Search results

If you're interested, you can find a lot of J/P input from me in a two-post roundup at Typology Central that starts here.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the...

In Chapter X of Psychological Types, Jung said that a Ti-dom's "judgment appears cold, inflexible, arbitrary, and ruthless, because it relates far less to the object than to the subject. ... In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence."

You titled the thread, Carl Jung and the concept of Libido, but matching the observed world to "stored factual experience" has little to nothing to do with Jung's conception of Si. Comparing current observations with a stored memory bank of experiences is the utterly revamped description of Si...

For a lot of input from me on J/P, plus roundups of some INTJ and INTP profiles, see this post.

Don't lose sight of the difference between opinions and facts. She's not incompetent for having a different opinion on matters with respect to which reasonable people can disagree. But if she's lecturing on a subject and badly misstates the facts, she opens herself up to criticisms in the...

The lecturer is "extremely competent"? Please. On the issue of the MBTI's reliability and validity, the lecturer has utterly failed to do her homework. You can tell her reckful says that the reliability and validity of the MBTI put it "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests, and you can...

What "narrow question" are you referring to? If those posts I linked the OP to are limited to a single "narrow question," I'm the Count of Monte Cristo. Intellectual integrity much? Forgive the confrontational language. The OP said she was confused about her type and looking for input...

Would it be more appropriate if I repeated all that stuff that I link to in the thread of every new INTPforumite looking for typing assistance, OmoInisa? Of course not. Why do you think it's objectionable for me to let girlnextgrave know I've got a perspective on the MBTI she may not have...

For what may be a fresh perspective to you (although I think it deserves to be called the Real MBTI Model), and/or a boatload of T/F input from me, see this post and the posts it links to.

The first thing you have to clarify if you want to type Jung is: under whose system? Do you mean the result Jung would have gotten if he'd taken the MBTI, or a (possibly different) type based on the cognitive functions? And if you mean the latter, are you talking about Jung's conception of the...

First, Silvermoon specifically noted that she was "very confused since my functions dont appear to be in any sort of normal stack" — so my function-stack stuff (including the linked Real MBTI Model post) was certainly relevant to that. And second, my post also included a link to a 10-post...

Re: Still cant figure out my own Type, even though Ive got great at typing others My posts "border on spamming/advertising," Auburn? Really? The first thing to note is that I have no direct or indirect economic interest in any of the forums or other websites I've linked to in my INTPforum...

Re: Still cant figure out my own Type, even though Ive got great at typing others As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Jung was right or wrong about X, Y or Z aspects of...

@Silvermoon — You've referred to a "normal stack" of functions... Well, just so you know, the forum-famous model that says that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common) is the Harold Grant function stack — and it's inconsistent with Jung...

What I think is that you're badly misinformed. For a long, two-part roundup on — yes — the J/P dichotomy, see these Typology Central posts: • Part 1 • Part 2 And if you've been bamboozled into believing that INTJs and INTPs (for example) are waaay different (because functions!) or that...

Assuming that T and F represent the opposite sides of a personality dimension where, to the extent that one side is significantly favored, that means the other side is disfavored, and if you're dealing with an "INFJ having a strong F," then by definition you're dealing with an INFJ for whom the...

The official MBTI is really the only test that has a lot of psychometric support behind it. If you've never taken it, here's an online copy. It doesn't score you automatically, but it shows which preference corresponds to each response, so you can calculate your result for each dimension. I'd be...

I don't think it's even you.

My first post in this thread linked you to my J/P roundup, and one section of that (INTJs as doers) involves me taking substantial issue with the notion that, as I put it, "INTPs are happy to be slackers who just think about stuff and INTJs are 'doers' with a core drive to be racking up actual...

@Emerald — I'm planning to be back with some more follow-up on your type (including your latest reply to me), but in the meantime, and especially since PmjPmj has offered you a significant dose of the Berens/Nardi function-centric MBTI framing (which is unquestionably — and annoyingly —...

That chart is just the official MBTI bullet-point summaries of the five "Step II" T/F facets. My take is in the separate two-post "T/F intro" that that post links to. And in any case, I don't think there's any question that INFJs are less F in some very significant ways than a typical SF or EF...

It's pretty common, in my experience, for INFJs to mistype as INTJs (including on the official MBTI) and later conclude that they're actually INFJ. And by contrast, the opposite — INTJs mistyping as INFJs and later concluding they're actually INTJ — almost never happens. And mistyped INFJs...

For a lot of input from me on J/P, see this post.

You sound to me like a neurotic (in Big Five terms) INTP, but INTJ would be my second choice. As the author, I may be a tad biased, but I suspect you'll find quite a lot of potentially useful type input in the 10-post series at Typology Central that starts here, which includes separate...

In case you're interested in reading a fair amount of input from me on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific...

You and I haz previously discussed why your oversimple application of falsifiability to the MBTI is a misapplication, and in case you've forgotten, you can revisit that discussion here.

Here's what Jung said in the Foreword to the First Swiss Edition of Psychological Types: In Jung's autobiography (Memories, Dreams, Reflections), he explained that his typology "sprang originally from my need to define the ways in which my outlook differed from Freud's and Adler's. In...

If by "Jung-derived," you meant something along the lines of "with (much of) its original roots in Jung," then you and I are in agreement on that.

It's a mistake to refer to "INTP = ITN = Ti Ne" as a "Jung-derived type." When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the dominant's, she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in a very small minority among Jung scholars. I agree with the...

Well, you're welcome, but sheesh, you could have come back at me with an annoyingly strained case for "perimeters" working OK in that particular context. Some INTP you are. Pssh.

*parameters

The video linked in the OP is a joke, and is based on a 2014 article at Vox by Joseph Stromberg, who very much failed to do his homework. Contrary to what you sometimes hear, and notwithstanding that there are important distinctions to be made between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences," the...

Are you saying that the posts you were banned for weren't deleted by the mods and are still there? If that's true, that would be unusual, in my experience.

You can dodge and weave all you like, but the fact remains that, regardless of what "primitive" and "archaic" characteristics Jung may have associated with an undifferentiated psyche — and if you've read much Jung on that subject, you know that he thought there were advantages as well as...

As I've said, you're entitled to your opinions, fella, but you continue to insist on messing with the facts. Jung specifically noted that his "normal man" — you know, the guy who was neither extraverted nor introverted — was like that because he was "less differentiated" than extraverts and...

It's not a dichotomies vs. functions issue, Inquisitor. You continue to assert that Jung didn't believe in E/I ambiverts, and as explained in my first post, that's simply nonsense. Again, you can agree or disagree with Jung, but as a factual matter, what Jung said was that over a third of the...

Actually, mystical streak notwithstanding, Jung believed in applying the scientific method to the extent that that was reasonably feasible. In one of the articles included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, Jung brought up astrology — along with several other "age-old"...

For the second time in two days, I'm moved to ask, "Integrity much, Inquisitor?" In our multiple previous back-and-forths on whether Jung thought it was possible to be ambiverted, I've never claimed Jung pointed to that as any kind of ideal. He did not. Nor have I ever pointed to...

Integrity much? You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. You can agree with Jung or disagree with Jung, but on some issues, what Jung said is more in the nature of a fact. You say there's "no such thing as introversion and extraversion," but in...

Puh-leeeze. As you and I have discussed at length (starting here), Jung viewed his eight types as four varieties of extravert and four varieties of introvert, while also declaring that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and...

Imagine you've got four INTPs on your hands. (This story's already off to a bad start, eh?) INTP A's preference strengths are 60-64-68-90. INTP B's preference strengths are 60-68-64-90. INTP C's preference strengths are 60-82-86-90. INTP D's preference strengths are 60-86-82-90. (As the...

If it was planned, it's not an epiphany. That's what my Aunt Trudy always used to say.

Imma try to make this easy for you. Suppose that, in reality, all men have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, and all women have two X chromosomes. And suppose somebody's doing a study where they correlate men and women (in terms of external physical features) with XY and XX. And...

Decades of twin studies strongly suggest that genes account for around half (or more) of the kinds of relatively stable temperament dimensions measured by the MBTI and Big Five. Note, however, that the genetic side of things is complicated: an introvert's identical twin brother would probably be...

The reason there are men and women isn't that successful men pass on their maleness and successful women pass on their femaleness. S parents often have N children and N parents often have S children. If there are reasons that it's advantageous for a human group to be, say, 30% N and 70% S, then...

Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric...

I don't see any indication that he's talking about a "further splitting." He's noted that you get eight types if you create two subtypes for each function, and now he's saying you could get a greater number if "each of the functions were split into three subgroups." That's just as consistent...

I don't understand why you'd think he was talking about Ti rather than T. He says, "One could, for example, easily divide thinking into its three well-known forms: intuitive and speculative, logical and mathematical, empirical and positivist, the last being mainly dependent on sense perception."...

I'd say Jung said too little in that toss-off paragraph — which comes from a 1923 lecture that was later included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types — for it to be worthwhile spending much time trying to figure out exactly what he meant, much less whether what kinds of...