Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Jung was ISTP

  1. #11
    Member Array scorpiomover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    LOL yeah I know that guy. There were two threads combined there by the Administrator. That poster found new information months maybe a year later (read post #91) to suggest otherwise. In typical dominant Ti fashion, that could change again if new facts are discovered.
    OK. I'll bite:

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Exactly. What most people do not appreciate is that MBTI was not discovered until 1968.
    The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944.

    MBTI theorizes differently than Jungian. The former considers the function most important, Jung says it's the attitude that is the basis of his theory, then judging/perceiving which breaks down to the specific function. Where MBTI subscribes to one having a dominant-auxiliary that is equal (and arguably the auxiliary function being more pronounced), Jung says no function-attitude equal to the most differential (dominant) function. He then implies that the two subsequent function-attitudes (what we know as the auxiliary and tertiary) as merely two auxiliary functions. Jung never subscribes to a tertiary (which literally means 3rd place, therefore has to be subsequent to the auxiliary funciton). In fact I have never observed him reference to the word in his work.
    Jung himself said in the online interview, that one has to always take everything in historical context:

    MBTI:

    Myers and Briggs were developing a system during WWII, when millions of women were entering the workplace, who had all been home-makers, and didn't have a clue over what roles to apply for. Most of them would probably have ended up in the wrong job, and chaos would have resulted. MBTI makes sense in terms of assessments done by a manager in the workplace, to identify the best place to put a person, and how to communicate with him, based on his MBTI type. The type order is the order of the most noticable qualities of a person:

    First you notice if they are outgoing or reserved, because if they are reserved, they aren't even there to talk to.

    Then when you get them in a conversation, the first thing you notice is if they are a "creative type" or a "conventional type", either they keep talking about their "the done thing", or "the latest new idea".

    Then you notice HOW they express themselves, either talking about your feelings (or theirs), or assiduously avoid talking about feelings and the like, and stick to practicals and/or theoretics.

    Then you notice whether they conclude with firm decisions, or keep refusing to tie themselves down to a firm conclusion.

    I/E, then N/S, then T/F, then J/P.

    Jungian typology:

    Jung was a psychotherapist, a field where clinical misdiagnosis is as common as grass. He even wrote that something as unscientific as an astrological birth chart would shave 2 years off the time for psychoanalysis. For anyone in Jung's field at the time, it would be like saying you checked the Space Shuttle was ready for lift-off, by getting a witch doctor to bless it. He only did so, because no-one had a clue about how to properly diagnose personality disorders, and mostly, still don't, even to this day.

    It's quite clear, from what he wrote, that for each dominant function, he diagnosed that specific types of psychological disorders would be common for that type. Thus, he was giving a handbook for how to correctly diagnose psychological disorders. Identify their dominant function, and the extreme of it, would reveal the disorder.

    It makes sense that he would rely on the dominant function alone, because a psychological disorder is when you take a perfectly ordinary quality, like taking care of potential hazards, and carry it to an extreme, like anxiety, or panic attacks. For this to happen, the function has to become more and more dominant, until it basically takes over, to an extreme. A strong auxiliary function would balance out the dominant function, and keep it from extreme disorders. So in the patients Jung saw, the dominant function had pretty much taken over, and thus, the auxiliary function was just doing what the dominatnt function wanted, exactly as Jung described it.

    So going back to his final interview located here, at the 8:45 mark where he says that he is capitalized by thinking, uses intuition a great deal also, but very little feeling is not practical, one would surmise that Jung is referring to himself as an INTP as we know it.

    [quote]But if you read his theory, Jung believes the number of types are unlimited since there are so many variable. For example an INTP type will always dominate with Ti, but can also use Ti-Ne, Ti-Si (once they develop the third function and he even references to someone using Ti-Fe. As an ISTP type, I can use Ti only as well, or Ti-Se, Ti-Ni or Ti-Fe.[quote]Jung is quite adamant in his descriptions of the auxiliary function, that a perceiving dominant function can only have a judging axuiliary function, and a judging dominant function can only have a perceiving auxiliary function.

    By the time of his final interview before he died, he no longer used Ti-Se, but Ti-Ni, hence his remarks in the video. Based on his own theory, Jung was most likely, what we would consider an ISTP type.
    He said in the interview, that he gave everything he needed in a few short sentences, to make an accurate diagnosis of his type:

    1) He first set out that types changed. Ergo, his type also changed.

    2) He said that was characterised by over-thinking since early childhood. Thus, initially, was T-dom: INTP, ISTP, ENTJ or ESTJ.

    3) He then said that he HAD a lot of intuition too. Past tense. So he was eliminating everything but INTP and ENTJ.

    4) He then followed up to say that he HAD great difficulty in feeling. So was weak in Fi.

    5) He then followed up with that he had huge problems relating to the real world. Obviously didn't have them anymore. But anyway, ENTJs have no problems relating to the real world.

    Only one that fits, is INTP.

    I think what we witnessed him saying based on information in his biography such as: is that he initially used Ti-Se.
    I think that I'd need to see the whole paragraph quoted, preferably, the whole chapter. Otherwise, it's very like when a missionary cherry-picks a single verse from the Bible.

    As Jung said, one MUST have the context.

    Where people get hung up is considering type in a static way, which Jung warns against.
    Exactly. People hear of a famous intelligent person, who came up with a popular idea. People THINK that this means, that if the person is of their type, then his great achievement is partially to do with being his type, and that somehow, if the person was his type, then that means he could make the same achievements, and should be regarded as having similar levels of abilities.

    Rather like someone saying that because Shakespeare was a Brit, and Brits do all think, feel, and inuit so extremely similarly, that we're all literary geniuses.

    Bollocks.

    Whatever type Jung was, if you're his type, you're probably a moron, who only thinks he is smart. Don't like it? Tough cookies.
    "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Spock

  2. #12
    Member Array "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Type
    ISTP
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    OK. I'll bite:

    The Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook was published in 1944.
    Scorpio, the first computer was developed before 1981, but it does not mean it was mainstream and known to the public. MBTI was about as well known to the public before 1968 as Douglas Englbart was to internet users. No one knew what the MBTI was except the military and a few corporations, before 1968.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Jung himself said in the online interview, that one has to always take everything in historical context:

    MBTI:

    Myers and Briggs were developing a system during WWII, when millions of women were entering the workplace, who had all been home-makers, and didn't have a clue over what roles to apply for. Most of them would probably have ended up in the wrong job, and chaos would have resulted. MBTI makes sense in terms of assessments done by a manager in the workplace, to identify the best place to put a person, and how to communicate with him, based on his MBTI type. The type order is the order of the most noticable qualities of a person:

    First you notice if they are outgoing or reserved, because if they are reserved, they aren't even there to talk to.

    Then when you get them in a conversation, the first thing you notice is if they are a "creative type" or a "conventional type", either they keep talking about their "the done thing", or "the latest new idea".

    Then you notice HOW they express themselves, either talking about your feelings (or theirs), or assiduously avoid talking about feelings and the like, and stick to practicals and/or theoretics.

    Then you notice whether they conclude with firm decisions, or keep refusing to tie themselves down to a firm conclusion.

    I/E, then N/S, then T/F, then J/P.

    Jungian typology:

    Jung was a psychotherapist, a field where clinical misdiagnosis is as common as grass. He even wrote that something as unscientific as an astrological birth chart would shave 2 years off the time for psychoanalysis. For anyone in Jung's field at the time, it would be like saying you checked the Space Shuttle was ready for lift-off, by getting a witch doctor to bless it. He only did so, because no-one had a clue about how to properly diagnose personality disorders, and mostly, still don't, even to this day.
    Okay, I am weeding this part out since clearly people should know fact from someone's opinion. And that is simply what you provide here, but this:
    It's quite clear, from what he wrote, that for each dominant function, he diagnosed that specific types of psychological disorders would be common for that type. Thus, he was giving a handbook for how to correctly diagnose psychological disorders. Identify their dominant function, and the extreme of it, would reveal the disorder.

    It makes sense that he would rely on the dominant function alone, because a psychological disorder is when you take a perfectly ordinary quality, like taking care of potential hazards, and carry it to an extreme, like anxiety, or panic attacks. For this to happen, the function has to become more and more dominant, until it basically takes over, to an extreme. A strong auxiliary function would balance out the dominant function, and keep it from extreme disorders. So in the patients Jung saw, the dominant function had pretty much taken over, and thus, the auxiliary function was just doing what the dominatnt function wanted, exactly as Jung described it.
    is epic and I would love to see a thread started, because you are absolutely right. But it's no secret because Jung repeatedly says in his theory that:
    In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]
    Now whether he considered them disorders is something you will have to show. What evidence do you have that his descriptions were based on disorders?

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    He said in the interview, that he gave everything he needed in a few short sentences, to make an accurate diagnosis of his type:

    1) He first set out that types changed. Ergo, his type also changed.

    2) He said that was characterised by over-thinking since early childhood. Thus, initially, was T-dom: INTP, ISTP, ENTJ or ESTJ.

    3) He then said that he HAD a lot of intuition too. Past tense. So he was eliminating everything but INTP and ENTJ.

    4) He then followed up to say that he HAD great difficulty in feeling. So was weak in Fi.

    5) He then followed up with that he had huge problems relating to the real world. Obviously didn't have them anymore. But anyway, ENTJs have no problems relating to the real world.

    Only one that fits, is INTP.
    Scorpio, you do know what Jung described as a type. It was not someone using Ti-Ne-Si... and so on. It was someone using Ti, or Te or one of the 8 functions alone. Of course your type is constantly changing and non-static because one person using Ti is not going to use it in the same frequency as the next person. My type changes everytime circumstances influence a cognitive function to develop. It doesn't mean I just went from ISTP to INTP or any other type. It merely means that I am using a particular cognitive function that suits the current circumstances. But I am still what MBTI refers to as a ISTP.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    I think that I'd need to see the whole paragraph quoted, preferably, the whole chapter. Otherwise, it's very like when a missionary cherry-picks a single verse from the Bible.
    Jungs theory is for all to read and can be found here in it's entirety. The point is that eveyone wants to make Jung a type based on MBTI, when the common-sense question would be why would he defer to a theory that was (as you pointed out) still in development when he had already devised a system? If you want to argue facts that he was referring to MBTI when he typed himself, okay. I would love to see that. But I think it's quite obvious from this own theory, that he was most likely what most refer to as ISTP.
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.-Winston Churchill

  3. #13
    Member Array scorpiomover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Scorpio, the first [url=http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000984.htm]computer[/ur] was developed before 1981, but it does not mean it was mainstream and known to the public.
    You are right. But anyone who was into computers, did know about it. Heck, even the Altair was pretty well known amongst hobbyists. To a professional in the area of personal computing, not knowing this, would be admitting you know as much about computing as an illerate plumber.

    MBTI was about as well known to the public before 1968 as Douglas Englbartto internet users. No one knew what the MBTI was except the military and a few corporations, before 1968.
    Jung did. Someone on INTJf referenced that he attended a talk by Myers or Briggs, and commented quite nicely on it.

    Okay, I am weeding this part out since clearly people should know fact from someone's opinion.
    So, because you give an opinion, others should only provide facts?

    But it's no secret because Jung repeatedly says in his theory that:Now whether he considered them disorders is something you will have to show.
    Jung never said that the types were disorders. Quite the contrary. He makes it plain that they occur in a normal context, and the types themselves are quite rational in his descriptions.

    What evidence do you have that his descriptions were based on disorders?
    Jung wrote that he developed his typology originally as a means of reconciling Adler's theory of complexes with Freud's theory of libido. Both competing theories dealt with diagnosing mentally ill people with the correct psychological disorders. I recall that he came to the conclusion that Adler's theory was introverted, and Freud's was extroverted.

    You can also see this, from the way he wrote about the types. For each type, he lists a description of the type, followed by a listing of behaviour for the type, what would be considered normal behaviour, followed by abnormal behaviour that applies only to that type. He does this again, and again, for each type. It occurred to me, that it's very patterned. I then realised that Jung, being a psychologist, would have a great interest in disorders, and this would have great import for them. Then I considered the matter from a psychologist's POV. For a psychologist who was reading Jung's work, I could go down the list, and see which characteristics matched a person. Then, having done that, I could read the descriptions of the normal case, and the abnormal case, and compare both to the person. Having done that, I could be extremely confident of diagnosing if the person fitted the normal description, and was thus a normal person of that type, with any consequent misdiagnosis actually referring to personality quirks. If the person fitted the abnormal description of the type, I could be extremely confident that I have diagnosed them as being mentally ill, AND having identified the exact disorder they have. I could then explain their disorder to any psychologist, including any psychologist that thought Jungian typology was bunkum, because the disorder's characteristics are explained as being independent of the knowledge of their type. The type provides the explanation for how they would have gone from a normal case, to becoming abnormal, and developing the disorder in the first place.

    It's like a proper psychologist's bible, what the DSM hoped to be, but wasn't.

    Scorpio, you do know what Jung described as a type. It was not someone using Ti-Ne-Si... and so on. It was someone using Ti, or Te or one of the 8 functions alone.
    Jung wrote the majority on typology concerning each of the dominant functions, in great depth. What he wrote on all 16 of the auxiliary functions was only a couple of paragraphs, less than half of what he wrote on one dominant function alone. It was quite clear to me, that to do that, would totally defeat the purpose of typology, unless one believed that the dominant function explained the majority of one's behaviour, and the rest was only a small addenda. In Jung's mind, an INTP (Ti-Ne) and an ISTP (Ti-Se) behave so alike, that any differences between us are marginal, and a marginal difference that anyone could figure out for themselves, if one had already got the dominant function right.

    [quote]Of course your type is constantly changing and non-static because one person using Ti is not going to use it in the same frequency as the next person. My type changes everytime circumstances influence a cognitive function to develop. It doesn't mean I just went from ISTP to INTP or any other type. It merely means that I am using a particular cognitive function that suits the current circumstances. But I am still what MBTI refers to as a ISTP.[quote]What you describe, is how you have a job, and in it, sometimes you do stuff that isn't really your official job title, but your main activity is still your job.

    Jung went one further. He said that one's type changes throughout life. So equivalently, he was saying that people change their dominant functions, the way people change careers. Maybe only once every few years. But it changes.

    You will not be an ISTP forever. If Jung is right, you will morph into something else.

    Jungs theory is for all to read and can be found here in it's entirety. The point is that eveyone wants to make Jung a type based on MBTI, when the common-sense question would be why would he defer to a theory that was (as you pointed out) still in development when he had already devised a system?
    Then from his own system, he's a Ti-dom.

    But I think it's quite obvious from this own theory, that he was most likely what most refer to as ISTP.
    Only if most people would say that a Ti-dom is not an INTP. However, Ti is thinking, particularly in logic. INTPs are classed as "the thinker". ISTPs are classed as "the mechanic". Do I NEED to explain more?

    Anyway, in the interview, he said that he was intuitive.

    Also, in reports from a man who had some conversations with Jung for a couple of years, when Jung was an old man, and the man in question was a teenager who was working for the foundation that published Jung's works, Jung reported himself as an introverted intuitive, although this has been used to claim that Jung was an INTJ.

    However, I take on board your quote from his biography about Jung being a conscious Sensor. But I don't know if he meant that the dominant and auxiliary functions are conscious, and the 3rd and 4th functions are unconscious, or that he held that the dominant function was conscious, and the auxiliary function is subconscious. Jung does a lot of discussion on how the subconscious complements the conscious. In the paragraphs on the auxiliary function, he mentions that the auxiliary function complements the dominant function. If I recall, it is why he claimed that if the dominant function is a perceiving function, then the auxiliary function cannot be a perceiving function, and the same for judging functions. So it could be that you are right, or it could be that he is saying that his 3rd or 4th function was Sensory, depending on whether the other conscious function is the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th function.

    Having seen his interviews, and read bits of him, the man strikes me as extremely exacting in his speech, and that he is careful with his words to give you enough breadcrumbs to figure out everything that might be relevant to what he is saying. So I suspect that if you posted the entire paragraph, or better still, the entire chapter from his biography, we'd see that the rest reveals exactly what is what.
    "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Spock

  4. #14
    Member Array scorpiomover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Type
    INTP
    Posts
    132

    Default

    I got this from INTJf:
    As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.

    Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.
    As you can see, Jung states twice, that the auxiliary function is in the conscious. The dominant function is also in the conscious. So the 3rd and 4th functions are in the subconscious. So then, when Jung said that "intuition and feeling were in the unconscious", he MUST be referring to his 3rd and 4th functions. Ti is the dominant function. So Se must be the auxiliary function. So Jung must have been ISTP.

    However, this does not make sense with what he said in his interview with John Freeman:
    Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.
    Either the man was not honest with himself in the interview, or in the biography, or none of us understand him all that well.

    Never mind. If you want to claim him for your type, then do so. INTJs have claimed him as their own, and have fought for it as well. INTJs have claimed Newton for their own. I eventually realised that Newton was an INTJ. Others have claimed that Darwin was an ENTP, or some other. I am sure that at some point, every INTP who ever becomes admirable, in any way whatsoever, will be claimed by the more dogmatic and ambitious types.

    I have no need of attachment to celebrities, for as the Buddhists say, attachment brings suffering. I am what I am. I am as capable as I can be, and that is enough for any man, and even for a super-man. I shall let go of feeling solace in that great minds were of my type. Solace is nice. But it is not nearly as strong or as useful as evolving into a more activated person.

    If you want him, then have him.
    "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Spock

  5. #15
    Senior Member Array MyMomentously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Attic
    Type
    INTJ
    Posts
    860

    Default

    *rubs eyes* There's just too much information that my mind is suffering from indigestion.

    FWIW, Jung's theories are mostly Ni-based. Not just his typology theory but his Analytical Psychology as a whole.

  6. #16
    Member Array "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Type
    ISTP
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Jung did. Someone on INTJf referenced that he attended a talk by Myers or Briggs, and commented quite nicely on it.
    I have been studying type since 1999 and have heard that several times. Come to think of it, it may have been an INTJ that said it each time. I have people say that Jung and Myers met and he gave his blessing. I say…. show me. If there had been such a meeting, don’t you think Myers & Briggs would have noted it somewhere? In his preference for “Gifts Differing” Peter Myers says, “Undismayed by the lack of interest or acceptance by the psychological community, Isabel Myers concentrated on developing the “Indicator”…. I their chapter titled, “Extensions of Jung’s Theory” they also never reference to meeting with Jung… ever! They did however detail how Jung was wrong or different than their theory, but more on this later.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jung was aware of Myers’ theory. If he met with her, or was aware of it don’t you think he would have written about it somewhere? I would think he would have A)Acknowledged it and changed his theory to coincide with MBTI; B) Rebutted her theory where it differences so greatly from his; or C)Like the rest of the psychological community, he dismissed the theory as well finding no reason to entertain discussing it with her or acknowledging it. But I go with “D” to say show me any evidence that Jung and Myers ever met, let alone that he was aware of her theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    So, because you give an opinion, others should only provide facts?
    There were plenty of facts in the discussion I referred to, but let’s talk about facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Jung wrote the majority on typology concerning each of the dominant functions, in great depth. What he wrote on all 16 of the auxiliary functions was only a couple of paragraphs, less than half of what he wrote on one dominant function alone. It was quite clear to me, that to do that, would totally defeat the purpose of typology, unless one believed that the dominant function explained the majority of one's behaviour, and the rest was only a small addenda. In Jung's mind, an INTP (Ti-Ne) and an ISTP (Ti-Se) behave so alike, that any differences between us are marginal, and a marginal difference that anyone could figure out for themselves, if one had already got the dominant function right.
    First of all Jung never wrote about 16 types because he did not put a number on how many types there are. What he does say in his description of the Ti is:
    The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin (referring to Alfred Kubin) or a Meyrink ((referring to Gustav Meyrink). If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body.
    Unlike Myers & Briggs, Jung does not put a limit on how one can use the auxiliary functions.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    What you describe, is how you have a job, and in it, sometimes you do stuff that isn't really your official job title, but your main activity is still your job.

    Jung went one further. He said that one's type changes throughout life. So equivalently, he was saying that people change their dominant functions, the way people change careers. Maybe only once every few years. But it changes.

    You will not be an ISTP forever. If Jung is right, you will morph into something else.
    No, it’s not how I am describing it, it’s how you are perceiving it which is the impetus of Jung’s conscious/unconscious theory. Jung never implied the dominant function ever changes. In fact he was quite adamant that it always has absolute sovereignty:
    For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.
    Again, you are attempting to perceive Jung using MBTI tools. Jung does not say the cognitive functions are static and rigid like rudimentary dichotomies. They’re fluid and forever changing. I am and will always be an ISTP type. Just because I use Ti considerably more when younger, at some point I may develop my Fe enough to where my Ti does not dominate to create an imbalance. I may or may not develop my Se before developing my Ni, because contrary to Myers’s theory and most of you who have some errored belief that it is the function that creates the cognitive function, Jung was explicit that it is the attitude (E/I) that develops and becomes conscious first followed by a preference for judging or perceiving which leads to a specific function.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Then from his own system, he's a Ti-dom.

    Only if most people would say that a Ti-dom is not an INTP. However, Ti is thinking, particularly in logic. INTPs are classed as "the thinker". ISTPs are classed as "the mechanic". Do I NEED to explain more?
    I’m speaking to a complete novice, you truly don’t know how type works do you? “Thinker” and “Mechanic” are titles of someone’s descriptions, no different that Berens referring to INTPs as “Designer Theorizers” and ISTPs as “Analyzer Operators” or Keirsey referring to INTPs as “Architects” and ISTPs as “Crafters”. I can’t believe you went there with any seriousness. How do most authors referring to cognitive-functions separate types? They don’t separate INTP and ISTP types. They group them together because they both use Ti to dominate.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Anyway, in the interview, he said that he was intuitive.

    Also, in reports from a man who had some conversations with Jung for a couple of years, when Jung was an old man, and the man in question was a teenager who was working for the foundation that published Jung's works, Jung reported himself as an introverted intuitive, although this has been used to claim that Jung was an INTJ.
    Of course he used introverted intuition unless you propose as some that the order for the introverted dominant type will be followed by extraverted functions or vice-versa. But again this is where the novice of being unable to overcome MBTI limits you. Jung never considered the function-attitudes rigid and static, instead described them as dynamic and fluid. The man said himself that he was capitalized by thinking. Now who should I believe Jung saying it himself or “some man” that you don’t even give the name of. I would think if Jung developed a theory on the subject, he should know his own type.

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    However, I take on board your quote from his biography about Jung being a conscious Sensor. But I don't know if he meant that the dominant and auxiliary functions are conscious, and the 3rd and 4th functions are unconscious, or that he held that the dominant function was conscious, and the auxiliary function is subconscious. Jung does a lot of discussion on how the subconscious complements the conscious. In the paragraphs on the auxiliary function, he mentions that the auxiliary function complements the dominant function. If I recall, it is why he claimed that if the dominant function is a perceiving function, then the auxiliary function cannot be a perceiving function, and the same for judging functions. So it could be that you are right, or it could be that he is saying that his 3rd or 4th function was Sensory, depending on whether the other conscious function is the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th function.
    And you are absolutely correct, he could have been referring to himself as what we know as INTP if you consider it from the Myers & Briggs theory, or he could actually have been referring to his use of Ni at that point in his age. Unlike Myers & Briggs, Jung never refers to a tertiary placement, in fact he never uses the word. He says we have a dominant-auxiliary and inferior function. In fact again as I indicated earlier, he gives the example of what we know as an ISTP or ESTJ in saying:
    A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.
    This is key because the only function that he indicates to be “inhibited” is the feeling function. He never says the intuition is. In fact he prized pupil Louise Marie von Franz says in her book, “Jung’s Typology” that we have a dominant- two auxiliary functions and the inferior. Jung does not place one auxiliary above or below the other, which is indicative in the diagrams of most Jungian Analysts such as Beebe which refers to the dominant function as the head, the auxiliary and the third function as the arms (of equal value) and the inferior function as the feet. It is MBTI that implies the third function is a tertiary placement, therefore implies it has to be weaker than the auxiliary.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Having seen his interviews, and read bits of him, the man strikes me as extremely exacting in his speech, and that he is careful with his words to give you enough breadcrumbs to figure out everything that might be relevant to what he is saying. So I suspect that if you posted the entire paragraph, or better still, the entire chapter from his biography, we'd see that the rest reveals exactly what is what.
    I only got that from others who have read his biography and base my theory on it being correct since they posted the information and no one seems to argue Jung said it. But what I do know is based on his theory, Jung does not differentiate between an auxiliary and tertiary placement. He says that there is a differentiated function, the auxiliary or complimentary functions and an inferior function. He then gives a combination of these in saying someone using Ti will use S/N or vice versa, followed by F. Are these subsequent functions all extraverted or does the 3rd placement have the same attitude as the dominant? I don’t know. But for him to have changed from ISTP to INTP, you then admit to subscribing to the theory that an INTP function order will be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe. That is the only way he could have changed. I propose the 3rd function for INTP is Si, therefore the order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. Jung says:
    The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.
    Ergo, Jung had developed his Se early in life and used it with his Ti. As he became older he stopped using his Se as much and began using his Ni, so he went from Ti-Se to Ti-Ni. Did his type change as we know the four-letter codes, nope. He was still an ISTP, but his type changed as he theorized that he had wedded Ni to his Ti.
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.-Winston Churchill

  7. #17
    Member Array "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Type
    ISTP
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    I got this from INTJf:
    As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious.
    As you can see, Jung states twice, that the auxiliary function is in the conscious. The dominant function is also in the conscious. So the 3rd and 4th functions are in the subconscious. So then, when Jung said that "intuition and feeling were in the unconscious", he MUST be referring to his 3rd and 4th functions. Ti is the dominant function. So Se must be the auxiliary function. So Jung must have been ISTP.

    However, this does not make sense with what he said in his interview with John Freeman:Either the man was not honest with himself in the interview, or in the biography, or none of us understand him all that well.
    This again is what was quoted in the thread I referred to. But it makes no sense only if you continue to look at what he said from MBTI theory, and not his own. Jung and Jungian Analyst do not refer to a tertiary function. As I quoted above, Jung says that all functions can be conscious. Marie Louis von Franz says we can and do develop the dominant and two auxiliary functions (2nd and 3rd functions) to where they are conscious and possibly differentiated. But the inferior can never be conscious or differentiated. Jung made that clear throughout his theory. Again one only can see what we know as an INTP type, because they’re looking at what he said based on MBTI.
    Quote Originally Posted by scorpiomover View Post
    Never mind. If you want to claim him for your type, then do so. INTJs have claimed him as their own, and have fought for it as well. INTJs have claimed Newton for their own. I eventually realised that Newton was an INTJ. Others have claimed that Darwin was an ENTP, or some other. I am sure that at some point, every INTP who ever becomes admirable, in any way whatsoever, will be claimed by the more dogmatic and ambitious types.

    I have no need of attachment to celebrities, for as the Buddhists say, attachment brings suffering. I am what I am. I am as capable as I can be, and that is enough for any man, and even for a super-man. I shall let go of feeling solace in that great minds were of my type. Solace is nice. But it is not nearly as strong or as useful as evolving into a more activated person.

    If you want him, then have him.
    Hey I argued vehemently as you saw that he was INTP because I was looking at what he said the same way you are. It was only when I realized that he would not be describing himself based on MBTI, but as how he saw the theory that I realized he was referring to his Ti-Ni. I for one have argued for years that I use Ti-Ni, which is why I scoff at the dom-tert loop theory since it only applies if one believes there is a tertiary placement. That point was made in this thread. I mistyped as INTP even after having the MBTI Step II administered to me professionally. I realized that I used my Ni more than my Se and confused myself as INTP based on Berens/Nardi’s description located here. So it’s not wanting to claim the man. That’s an NT thing. But one can’t argue the facts of his theory and what he said.
    Quote Originally Posted by MyMomentously View Post
    *rubs eyes* There's just too much information that my mind is suffering from indigestion.

    FWIW, Jung's theories are mostly Ni-based. Not just his typology theory but his Analytical Psychology as a whole.
    Well of course he uses Ni. Only someone looking at type in a limiting way would not realize that ISTP types have a better use of Ni than all but four types (INJs and ENJs). But as for Ni dominant types uh no, most Ni dominant types are clueless to his theory and how it works. But what frustrated me when I began typing here in 2004, and made me realize I was not INTP is that his theory is too easy to follow for someone who uses Ti to dominate. His principles of type are very basic.
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.-Winston Churchill

  8. #18
    Senior Member Array MyMomentously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Attic
    Type
    INTJ
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Well of course he uses Ni. Only someone looking at type in a limiting way would not realize that ISTP types have a better use of Ni than all but four types (INJs and ENJs). But as for Ni dominant types uh no, most Ni dominant types are clueless to his theory and how it works. But what frustrated me when I began typing here in 2004, and made me realize I was not INTP is that his theory is too easy to follow for someone who uses Ti to dominate. His principles of type are very basic.
    While I agree most of the points you raised about Jung's typology theory compared to Myers-Briggs' theory, I find it interesting how you entertain the notion of the dom-tert loop while abandoning the aux function? How peculiar.

    Ni doms are clueless to Jung's theory and how it works? *chuckles* Perhaps, the 'frustration' you mentioned stems from the knowledge that MBTI is about preferences and preferences may change in time?

  9. #19
    Member Array "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Type
    ISTP
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyMomentously View Post
    While I agree most of the points you raised about Jung's typology theory compared to Myers-Briggs' theory, I find it interesting how you entertain the notion of the dom-tert loop while abandoning the aux function? How peculiar.

    Ni doms are clueless to Jung's theory and how it works? *chuckles* Perhaps, the 'frustration' you mentioned stems from the knowledge that MBTI is about preferences and preferences may change in time?
    As for the dom-tert theory, it may be plausible in MBTI theory since it does entertain a poor use of the auxiliary function. But is there a particular description of the dom-tert loop that you like best? If so, can you paste it?

    Jung does not indicate that when we forego the use of what some consider the auxiliary, that it has a negative affect. Jung proposes that what MBTI considers as the auxiliary and tertiary, are merely two auxiliaries both serving the dominant function. If one has developed the tertiary function to where it is differentiated, then you should be able to consciously alternate between it and the dominant function. But the tertiary function can never equal the dominant so the latter will always be in conscious control. This should be more obvious since they both use the same attitude. If the dominant function is unable to control its own domain of introversion/extraversion, what one may consider a loop is what Jung merely considers an undeveloped dominant function.

    As for Ni dominant types understanding Jung’s theory, I am basing that on my experience posting at the INTJf and Personality Café forums. I am reminded of Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi’s description of how the Ni and Ti can be considered look a-likes, but it is their differences that are indicated when considering type theory. From the booklet, ”Dynamics of Personality Type: Understanding and Applying Jung’s Cognitive Processes”, Berens says:
    Ti and Ni are often accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in Ti, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with Ni, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.
    This is also indicated in how Jung describes the dominant Ni function in his theory. This is vintage Ni dominance. The problem is Te is a given to be developed only if you believe in MBTI in the strictest since. Otherwise, Te works for Si and Ni dominant types and like the Se and Ne of Ti dominant types, if not developed it is used defensively. You have seen in many INTJ descriptions where they are fond of saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind”.
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.-Winston Churchill

  10. #20
    Senior Member Array MyMomentously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Attic
    Type
    INTJ
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    As for the dom-tert theory, it may be plausible in MBTI theory since it does entertain a poor use of the auxiliary function. But is there a particular description of the dom-tert loop that you like best? If so, can you paste it?
    No, not really. I am not a fan of MBTI to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Jung does not indicate that when we forego the use of what some consider the auxiliary, that it has a negative affect. Jung proposes that what MBTI considers as the auxiliary and tertiary, are merely two auxiliaries both serving the dominant function. If one has developed the tertiary function to where it is differentiated, then you should be able to consciously alternate between it and the dominant function. But the tertiary function can never equal the dominant so the latter will always be in conscious control. This should be more obvious since they both use the same attitude. If the dominant function is unable to control its own domain of introversion/extraversion, what one may consider a loop is what Jung merely considers an undeveloped dominant function.
    Exactly. Hence, I find your earlier statement flawed. Why?

    Yes, one can argue that Jung used Ti-Ni in his later life but classifying him as an ISTP because ISTPs use Ti-Se-Ni is flawed because:

    Jung introduced primary, auxiliary and inferior functions - not dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions (these terminologies are MBTI's).



    Per MBTI as cited above, these functions are used or developed in hierarchical order. Whereas Jung mentioned that when one's primary function dominates his consciousness the other functions will..


    What happens to those functions that are not consciously brought into daily use and therefore not developed?

    ....remain in a more or less primitive and infantile state, often only half conscious, or even quite unconscious. The relatively undeveloped functions constitute a specific inferiority which is characteristic of each type and is an integral part of his total character. The one-sided emphasis on thinking is always accompanied by an inferiority of feeling, and differentiated sensation is injurious to intuition and vice versa.["A Psychological Theory of Types," ibid., par. 955.]
    Of course this doesn't mean that one can't develop and use his/her auxiliary functions. We can, of the same level.

    Hence, exerting dom-tert loop in an attempt to support Ti-Ni is a bit confusing. It's like interpreting Jung's eight psychological types using Myers-Briggs' sixteen types as a reference. Almost similar but not the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    As for Ni dominant types understanding Jung’s theory, I am basing that on my experience posting at the INTJf and Personality Café forums.
    I think you might have underestimated the possibility of how many Ni-doms are in the field of Psychology. INTJf? There's just but little fraction of people who takes time to understand Jung's theory well, majority of the active members are either non-INTJs or mistyped wannabe-INTJs. Ni-Fe users? They are more attune at understanding this.

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    I am reminded of Dr. Berens and Dr. Nardi’s description of how the Ni and Ti can be considered look a-likes, but it is their differences that are indicated when considering type theory. From the booklet, ”Dynamics of Personality Type: Understanding and Applying Jung’s Cognitive Processes”, Berens says:This is also indicated in how Jung describes the dominant Ni function in his theory. This is vintage Ni dominance. The problem is Te is a given to be developed only if you believe in MBTI in the strictest since. Otherwise, Te works for Si and Ni dominant types and like the Se and Ne of Ti dominant types, if not developed it is used defensively. You have seen in many INTJ descriptions where they are fond of saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind”.
    If you studied Jung and MBTI theories you would know full well that that INTJ description is inaccurate. An INTJ would say "You want to change my mind? Give me facts." INTJs value credibility and competence. Also, with your quoting Berens, I don't understand why describing Jung's description of a function should be followed by acceptance of MBTI? Jung did not "pigeon-holed" people in sixteen boxes.

    But really, by virtue of ethical guidelines, it is best that Jung would take the assessment himself. Arguing one's cognitive preference, let alone as an outsider, is just but mere speculation and pointless.

    Interesting points you have there though.

Similar Threads

  1. New ISTP Female... Is there an ISTP forum?
    By MsMimi in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 22 May 2010, 06:59 AM
  2. The Undiscovered Self-Jung
    By mchampagne in forum General Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 14 Apr 2010, 04:17 AM
  3. According to Jung
    By In...TP in forum MBTI Talk
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 19 Aug 2006, 01:11 PM
  4. Jung Talk
    By In...TP in forum General Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8 Oct 2005, 08:29 PM
  5. What would C.G. Jung say?
    By Frab in forum General Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 1 May 2005, 12:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •