• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Carl Jung- Introverted Rational, but J or P?

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Local time
Today, 13:47
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,594
Location
38S 145E
#51
scorpiomover said:
But one thing really does bug me: believing in supernatural beings, does not seem to be directly empirical by nature, and defy what our senses show us, but seem readily grasped intuitively, which suggests that religions were the product of, and most easily understood by, the minds of intuitive types, particularly intuitive-dominants.
More accurate to say that intuitives easily see through the need for relying on a supernatural explanation in the first place. Everything arises as a product of physical phenomena that by virtue of the limitations of our perceptions we cannot directly observe. Given infinite time and resources, we would be able to. The thing is that this is actually harder to understand than the concept of a supernatural being.

It's easier to understand the concept of, "God was always there and he made it" than it is to try to understand the much more complicated concepts of quantum chromodynamics and asymptotic freedom (for starters).

scorpiomover said:
Yet, so many INTPs and INTJs, and a lot of INFJs and INFPs, all seem to be of the opinion that Sensors would be most likely to be religious, while Intuitives would be most likely to be atheists. This seems to go totally counter to the basic premise of the dichotomy between Sensation and Intuition.
It doesn't counter the basic premise of the dichotomy. It's exactly what you'd expect.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Local time
Yesterday, 22:47
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,478
Location
A hut in the woods
#52
I'm going to attempt to get this train back on the right track.

He was a loner when young, ofc he felt that he could work on his feelings. Carl Jung has said a bunch of crap about which type he may be, even considering ISTP. What he thinks about his own type is not relevant.

The fact that he claimed he was a rational he did because he was quite the intellectual; moreover, he often felt compelled to proclaim his rationality, likely to ward of attacks on him and his work as being mere mysticism.

From here: http://www.celebritytypes.com/quotes/carl-jung.php <- Read all the quotes on his writing style. He is not an INTP it shouldn't need to be repeated.





And on his type from someone who knew him:



Now read about his life. He was a charmer (had two women at once), needed to recharge himself by spending time doing Se stuff in relative solitude. He was obsessed with symbols and he wanted to be seen as a particular someone.

INFJ. Not INTP. Definitely not INTJ.
All I have to say on that is what the fuck have you been smoking?

Ne aux types have Ni as demonstrative function. demonstrative function is something you like to consume, you have curios interest in, but like a science fiction book, you put it to the side, partially fascinated, partially amused, not taking it fully serious, and continue to rely on what in this case would seem to be 'reality' (since extroverted), the iconoclasm of Ne. was carl jung living through Ni, was it his lifestyle? perhaps, he was in many ways following his dreams. but i'm undecided. perhaps he was following them like some people follow science fiction conventions. still having a regular job, not really becoming sci fi actors or authors. perhaps he was stalking his dreams, rather than becoming them.

I agree that what jung was saying in the interview, where he was asked about his type, implies that his own opinion on his type was: T dominant, intuitive, introverted. The way carl jung describes introverted intuition does also display distance to the phenomenon. He criticises Ni for being unable of becoming aware of how subjective perceptions say more about the subject, than about actual reality. This is true in undeveloped Ni and comes along with how Se looks outward in a matter of fact way. This is because Ni is rarely fully differentiated from it's shadow (Or so i explain it). If he were Ni dominant, his proud would probably have compelled him to explain, that Ni does not have to get stuck in this projective mode. In contrast, when he criticizes Ti of sometimes becoming too abstract and removed from reality, to have any practical meaning, he implies, that it does not have to end up this way. In his mind, he sees the adorable version of Ti before he sees the limited version.

“One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”

Yes, but how to make darkness conscious. Ni would respond, that imagining a figure of light is making the darkness conscious, because the imagination came out of darkness. Ni comes out of darkness. Out of the subject. However other imaginations do not. Jung was sceptical of his own imaginations, iconoclastic, which implies that many of his imaginations were inspired by culture and memory, which is how Ne relates to Ni: indirectly.
This is a very good researched response. I applaud you sir.

Yeah (meaning I agree with INXX), but MBTI Ni descriptors are different from Jungian Ni descriptors. So using Jungian Ni descriptors to deduce MBTI J or P isn't going to be very coherent.
I agree. Would it be possible to delve into the differences between these two more indepthly?

Didn't Jung say that during his time secluded in his hermitage that he was making a transition from being a Thinker to being an Intuitive? If the originator cannot be trusted to understand his own terms in his life, then how are we supposed to trust the constructions of the terms themselves? It's would be as though he did not observe anything correctly at all.
You make a good point although the headway that he has made among typing enthusiast cannot be ignored. Perhaps he is one of many a brilliant minds that will forever be misunderstood.

Ironic, because I was thinking just that same thing about myself, and have had that knocking against my brain for the last few years. It's put me off assuming that he was definitely an INTP. Sometimes, my P-ness won't let me get to a firm conclusion.

Ironic, because that's probably the biggest reason why I thought that Jung was an INTP, because he makes so much sense to me, when few others do, and because I was considered to be overly-logical to an extreme, and considered to be pontificating about ridiculous, seemingly impossible possibilities, by everyone who ever met me, ever since I was 5, and probably was like that even before.

However, it doesn't matter to me what set of letters refers to the characteristics of INTPs. It doesn't even matter to me if my way of thinking is like Architect or like Cherry Cola. A rose by any other name shall smell as sweet. I am what I am. I'm past requiring that I show that I understand Jung to show off my ego. I just would like to understand myself and others better, so that I can improve my dealings with myself and others, as at the end of the day, that's really all we have, isn't it?

Who knows? I might conclude that I'm an INFJ.

Given that I could be biased, I'd be curious as to hearing what precise aspects of Jung's behaviour that you find totally unlike your own behaviour, and what your behaviour on those matters is instead, as those things can be said to be objective facts, that are not reliant on any interpretation of my type, Jung's type, or your type.
It seems as though you have recentered yourself quite well during the post, however, I believe there is more to what you say than what was actually said.

People were using the term 'internal consistency' earlier in the thread. That's what I'd say the difference is (I think of it as intellectual conservatism, but it's the same). We greatly differ in our willingness to build on ideas under which the truth values of the premises are yet to be established. That's not to say that I can't possibly think at an intuitive level, just that I wouldn't build massive structural cognitive models in so much detail without first looking at the base. To me, it seems sort of insane to say so much about something of which so little is known.

When looking for the truth, I look at the evidence and consider every single judgement call a weak point of the model, the familywise error rate gets out of control so fast when your conclusion relies on multiple unproven claims. Past a certain point (say... three measures of judgement) (Could you explain this?)[/COLOR] it just seems very unlikely I'll be right about every detail, so I put the model aside until I can justify relying on the premises, or find a way to reduce them. I'm very reductionist in thought, holistic understanding is only achieved after endless refinement to maintain internal-consistency.

His career focus was on the unknown, which is a good direction if you're trying to make discoveries, but his approach was not to slowly test and retest, but to jump in the deep end. I am drawn to his ideas because they're interesting and sort of awesome, but his process is very different.

Note: I don't really know that much about Jung, though I've been peripherally exposed to his ideas for quite a while. I'm not trying to bring any authority to this discussion, just thoughts.
You're sounding an awful lot like an NT at this rate. Who says MBTI is static and where are they getting this information from?

This is a good point. Though he didn't hold the belief that types were innate, so whether he is 'correct' or not seems kind of moot.

But given that he seemed to have plenty of self-awareness throughout his life, it might very well have been the case that he was an introverted thinker that became an introverted intuitive. And if that's what he said happened, he would know himself better than anyone else...


There's an interview where he talks about his type:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsnDmXU4d8k


Not only did he put a lot of thought into determining his type, but he never said anything absolutely about it, instead stating what was actually true of himself and allowing people to take from that what they will.

It's also interesting that he stutters when trying to explain that type isn't a static thing; he also, more or less, says that he didn't resonate well with feeling. And stutters when deciding what to call type...deciding on referring to it as a "diagnosis" rather than a "type".

That said, he basically says he is INTX. Though from the abstract way he approached psychology and his uncomfortable disposition with making absolute statements regarding it, INTP seems more acceptable over INTJ, which isn't commonly correlated with these attributes.
Are you seeing this @Cherry?

P.S. I don't mean to nitpick on Cherry specifically it is just that how what was said seemed to have been coming from quite the emotional reaction with little in depth thought process other than to say it is quite general and I do not see the reason for it.

P.P.S. I know nothing of Jung I am simply trying to get this thing back on track. I hated the sequel.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday, 20:47
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
#53
Quotes from Jung's Tavistock Lectures:


"Whatever I may be able to tell you will undoubtedly remain a regrettably unfinished torso. Unfortunately I take little stock of new theories, as my empirical temperament is more eager for new facts than for what one might speculate about them, although this is, I must admit, an enjoyable intellectual pastime."

[In response to a comparison to Freud] "I must repeat again that my methods do not discover theories, they discover facts, and I tell you what facts I discover with these methods. I cannot discover a castration complex or a repressed incest or something like that - I find only psychological facts, not theories."

"I am not troubled by theories, but a great deal by facts; and I beg you therefore to keep in mind that the shortness of time at my disposal does not allow me to produce all the circumstantial evidence which would substantiate my conclusions."​

In this group of quotes there are two things to point out. The first is that Jung makes one of many references to his provisional and subjective nature. The second is that he sees himself as a fact-finder rather than a philosopher or theoretician.

While I personally think there was a hint of bitterness in his claim to facts over theory, there is some substance to his differentiation. Freud's ideas such as psychosexual stages and Oedipus complex were developmental conditions that could not be tested for and were speculated to produce certain complexes, in the same vein of evolutionary psychology. Jung on the other hand sees himself as focusing on the products of psychology, which are empirical in their emergent nature, despite how clear or vague those emergent images may be.

Basically, he was trying to uncover and discover what was already there, as opposed to creating explanations as to how things became.



"My problem is to wrestle with the big monster of the historical past, the great snake of the centuries, the burden of the human mind, the problem of Christianity. It would be so much simpler if I knew nothing; but I know too much, through my ancestors and my own education."​
Again, for him reality was to be discovered through the relics of the past. On the whole he seems to me very backward looking and not so focused on the advent of the future.



"It seems as if we were just waking up to this fact, and that the dawn is still too dim for us to realize in full what it means that the psyche, being the object of scientific observation and judgment, is at the the same time its subject, the means by which you make such observation. The menace of so formidably vicious a circle has driven me to an extreme of caution and relativism which has often been thoroughly misunderstood."​
A mark of his mindfulness and impartiality. Even after so many years society is still focused on the separation of the sane and the insane, the healthy and the unhealthy. He would consider dogmatic and intolerant practices of psychology to be disastrous.



"The last-defined function, intuition, seems to be very mysterious, and you know I am 'very mystical,' as people say. This then is one of my pieces of mysticism!"​
Like in the video interview he is being coy with his type, there is no doubt that intuition was a major function in his life.




I also have a question for anyone debating his type. Upon what do you base his introversion?
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 17:47
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,107
#54
I agree. Would it be possible to delve into the differences between these two more indepthly?
Umm okay, I guess. Mainly, Jung's psychological types talked about 8 functions originally. Each function represented an extreme in how one person thinks. The first function was important in that it was to describe a particular kind of being in relation to the world. The second function was a later thought and not considered to matter as much, namely because it is less differentiated compared to the first function, since an extreme in being one way or another becomes a lot more observable in the first function, whereas the other function (the second one) is not so extreme, perhaps more subtle and downplayed we could say, by convention of the paradigm anyway.

So MBTI on the other hand places a lot more importance on the second function because without it you don't have a type, whereas with Jung, you still had a unique lense into understanding yourself. So MBTI then divides things into strict dichotomies that we are supposed to fall into based on the two function types, sensing and intuiting, thinking and feeling, introversion and extroversion, judging and perceiving, and all the other various dichotomies that other people have come up with, such as NT, ST, etc., which seems to assign specific traits to personalities, something Jung's 8 functions did/do not do. MBTI then goes further and seems to say that our extroverted function, either the first or the second, is the one that people see and the introverted function as what people don't see. However, Jung's introversion has more to do with a focus on the subjective, which still means that this can be expressed and made aware of to other people. This makes them incompatible.

So basically, they seem to directly conflict in theoretical ways and so someone who is, for example, labeled INTJ in MBTI could be either Ti or Ni first in Jung's types. And vice versa, someone who is labeled INTP in MBTI could be either Ti or Ni in Jung's types.

basically,,,eh.

Basically, he was trying to uncover and discover what was already there, as opposed to creating explanations as to how things became.
I think that's why I entertain his ideas because even though they aren't exactly scientific, they are a nice gateway into properly framing an understanding of my experiences; they let causes explain themselves, rather than try and explain causes like Freud. With Freud, either you believe his ideas or you don't. With Jung, you get a framework to start thinking about what to believe and why, depending on the facts.

"My problem is to wrestle with the big monster of the historical past, the great snake of the centuries, the burden of the human mind, the problem of Christianity. It would be so much simpler if I knew nothing; but I know too much, through my ancestors and my own education."​
Again, for him reality was to be discovered through the relics of the past. On the whole he seems to me very backward looking and not so focused on the advent of the future.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by the future. I understand him more as looking to the past to understand where we are at the moment and why. Then by knowing this, he can understand what's a recurring problem and hopefully eliminate it for the future. In that sense, I guess we could say he saw the future more as a string of the past, rather than necessarily disjointed from it.

"It seems as if we were just waking up to this fact, and that the dawn is still too dim for us to realize in full what it means that the psyche, being the object of scientific observation and judgment, is at the the same time its subject, the means by which you make such observation. The menace of so formidably vicious a circle has driven me to an extreme of caution and relativism which has often been thoroughly misunderstood."​
A mark of his mindfulness and impartiality. Even after so many years society is still focused on the separation of the sane and the insane, the healthy and the unhealthy. He would consider dogmatic and intolerant practices of psychology to be disastrous.
just a thought:
I've really been wondering if it could be said that this is normal for an impartial thinker, where they start off expecting to find conclusive answers through science and eventually realize that there are rational limitations to what science is able to uncover, especially, as Jung noted, when it comes to psychology.

I also have a question for anyone debating his type. Upon what do you base his introversion?
It just seems straight-forward when considering how abstract he was in approaching psychology and how easily he could get lost in analyzing subjective experiences, of others and of himself. It would be an understatement to say that he had a big imagination. But I guess more importantly, he wasn't really focused on demonstrating psychology, but on creating ideas that allow psychology to demonstrate itself. For example, Skinner's behavioral approach to psychology did almost the opposite of Jung's

From wikipedia

The primary tenet of behaviorism, as expressed in the writings of John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner, and others, is that psychology should concern itself with the observable behavior of people and animals, not with unobservable events that take place in their minds

Skinner seemed to believe that psychology should take the path of conditioning, much like Pavlov's Dog, a strictly extroverted, demonstrative take on psychology and one that...well let's just say it makes me want to become a sadist for people like this.

But anyway, Jung at the very least thought about people from a much more subjective approach, considering the inner thoughts, desires, feelings, etc. rather than reducing them to lifeless matter or one of Pavlov's simple-minded Dogs. So I guess I never really entertained the idea of him being extroverted too seriously. It didn't even seem worth mentioning. But why, did you see reason to think otherwise?
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday, 20:47
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
#55
eyeseecold said:
Basically, he was trying to uncover and discover what was already there, as opposed to creating explanations as to how things became.
I think that's why I entertain his ideas because even though they aren't exactly scientific, they are a nice gateway into properly framing an understanding of my experiences; they let causes explain themselves, rather than try and explain causes like Freud. With Freud, either you believe his ideas or you don't. With Jung, you get a framework to start thinking about what to believe and why, depending on the facts.
It's also a case of "either you believe his ideas or you don't" with Jung, his ideas were empirical meaning based on his personal observations of people. But because those observations were private to him, we are studying Jung's mind as much as the minds of those he has studied. :p

But I think framework is the right word for Jung's ideas. Freud didn't create frameworks, with how the scientific method works his ideas could be completely thrown out as they were only hypotheses(e.g. flat earth or geocentrism). You can't merely throw out Jung's ideas on type because at the very least they suggest some form of natural adaptation or orientation in humans.

"My problem is to wrestle with the big monster of the historical past, the great snake of the centuries, the burden of the human mind, the problem of Christianity. It would be so much simpler if I knew nothing; but I know too much, through my ancestors and my own education."​
Again, for him reality was to be discovered through the relics of the past. On the whole he seems to me very backward looking and not so focused on the advent of the future.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by the future. I understand him more as looking to the past to understand where we are at the moment and why. Then by knowing this, he can understand what's a recurring problem and hopefully eliminate it for the future. In that sense, I guess we could say he saw the future more as a string of the past, rather than necessarily disjointed from it.
I agree.


"It seems as if we were just waking up to this fact, and that the dawn is still too dim for us to realize in full what it means that the psyche, being the object of scientific observation and judgment, is at the the same time its subject, the means by which you make such observation. The menace of so formidably vicious a circle has driven me to an extreme of caution and relativism which has often been thoroughly misunderstood."​
A mark of his mindfulness and impartiality. Even after so many years society is still focused on the separation of the sane and the insane, the healthy and the unhealthy. He would consider dogmatic and intolerant practices of psychology to be disastrous.


just a thought:
I've really been wondering if it could be said that this is normal for an impartial thinker, where they start off expecting to find conclusive answers through science and eventually realize that there are rational limitations to what science is able to uncover, especially, as Jung noted, when it comes to psychology.
Perhaps, I think it would depend on how inquisitive one is. I don't think the average person seeks to add on to what they learned in school or church. But when there's a lot of curiosity, one might be driven to look beyond science. The same desire could drive one to passionately seek scientific progress also.

I also have a question for anyone debating his type. Upon what do you base his introversion?

It just seems straight-forward when considering how abstract he was in approaching psychology and how easily he could get lost in analyzing subjective experiences, of others and of himself. It would be an understatement to say that he had a big imagination. But I guess more importantly, he wasn't really focused on demonstrating psychology, but on creating ideas that allow psychology to demonstrate itself. For example, Skinner's behavioral approach to psychology did almost the opposite of Jung's

From wikipedia

The primary tenet of behaviorism, as expressed in the writings of John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner, and others, is that psychology should concern itself with the observable behavior of people and animals, not with unobservable events that take place in their minds

Skinner seemed to believe that psychology should take the path of conditioning, much like Pavlov's Dog, a strictly extroverted, demonstrative take on psychology and one that...well let's just say it makes me want to become a sadist for people like this.

But anyway, Jung at the very least thought about people from a much more subjective approach, considering the inner thoughts, desires, feelings, etc. rather than reducing them to lifeless matter or one of Pavlov's simple-minded Dogs. So I guess I never really entertained the idea of him being extroverted too seriously. It didn't even seem worth mentioning. But why, did you see reason to think otherwise?
That's a good case for his introversion. It's not that I think he was Extraverted, it just an aspect that's rarely discussed. If something goes assumed for too long, it's possible that inaccuracies may begin to develop.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 17:47
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,107
#57
It's also a case of "either you believe his ideas or you don't" with Jung, his ideas were empirical meaning based on his personal observations of people. But because those observations were private to him, we are studying Jung's mind as much as the minds of those he has studied. :p
well...yea...but to me it seems the difference between asking "Do you believe these ideas apply to a given set of circumstances?" versus "Do you believe these ideas are true?". Then it's not the ideas that are put into question, but whether or not those ideas are relevant to a given situation, which I suppose is where belief comes into play, depending on how one rationalizes the relevancy or irrelevancy to various people and their personalities. But the difference makes it a bit open-ended, leaving room for different interpretations and the realizations that come from those interpretations. Though maybe this has also been a large part for the reason of people disagreeing (sometimes vehemently) on the application of typing people. I guess that's good and bad then.
 

Hadoblado

I em Hedo I like smell of grass
Local time
Today, 13:17
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,967
#58
@Scorpio (spoilered because derail)
It's a division that many people often make about people in general, that some are smart, and some are stupid. Generally, MBTI fans who type themselves as Intuitives, tend to regard Sensors as stupid and themselves as smart. They then go on to make fun of anything that other people do, and anything that the person personally doesn't understand, as something that only Sensors would do, and also something that is utterly ridiculous to do under any circumstances.

Personally, I find such attitudes rather parochial, conservative, and rather trivially inane, because it's just an egotistic way to justify one's own behaviour, and to justify mocking anything that differs with one's own behaviour, without any true justification for one's behaviour, or if it's consistent with Sensors worldwide, or if it's inconsistent with Intuitives worldwide, which often, it isn't.

Effectively, it's just shoe-horning MBTI to fit in with one's existing POV, including one's existing biases. It's not learning about MBTI at all.
The S/N division seems to be treated the same way by people who say they are intuitives. But according to the reasons for the dismantling of the class system, we're all equal. We don't have the right to say that Sensors are in any way, shape or form, less intelligent than Intuitives, any more or less than we have the right to say that about African-americans. We can say that they are "differently intelligent", but not "less intelligent".
Yep x many.
It seems to me that by far the most common use for typology is self-affirmation and discrimination rather than understanding. In fact, there really are a lot of psychology concepts used in this way. I’m not sure why you got the impression that this is the drive for my conclusions, as I make an effort to point it out whenever I see it. I was also distancing my type from someone I consider a brilliant intuitive (CJ). Perhaps you misunderstood some of the satirical jank I’ve left around the forum to deliberately draw attention to the misuse of principles to inflate ego/standings?

In fact, I was starting to think you were doing the same thing: calling me a senser to validate your own intuitive intelligence and protect your understanding of Jung as an INTP. Waterbridgedadada

There we might have a problem. In school, I was going to fail, because I'd write down the answers, without the working out, which invigilators would have seen as cheating. I was forced to explain myself at length. Even into my 30s, people would say that when others when from A to B to C to D, I would just go straight from A to D.
I did the very same thing. Nobody ever accused me of cheating though because my competency was known (small school). I wouldn't be able to do that sort of math in my head anymore though. Strange that we ended up in such different camps.
So you might find me confusing, if I'm so concise that I lose clarity.
I think you’re trying too hard to sell a weakness as a strength here. There is nothing concise about your writing style, and it’s not because you’re so good you’re bad. You may know what you’re talking about, but the intentions behind your thoughts are hemorrhaged during written expression.

Oh. OK. I hear you. So you are saying that you don't mind people saying that space elevators are possible, but you don't like it when people say they are certainly do-able without clear proof? I'm with you on that one, except that I also extend that to popular ideologically-based theories about religions, atheism, libertarianism and other ideologically-based arguments. I don't trust self-interest. Too much tendency for bias.
If I’ve got reason to question the truth value of a conclusion that is stronger than the evidence submitted in favour of it. You can say your name is Jeremy all you want and I won’t sue, as I have no reason not to believe you.
Following the money is a big part of understanding the working of any system involving motives. That money may be in ego-dollars or something more tangible, but every actor needs to get payed. I’d warn against preclusion of a position based on the existence of self-interest however (this is a big one (f8cking h1ppies!)).

But one thing really does bug me: believing in supernatural beings, does not seem to be directly empirical by nature, and defy what our senses show us, but seem readily grasped intuitively, which suggests that religions were the product of, and most easily understood by, the minds of intuitive types, particularly intuitive-dominants.

Yet, so many INTPs and INTJs, and a lot of INFJs and INFPs, all seem to be of the opinion that Sensors would be most likely to be religious, while Intuitives would be most likely to be atheists. This seems to go totally counter to the basic premise of the dichotomy between Sensation and Intuition.
There’s arguments both ways. I don’t tend to bother too much with these sorts of controversies since it’s largely based on experiential claims built on unverified typings further based on a mess of internet typing conjecture. I speculate that sensers are more likely to stick with what they’re taught, while intuitives have greater mobility in belief (but not necessarily a real compass for the truth). I’m tempted to go further and say rationals might have a predisposition towards evidence-based or evidence-requiring world views, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable arguing as much against even a modicum of evidence.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#59
@Hadoblado (spoilered because derail)

Yep x many.
It seems to me that by far the most common use for typology is self-affirmation and discrimination rather than understanding. In fact, there really are a lot of psychology concepts used in this way.
I'm glad that we can agree on this. It's a core issue of why I think many are mistyped, and many people like Jung are mistyped as well.

I’m not sure why you got the impression that this is the drive for my conclusions, as I make an effort to point it out whenever I see it. I was also distancing my type from someone I consider a brilliant intuitive (CJ). Perhaps you misunderstood some of the satirical jank I’ve left around the forum to deliberately draw attention to the misuse of principles to inflate ego/standings?
Maybe. I had thought that was just an attempt at humour. I don't get everyone's jokes.

In fact, I was starting to think you were doing the same thing: calling me a senser to validate your own intuitive intelligence
I don't think you get it. I got validation of my intuition and my intelligence from everyone IRL, including my university lecturers, and everyone that I've worked for, for the last 40 years, in practically objective ways. You might as well say that I'm trying to say that your eyes are not green, because I want to validate my eyes are blue, when everyone IRL has told me what colour my eyes are, and they all said that they are blue.

I think you’re trying too hard to sell a weakness as a strength here. There is nothing concise about your writing style, and it’s not because you’re so good you’re bad. You may know what you’re talking about, but the intentions behind your thoughts are hemorrhaged during written expression.
My older brother eventually figured out and explained to me, that when most people think "A => B => C => D", I just think "A => D", but where D is usually right. It's objective, because everyone IRL has noticed that I have this issue.

If you think that I can communicate more effectively, then by all means recommend a book that explains to people like me, how to talk in ways that most people can understand.

and protect your understanding of Jung as an INTP. Waterbridgedadada
My reasons for thinking Jung was an INTP were as follows:

He was most interested in the subjective characteristics that differentiated one from another, and was his approach to understanding how each person individually reasoned, that makes his psychoanalytic approach so incredibly useful. But he really didn't care about norms of society at all. Introvert.

His ideas at first glance seem to be full of holes. But when I paid precise attention to his words, his theory fitted the details of real life that most people seem to gloss over, that it became clear to me that he had gone down an intuitive rabbit-hole in order to resolve every detail in an extremely logical way. Ti.

He had a number of theories that were completely out of left field, and that the majority find odd to say the least, that seemed to be based on either pure logic of reasoning a wild conclusion about a single anecdote, or were based on astrology and Shamanism, that while he recalled them, were certainly considered irrational and a very bad foundation for any theory. Intuitive.

I did the very same thing. Nobody ever accused me of cheating though because my competency was known (small school). I wouldn't be able to do that sort of math in my head anymore though. Strange that we ended up in such different camps.
In the UK, what matters are GCSEs and A-levels. They are set and marked by national examining boards by anonymous testers, that have no knowledge of the pupils' competency.

If I’ve got reason to question the truth value of a conclusion that is stronger than the evidence submitted in favour of it. You can say your name is Jeremy all you want and I won’t sue, as I have no reason not to believe you.
OK. That sounds like Ti all right. However, that doesn't mean that you can't be Ti-Se.

To me, Ti-Se or Ti-Ne depends on whether you'd go for standard accepted explanations that can resolve the conflict but still have a lot of anomalies, or if you'd prefer the crazy one that no-one else believes but explains all those anomalies perfectly.

Only you can know the answers for sure. I can't see in your head. I can only guess, based on your answers.

Following the money is a big part of understanding the working of any system involving motives. That money may be in ego-dollars or something more tangible, but every actor needs to get payed. I’d warn against preclusion of a position based on the existence of self-interest however (this is a big one (f8cking h1ppies!)).
I like to use "follow the money" a lot. It gets me into a lot of trouble, because when I use "follow the money", I often conclude that what most rational people say could easily be clever arguments that sound plausible, and appeals to their ego, and just so happens to appear to financially benefit them, but in truth has lots of holes, and the alternatives would cause those who make those arguments to lose a substantial source of their income.

There’s arguments both ways. I don’t tend to bother too much with these sorts of controversies since it’s largely based on experiential claims built on unverified typings further based on a mess of internet typing conjecture. I speculate that sensers are more likely to stick with what they’re taught, while intuitives have greater mobility in belief (but not necessarily a real compass for the truth). I’m tempted to go further and say rationals might have a predisposition towards evidence-based or evidence-requiring world views, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable arguing as much against even a modicum of evidence.
I know what you mean. However, I was in the shower one day, and a thought occurred to me:

What happens if an intelligent and rational person, grows up in a community where everyone is told that the vast majority of people are incapable of thinking rationally, and that only special people called scientists are capable of such thinking, and that all that they can hope for is a trade job like plumbing, and where the vast majority are like that, and that they spend their free time drinking beer, eating pizza and watching sports, and almost never have a rational discussion in their free time?

In such a community, such a person would see that is the way that all people behave. Thus, the evidence of his own eyes confirms what his teacher has told him. He would thus conclude that the vast majority is incapable of rational thought, as they so often behave irrationally, and so rarely ever mention that they used rational thinking. He would thus realise that jobs that require a lot of rational thinking, like being a scientist, are only for the select few who are unlike the majority. Unless he has reason to believe that he cannot be like the majority, logic and reason dictates that he probably is like the majority. He now cannot use his brain. So he might as well enjoy himself. There's no advantage to keeping brain cells, as he hardly uses them. Rather, drinking helps block out the occasional seemingly-rational thoughts that only serve to give him the illusion of being capable of rational thoughts, that make him doubt the veracity of the conclusions that clear evidence has proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

I have also read that Albert Bandura did a number of experiments into self-efficacy, the belief that something is possible to be attained. If one lacks self-efficacy in a particular area, the mind reasons that there is no point in expending energy on something that cannot possibly work, and skips reasoning such issues. It jumps to the conclusions that it already knows, as that is certain, and then works out backwards what must be true if the conclusions are correct, which he is sure they are.

Thus, the ONLY people raised in such a community, who would actually believe themselves capable of rational thought, would be those that find that they are unable to accept the truths that their teachers and everyone else have pounded into them, and have been proved by all the evidence around them, because either something in them refuses to to accept this about them, that they cannot silence (strong and unyielding intuition that they are rational, no matter what anyone else says), or because they are of such a nature that they routinely ignore what others believe (strong introvert), or that they are so unlike others that they cannot fit in (strong introvert or schizotypal symptoms), or that they are not accepted by their community and shunned by them (e.g. they are openly homosexual in a community that is strongly opposed to public displays and public acceptance of homosexuality), or something else that would stop them from accepting that they are like everyone else, no matter how much they want to, and no matter how hard they try.

What happens if the same people grow up in a community where everyone is told that the vast majority relies on rational and scientific thinking, and everyone around him uses only rational and scientific thinking to solve every problem and make every decision, and everyone else is mentally ill, and where the vast majority are like that?

In such a community, the intelligent and rational person who can fit in, would see that is the way that all people behave. Thus, the evidence of his own eyes confirms what his teacher has told him. He would thus behave like the majority.

The person who won't/can't fit in, would see that he cannot be like the majority, and thus would most likely conclude that he is mentally ill.

Once I realised those 2 situations, I realised that if Sensors really do follow what they are taught, then the only reason that Sensors are irrational, would have to be because they are told again and again that they are irrational, and surrounded by people who also believe that they are irrational, until they come to accept it as facts that their science teachers tell them as authoritative sources of science, that is backed up by all the evidence.

Then ESTs really are rational. Their only fault is trusting in their teachers, and not thinking that everyone around them has been conditioned to think they are stupid, i.e. to not reject scientific knowledge and to not reject empirical evidence.
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#60
Look I've already read the other posts, I what is it that I'm supposed to take from them? You go in and point fingers like you know who knows and who doesn't but you wont say anything yourself :S

Nanook gives an accurate description of how Ni works depending on its position, I just think Jungs Ni is obviously dominant.

The fact that Jungian typing differs from MBTI typing as mentioned by Tberg is one reason why Jungs opinions on his own type can be safely disregarded (he's not typing himself by MBTI standards but by his own), another being that he fashioned himself a very logical thinker likely in defense against accusations of being a mystic and owing to tertiary ti, yet another being that it's hard to type oneself. But mainly we can disregard his own opinions about his type because we don't need them as there is tons of data available about him.

What Hadoblado writes strongly supports Jung being an INFJ. MBTI isn't "static" but within the MBTI system types are static.

Reluctantly's post doesn't really say anything definite on the matter, for reasons written above there's no need to care about Jungs own opinions of his type. I've already seen the Jung interview.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#61
It's easier to understand the concept of, "God was always there and he made it" than it is to try to understand the much more complicated concepts of quantum chromodynamics and asymptotic freedom (for starters).
Let me get this straight:

You are saying that quantum mechanics is hard to understand? That when you haven't observed something, that it could be anywhere (in quantum superposition), but when you have observed it, it can only be where you have observed it (quantum decoherence), is hard to understand?

You are also saying that the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent invisible being, that we have no proof of, and created everything out of nothing, which contradicts the laws of conservation of mass and energy, is easy to understand?

More accurate to say that intuitives easily see through the need for relying on a supernatural explanation in the first place. Everything arises as a product of physical phenomena that by virtue of the limitations of our perceptions we cannot directly observe. Given infinite time and resources, we would be able to. The thing is that this is actually harder to understand than the concept of a supernatural being.
You think that it's hard to understand that someone might say that they understand things better than most? Ever heard of a superiority complex?

BTW, it's physically impossible to have infinite time and resources. So you're just arguing that your claims are untestable, and will never be testable. The only way to validate such a claim would be by relying on blind faith.

Besides, if anyone had infinite time and infinite resources, they would have an infinite amount of evidence, which would have to include all the evidence of everything that happens anywhere in the multiverse, for all of time. They would also have an infinitely powerful supercomputer that could explain it all to us. Even the most stupid and incapable of people would understand everything already, with that list of requirements. So such a situation would not prove that intuitives have any clue at all.

But it's a typical claim of BS artists. Claims of superiority, and claiming it can only be conclusively disproved by a situation that can never happen.

It doesn't counter the basic premise of the dichotomy. It's exactly what you'd expect.
It's only what you'd expect, IF we accept a claim of superiority that includes a claim that can never be proved, purely because some guy we've never met said so, without any proof, because his conditions mean the situation which could be proved could never occur. An extremely gullible person, who just accepts what anyone tells them without proof via reason or evidence, might believe that.

Anyone rational, would demand some proof, and as you've said that you'd require infinite time and resources to prove that, which can never occur, you can never give proof. So anyone rational would dismiss your claims as nothing more than self-aggrandising BS.
 

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Local time
Today, 13:47
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,594
Location
38S 145E
#62
Let me get this straight:

You are saying that quantum mechanics is hard to understand? That when you haven't observed something, that it could be anywhere (in quantum superposition), but when you have observed it, it can only be where you have observed it (quantum decoherence), is hard to understand?

You are also saying that the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent invisible being, that we have no proof of, and created everything out of nothing, which contradicts the laws of conservation of mass and energy, is easy to understand?
Let me rephrase it in a way that you might understand.

Pretend you're of average intelligence (might be hard). You didn't go to university. Your hobbies include reality TV, sports, reality TV about sports, and donuts.

The question comes along, "How did the universe begin?". In modern society there's generally two diametric opposed lines of thought. One is that a supreme being created it, and the other is that it started in a Big Bang. So Mr. Average Intellect has been presented with two options:

A. "An all-powerful being done it"
B.

Which one is easier to understand?

I can't be bothered untangling the rest of your post since it's obvious you've completely missed my point.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 22:47
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,478
Location
A hut in the woods
#64
@TBerg, I believe we shouldn't use one or the other exclusively, and IMO to get a better picture of what our types are we need to use both in combination to understand type.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#65
Let me rephrase it in a way that you might understand.

Pretend you're of average intelligence (might be hard). You didn't go to university. Your hobbies include reality TV, sports, reality TV about sports, and donuts.

The question comes along, "How did the universe begin?". In modern society there's generally two diametric opposed lines of thought. One is that a supreme being created it, and the other is that it started in a Big Bang. So Mr. Average Intellect has been presented with two options:

A. "An all-powerful being done it"
B.

Which one is easier to understand?

I can't be bothered untangling the rest of your post since it's obvious you've completely missed my point.
If I'm of average intelligence, and I received an objective education, I would rule that B is the less complicated. B is obviously written in a language that I wasn't taught. Why would anyone write in a language that I don't know? Probably to make themselves seem clever. Ergo, it's pretty simple, and was written that way to make the author seem intelligent. Answer A, however, is in English words that everyone knows. Why would anyone try to write it in language that is so easy to understand? Obviously because most people don't, because it's so ruddy hard. He's trying to dumb it down, so at least some people get it.

However, if I'm of average intelligence, and I received an education that was designed to make me obey, then I would recognise B is written in the language of my intellectual superiors, scientists and mathematicians. It must be smart, because it was probably written by them. Answer A would by contrast probably have been written by someone who was not a scientist or a mathematician, as it was not written in their jargon. Ergo, it was probably written by someone not that smart. Ergo, it's probably not that hard to understand.

As you can see, if you are raised to obey, then B seems harder, while if you are raised to be sceptical, A is obviously harder.
 
Local time
Today, 05:47
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#66
the idea of god is incoherent, not "hard to understand"

you think you can know the stuff that according to your definitions cannot be known. that is religion. please feel guilty and stupid.

why spend time writing long posts that only contain the argument "i am right because our respective opinions are indeed both opinions". dull dull dull dull dull
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#67
Indeed what the fuck is complicated about it? It's intuitive. Everyone needs a ma or papa, they are what you come from, so they are what everything comes from. Pa in the sky. Not complicated.

It's much harder to accept that things came out of seemingly nothingness.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#68
the idea of god is incoherent, not "hard to understand"
Aren't they synonymous?

you think you can know the stuff that according to your definitions cannot be known. that is religion.
What makes you think that according to my definitions, matters that religions discuss, such as if it's moral to kill in self-defence, cannot be known? What definitions are you talking about?

Remember that I'm not you. I had different experiences. I have different thoughts. What you think is a given, might not be.

please feel guilty and stupid.
The only reason that I can think of that would give me reason to feel guilty and stupid, was if I was being manipulated into a guilt trip. Are you trying to guilt-trip me?

dull dull dull dull dull
If you want to liven up discussions, how about starting some discussions that you find interesting, even if they go in the opposite direction of what you expected?
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
Location
asia
#69
CG Jung is INTP. His work is a example of creative theory/ idea/ concept of INTP.

Not hard to spot really...
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#70
Nope you are wrong as are everyone who thinks he's an INTP. Can you people stop ignoring facts? It doesn't matter that you want his work to be that of an INTP, because when you look at CG as a person, the way he lead his life etc, then it becomes clear he wasn't an INTP. Your ability to simply ignore this in favour of cerebral intepretations of his work is amazing and shows a basic misunderstanding of what MBTI is.
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
Location
asia
#71
I slight view on his work and think he is INTP at first. But then I read about his childhood and his thoughts, his pictures, sum up that he is INFJ.

- He doesn't have "witness" trait of INTP
- He doesn't interest on technique generally, math, computer...etc

+He has Ni dominate trait: weird face, it's kinda high state when smoke weed face
+He has trait of polite, charm person
+He is very sensitive

And especially his thought about his feeling, his sense. It's Ni dominant function. And look at his face and his trait body I believe he is INFJ.

^
I have no idea why you seem angry to me until I read all post from page I can feel. Keep calm though dude .
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 17:47
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,107
#72
NO YOU

[bimgx=250]http://pathtogod.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/anger.jpg[/bimgx]
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
46
#73
Jung is either INTp or INFp. I'd like for him to be INFp, but I don't know. This would make my style of typing similar to Jung's, except Jung had the time to proofread and ponder over his answers. Either way, he seems to be the kind of society turning guy I am. Olaf would also be this if this is the case.

But yeah. I'm pretty sure that rational and irationals are mistyped in socionics at this point. The INTj is fairly irrational, I've already gone over why in another thread. Of course, I do believe that there is an argument that what drives INFps and INTps is irational. Tomato Your motto here.

You can type by VI? I'd actually like to be VI'd, because I'm paranoid that people won't believe the insanity that is me.
 

del

Randomly Generated
Local time
Yesterday, 20:47
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
282
Location
St. Paul, MN
#74
Jung self-typed as a Ti dominant. I don't see why we should doubt his knowledge of himself.

Interesting to note that to Jungians, Ti/Ni is a valid type, so this whole confusion surrounding Jung and whether he is an INTP, INFJ, INTJ, etc. is a bit amusing to them.
 
Local time
Today, 04:47
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
Location
asia
#75
Jung self-typed as a Ti dominant. I don't see why we should doubt his knowledge of himself.

Interesting to note that to Jungians, Ti/Ni is a valid type, so this whole confusion surrounding Jung and whether he is an INTP, INFJ, INTJ, etc. is a bit amusing to them.
Jung is INFJ. case closed here.

And do you know why he intend mis-type himself? INFJ don't want other know their "real self", unless once they have certain bond and in situation it help them connect to their partner.

I used to struggled to define the INFJ since they were rare in social. Luckily most of my "people who like me" are ENFJ, and they help me a lot to know more about XNFJ until I learned about Personality disorder Ptypes.

Check out the PD to know more about INFJ "real self". It's just about understanding the concept, the practically detail you must meet one in real life and do kinky stuff with them to know.
Their corresponding PD is Avoidant personality disorder
http://ptypes.com/avoidantpd.html
 
Top Bottom