Jung himself said in the online interview, that one has to always take everything in historical context: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.
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.
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.
He said in the interview, that he gave everything he needed in a few short sentences, to make an accurate diagnosis of his type: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.
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 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.I think what we witnessed him saying based on information in his biography such as: is that he initially used Ti-Se.
As Jung said, one MUST have the context.
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.Where people get hung up is considering type in a static way, which Jung warns against.
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.
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.