. Freud had an agenda that he likened, and there is evidence to support this claim, to a battle between good and evil. "The black tide of... mud", he so referred to the occult in Jung's presence. "Black tide": immediate association with demons, devils, forces of darkness. "Mud": filth, especially revirulent to the introverted intuitive who desires only to focus upon the inner fantasy reality, free from the object's shackles. The agenda, and those forces that could aid the agenda, were of primary importance to Freud, even at the expense of severing his relationships with his peers. Suffice to say, Freud WAS psychoanalysis. He WAS his agenda. Certainly he lived it every day to the end of his life, and certainly he put down by force of his personality (which he carefully cultivated into "authority") any who dared question his approach. Simply put, Jung had the genius that Freud had not, and with that he crushed Freud by brutally analyzing Freud's relationships with his students in full view of them. Although Freud retained his authority in spite of the rebuttal, it can be attributed to the failure of will by his students, not to the inherent superiority of his theory, that it (the authority) remained intact.So, was it possible Jung was an Ethical-sensory Intratim? Maybe... I doubt it, though. That would mean he was in a conflict relationship with Frued which I highly doubt. And if Jung were EII (INFJ), then he would be FREUD's supervisor... also illogical.
And so, from what I can see, it remains today: that people simply fall under the spell of Freud's ghostly will. Although with so many psych pioneers spellbound as well, and Jung's own work so disorganized, it would seem that they have little elsewhere to go, in as much as they cannot resist the force of psychoanalysis in our society.
A good point, but consider too, how Fi categorizes people in terms like "agreeable", "haughty", "arrogant", and in many less articulate terms aside. A key (and confusing) aspect of Jung's work is that his terminology is both specific and non-specific. By describing the relationships between the object and the subject relative to both, emotionally descriptive adjectives (attitudes) effectively blur the lines between the types so much that if one chooses to think "outside the box" and see each of the types as present in every personality, there is little argument to the contrary. This is a consequence of using "attitudes" to describe relations, although how else to describe relations between things is lost to me.Besides, do you doubt that Jung was
Feelers know what is happy, and sad, and angry, etc. These are all classifications of feeling. Thinking need not take a dominant role for classifications to occur. Thinking is priority of CONTROL.
tcaudilllg, what type are you?
Also another question, are you basing you analysis of the descriptive works of Jung in his native German or the translated English?
The translated English. But that's irrelevant. The languages have enough common roots that intellectual works may be seamlessly translated between them. Truth has no language save its own. Does one lose something in the translation of Einstein's relativity papers from the German to the english? Of course not.
I am an INTj. Every test I've ever taken has reflected that fact.
How about another question, do you know German? What makes you so certain that Jung's writting style is transferrable between the two languages? Did Jung translate his own works? Even so, how about english language editors that may have tweeked his writting style to sound more English?
Also, I am familiar with the German language, and I can see some potential problems with some of the assertions that have been made concerning Jung's writting style. If I can ever get ahold of some of Jung's works in both German and English, I will make some comparisons.
But, in the mean time I am very sceptical. Yes, the German and Enlish language both have common roots, but within this context there are some marked diffrences. I would not jump to conclusions as of yet.
Keep in mind that half of Jung's works had other authors writing with Jung. That can also distort your perception of him through his writings as well as the translation thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
