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

Jung: Types can be divided into subtypes...what are the implications?

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#1
In Psychological Types, Carl Jung says this about 2/3 of the way through the book:

There are thus at least eight clearly distinguishable types. [For those unfamiliar with his work, those types are Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, and Ni, Ne. Every individual can have one and only one dominant function, and it must be one of those 8.] Obviously one could increase this number at will if each of the functions were split into three subgroups, which would not be impossible empirically. 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. Similar subgroups could be made of the other functions, as in the case of intuition, which has an intellectual as well as an emotional and sensory aspect. In this way a large number of types could be established, each new division becoming increasingly subtle.
What are your thoughts on this? What are the practical implications of this regarding career/work and how does this relate to MBTI?

Jung mentions 3 possible subtypes, not 2. MBTI only recognizes Ti being associated with either Se or Ne, giving rise to the INTP and ISTP subtypes, but Jung seems to think there is a third subtype of Ti that is not covered by the above two. I'm not even certain that this is a valid relation since Jung could actually be saying that the INTP can be subdivided into 3 subtypes and so can the ISTP. The reason I say this is because I have observed many INTPs (at least I believe they are) that are highly mathematical/logical, but I am more on the side of "intuitive/speculative." Trying to sort all of this out to see if Jung's ideas are the same or different from MBTI in this regard. Should there actually be 24 different types as opposed to 16 according to Jung?
 

Yellow

for the glory of satan
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
2,865
Location
127.0.0.1
#2
It's hard to say. I'll give this segment a glance when I get a chance (I have Jung's collected works somewhere, and iirc, I discovered that Psychological Types is in Volume 6) to confirm later in more depth.

Off the cuff, I'd say that it's quite possible he intended 8 types with 3 sub-types each, making 24 in total. MBTI was based on his idea, and has since been married to it, but they are technically separate theories.

Or, maybe there's the two sub-types and a corruption. Taking Ti as an example again, maybe there's Ti-Se, Ti-Ne, and a Ti-Si loop.

Either way, it's a really interesting idea.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#3
well, the types that Jung came up with are incompatible with MBTI. As he says, thinking is intuitive and speculative, logical and mathematical, and empirical and positivist. So you can have thinkers that focus more on some aspects of those and not others. You can have Te types that are intuitive and speculative for example.

But as soon as anyone suggests anything like that, it gets shot down with the thunderous cry of MBTI "professionals" shitting their pants in frustration on how you are wrong, so it's whatever really. I just like to understand people better really; however I get there and whatever we call it in terms of functions, types, etc. doesn't really matter honestly. This whole labeling and generalizing thing has gotten really old.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
92
#4
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 subtypes he had in mind had much in the way of validity.

Given that his first T "subgroup" includes the word "intuitive" and he says the third is "mainly dependent on sense perception," I could speculate that his first group was T's with a strongly developed N-aux, his third group was T's with a strongly developed S-aux, and his second group was T's who didn't have a particularly strong auxiliary (or had an unusually well-developed tertiary, so in either case no strong preference of S or N over its opposite). But I'd just be speculating, really.

In the section of Psychological Types where Jung introduces the auxiliary function, he says...

Jung said:
For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.
...and that seems somewhat consistent with my interpretation of the first and third of the T "subgroups" in that 1923 lecture.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,932
#5
It'd be a major deviation from accepted practice.

I find it interesting, but probably not worth following up on unless you can generate some data behind it.
 
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,314
Location
Birmingham, UK
#6
Could anyone here take the time to explain Jungs 'pure types' to me, and anything relevent from there?

Its a concept which I skimmed past yesterday, but I cant remember what I was reading..
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#7
Could anyone here take the time to explain Jungs 'pure types' to me, and anything relevent from there?

Its a concept which I skimmed past yesterday, but I cant remember what I was reading..
It's basically all of Chapter 10 in PT. Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, Ni, Ne. 8 types in total. For Jung there are technically speaking no introverts or extraverts, only introverted or extraverted functions. That doesn't stop him from talking about what introverts or extraverts look like though.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#8
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 subtypes he had in mind had much in the way of validity.

Given that his first T "subgroup" includes the word "intuitive" and he says the third is "mainly dependent on sense perception," I could speculate that his first group was T's with a strongly developed N-aux, his third group was T's with a strongly developed S-aux, and his second group was T's who didn't have a particularly strong auxiliary (or had an unusually well-developed tertiary, so in either case no strong preference of S or N over its opposite). But I'd just be speculating, really.

In the section of Psychological Types where Jung introduces the auxiliary function, he says...

...and that seems somewhat consistent with my interpretation of the first and third of the T "subgroups" in that 1923 lecture.

Excellent answer. Basically then, you're saying that the "default" version of Ti for Jung would be "mathematical and logical" while high amounts of either N or S would have led to the other two types? I assume in that quote in the OP that Jung was actually discussing Ti and not Te, but maybe he was just talking about T in general, in which case it gets even more muddled...
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
92
#9
Excellent answer. Basically then, you're saying that the "default" version of Ti for Jung would be "mathematical and logical" while high amounts of either N or S would have led to the other two types? I assume in that quote in the OP that Jung was actually discussing Ti and not Te, but maybe he was just talking about T in general, in which case it gets even more muddled...
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."

And again, I said I was "just speculating," and also that "Jung said too little in that toss-off paragraph ... for it to be worthwhile spending much time trying to figure out exactly what he meant."

Given the way Jung viewed introversion and extraversion, it may be that the "intuitive and speculative" form of thinking he was referring to was Ti, the "empirical and positivist" form was Te, and the "logical and mathematical" form was T without a notable E or I tug.

In Chapter 8 of Psychological Types, contrasting Te types with Ti types, Jung refers to Te types as "empiricists," while noting that Ti is dominated by "primordial images" in the unconscious.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#10
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."
Because he says:

Jung said:
There are thus at least eight clearly distinguishable types. Obviously one could increase this number at will if each of the functions were split into three subgroups, which would not be impossible empirically.
I interpret "this number" to be 8, and the further splitting of "each function" means each one of those 8. So in the end you could have 24 different types of people.

And again, I said I was "just speculating," and also that "Jung said too little in that toss-off paragraph ... for it to be worthwhile spending much time trying to figure out exactly what he meant."

Given the way Jung viewed introversion and extraversion, it may be that the "intuitive and speculative" form of thinking he was referring to was Ti, the "empirical and positivist" form was Te, and the "logical and mathematical" form was T without a notable E or I tug.
It's possible, but seems very unlikely given the fact that his whole thesis is that either I or E predominate.

In Chapter 8 of Psychological Types, contrasting Te types with Ti types, Jung refers to Te types as "empiricists," while noting that Ti is dominated by "primordial images" in the unconscious.
That's true, but again...from earlier on in that paragraph I quoted, I don't think that's what he's referring to. I mean if by "each function" he just meant T, F, N, or S, and he'd already defined each of those into either I or E (but not both), why would he suddenly switch gears and say that T can actually be subdivided into 3 groups, not just two...so we're meant to gather that there is an additional type that is not Ti or Te, but like you said neither one of those? Doesn't make sense to me...I think this matter is unresolved. I'm going to have to write to one of those Jung scholars at the institute.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#11
In Chapter 8 of Psychological Types, contrasting Te types with Ti types, Jung refers to Te types as "empiricists," while noting that Ti is dominated by "primordial images" in the unconscious.
For the record,
Jung also stressed groups as well, NT, ST NF, etc. Someone could have both empiricist thinking coupled with primordial images, regardless if the person sees themselves more the extrovert or the introvert.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,657
#12
Subtypes can be divided by additional subdivisions with the cognitive functions, or alternatively by dividing through other personality systems, e.g. enneagram and astrology.

If we ignore astrology for the moment, then there are at least 40 different subtypes, perhaps closer to 100. I don't know the exact numbers, but the point is that there are more than 16, although 2, 4, 8, 16, are quite useful division, and work well enough.

Astrology is a different ball game altogether in a sense, but in another sense it is basically the same, i.e. personality classifications which can be determined, e.g. by understanding a person's behaviour, by visual methods, or simple objective testing methods.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
92
#13
I interpret "this number" to be 8, and the further splitting of "each function" means each one of those 8. So in the end you could have 24 different types of people.
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 with 4X3 as 8X3, and the fact that he simply refers to "thinking" in his example, rather than Te or Ti, is more consistent with a 4X3 interpretation.

It's possible, but seems very unlikely given the fact that his whole thesis is that either I or E predominate.
Please. The quote you're spending too much time on comes from the same 1923 lecture where he said more people were in the middle on E/I than were extraverts or introverts — as I pointed out to you back in December..
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#14
Jung seems to be laying out a way to divide subtypes by saying there are 3 kinds (emotional, logical and sensual) of each function and those can have even more subtleties.

What he says seems to indicate that types are very fuzzy, without clear borders.

I take it to mean that there could be emotional Ne, logical Ne and sensual Ne and further the emotional Ne could be of sensual or logical subtype.
It seems to be a potential algorithm for creating subdivisions with those 3 key variables.

This indicates there's more functions to an individual than just 4, in fact every function from the stack is relevant and influences the individual to a significant degree.

I find it funny because not only does it invalidate itself, it says that the entire functional system is blurry and can't be precisely observed, bounded by simple rules or used as a theory.

The quoted bit is enough to show how Jung seemingly interprets the entire thing he'd come up with as a vague idea, an interesting albeit not well-understood concept that while discrete in its foundations, fails to answer more precise questions or be applicable on a larger scale.

--

Based on this, it looks like Jung's ideas are a kind of subjective intuition developed throughout his life and I'm willing to believe his intuition was quite reliable, however I'd say such an introverted understanding of reality can't be implanted to someone else. It's a heuristic that people are expected to develop on their own. Every person should, over the course of their lives, come to a pretty parallel understanding of people as Jung did, effectively that everyone is writing their own "Psychological Types" and building their own understanding of people as they grow which is mutually unintelligible when compared with others.
 

Rualani

You Silly Willy
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
142
Location
Somewhere in Indiana
#15
The problem is with the speculation about what thinking is as a judgement function and what thinking is as understood in our culture. There are many sub-categories of thinking, yet the thinking function is some vague, subjective, personal, logic of some sort.

If I were to accept the premise, I would try to justify it as the most used functions being influenced by other functions due to differing circumstances. So, based on someone past, an extraverted intuitive might find their perceptions mingling with functions that aren't normally concious. Given how wibbly wobbly our thoughts are as everything comes together it's pretty challenging to divide things up,assuming it isn't a case of categorical thinking and is actually a reflection of what's going on in the mind.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,650
#16
I don't know why 3 subtypes?

2 makes sense, then 2 more perhaps.

I tried to figure out how good vs. evil uniquely manifests in each type, effectively creating subtypes, but it got a bit grandiose and boring like everything i do.

3 subtypes? What...
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#17
What are your thoughts on this? What are the practical implications of this regarding career/work and how does this relate to MBTI?
I don't have a problem with it. People attach too much to theories, remember that one is a model or framework for understanding reality. They can be reformulated and re-interpreted, which maybe give us more or less understanding of reality, but they aren't reality itself. That is to say, I'm not an INTP*, I'm a complex psyche which is a collection of patterns at the lowest level modeling. One of the dominant patterns is INTP which appears to me to have arisen from programmed ways the cortex handles information streams. On top of that I have many other patterns I picked up through life, you may (or may not) recognize me as fitting the archtype INTP. Most who know the theory do, so they (and me) label myself an INTP, but that's as far as it goes, as powerful as the theory is.

So can the types be broken down further? Sure. Is it useful? Probably. I haven't spent much time on that idea but I think it's a relatively obvious and good furtherance of the theory. Probably in some 20 years it'll be more mainstream.

* The first and last time you'll see me say that :)
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#18
I am now convinced that there are actually 24 types, not 16. Start with one of Jung's 8 types, then divide that into 3 types.

I know what he meant now in that passage above, simply by having the opportunity to observe professors and students in my computer science department. There are Ti-Se types (ISTP), Ti-Ne types (INTP), and then there are Ti "heavy" types that have a weaker auxiliary function. Those are much more geared towards the "mathematical/logical" side as Jung put it. They are either INTP or ISTP on the MBTI, and you'll still notice the pull of either Se or Ne in this type, but it will be somewhat less pronounced.

The reason I came to this conclusion is because I noticed that I definitely fall into the "intuitive/speculative" category, and I've realized through a long time contemplating this, that I have a very well-developed Ne and my Ti is less pronounced than for some of my classmates and professors. Case in point: my discrete mathematics professor is an obvious INTP, but he is much more "one-dimensional" than I will ever be. Classic introvert. He lives, breathes, sleeps logic. Even looks like one of those busts of Socrates. He's built differently from me too. Less ectomorphic, more on the mesomorphic side. Mathematical proofs are interesting, but for me they also did not come as naturally as for some of my more Ti-heavy classmates.

I've also realized, that with a more developed Ne comes a more primitive Si, which explains in part why I'm fascinated with older things like traditional medicine and ancient forms of spirituality. I also do enjoy history to a certain extent, but only if it's somehow connected with my Fe, not otherwise. That is how I know I'm not an ENTP, who are generally interested in history for its own sake.

Having a heavier Ne leads to a leaner, more ectomorphic constitution is my belief, and this is why you see some very scrawny INTPs and some that just seem overall fairly meso. As Jung puts it, the psychic "libido" (I think of it as a developmental force) can only go in a certain direction. So if it goes more towards Ti, then you'll see a weaker Ne, more balanced Si, and highly primitive Fe (the quintessential nerd that has very low social intelligence). On the other hand, if it goes toward Ti + either Ne or Se, you'll see a more balanced though still unconscious Fe and either a more primitive Si or Ni. This type will tend more towards "ambiversion" but still be introverted. That's all I got atm.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#20
Possibly. I don't know as much about the enneagram. I know that INTPs sometimes identify with more than one type for example 5w4 or 5w6. Some even identify more closely with 4 or 9 than 5, but I don't put as much faith in that system. I know Jung was a genius but I'm not so sure about Riso and even the original thinkers behind the enneagram.

One thing I would add to my recent post is that one of the stated aims of analytical psychology is to help the patient develop his/her auxiliary function. It makes sense to me that the most likely to be maladjusted are the ultra-one dimensional cases, ie Ti-heavy types and that's why Jung focused on bringing out their auxiliary in an effort to bring greater self-awareness.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#21
Come to think of it, I actually think we would be better served with a system that preserved the original MBTI classifications, but split each type into 2 other discrete types. For example, the INTP would be split into those that have a well-developed Ne and those that do not. I am fairly certain you would see significant enough differences between the two that it would be a useful addition for career counseling and relationships.
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
Location
West
#22
Come to think of it, I actually think we would be better served with a system that preserved the original MBTI classifications, but split each type into 2 other discrete types. For example, the INTP would be split into those that have a well-developed Ne and those that do not. I am fairly certain you would see significant enough differences between the two that it would be a useful addition for career counseling and relationships.
Socionics tries to do that with its Ne and Ti subtypes.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#23
Socionics tries to do that with its Ne and Ti subtypes.
Yeah thanks, I had forgotten about socionics. I remember reading that many years ago, and somehow now I come up with this insight independently. Seems like I'm on the right track. I agree with the overall description of "conceptualizer, researcher, analyst" but not so much with the little details in there.

It's more about the motivations than behavioral/physical descriptions I think. After all, that's what determines whether or not you're likely to enjoy any given activity, and that's the only thing that matters to me...how to live the good life.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,845
Location
California, USA
#24
I say he was just speaking informally about 'thinking' itself, not treating it as a function of his Types. Considering he was primarily a psychiatrist / psychologist, it makes sense that he would attempt to take popular conceptions, in this case it would be general thinking, and describe how there are more facets to the process than what we assume. Thus intuitive thinking relates to Intuition or NT. Mathematical thinking relates to Introverted thinking(as per his Kant example). And empirical relates to Extraverted thinking or ST.

I do support subtypes but I just don't think this excerpt contains any relevant or useful information.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#25
I say he was just speaking informally about 'thinking' itself, not treating it as a function of his Types. Considering he was primarily a psychiatrist / psychologist, it makes sense that he would attempt to take popular conceptions, in this case it would be general thinking, and describe how there are more facets to the process than what we assume. Thus intuitive thinking relates to Intuition or NT. Mathematical thinking relates to Introverted thinking(as per his Kant example). And empirical relates to Extraverted thinking or ST.

I do support subtypes but I just don't think this excerpt contains any relevant or useful information.
Granted it is a very small excerpt, and it's a shame Jung did not go into it in more detail. The only reason I brought it up is because I was trying to reconcile the apparently large differences between INTPs that I work and study with on a daily basis. Almost all of my friends are INTPs or ISTPs in compsci. There are a couple INTJs but they are not as into the programming as the Ti-doms. It really is quite remarkable. 2/3 of my professors last semester were INTPs. One was an ISTP. And there was a lone ENTJ (chair of the math department, and by faaaar the best professor of the 3. ENTJs and ENFJs make the best teachers I've found).

In any case, there is a clear difference between the so-called "logical" (Ti-heavy) INTP and the "intuitive" (Ne-heavy) INTP. They are built differently, and their motivations and by extension capabilities are different as well.

Here's another fun anecdote. I'm currently studying math with an ISTP. The guy lost his favorite mechanical pencil the other day. Spent an hour looking for it because he couldn't bear the thought of having to hold an inferior writing tool in his hand. It literally pains him psychologically because he's highly conscious of how it feels against his fingers. That's NOT what an INTP would do. Foremost among his considerations when choosing a new laptop is how the keyboard is built and keys are laid out, and no surprise, he chose a ThinkPad. It's these little details that make you appreciate the differences between people and MBTI allows you to aggregate all this information into a coherent concept and pattern. I enjoy it.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#26
OK, here's what I think.

I think a lot of people are right about this, but in different ways.

Much of the foundation is grounded in that what one observant person seems to understand another observant person may understand differently or more. This is basically what Jung and Architect and some others are saying: it is in our nature to take an idea and make it our own, and adding to it to create a wholer depiction of what it means to be human.

Basically Jung was saying: Someone could potentially see his idea and create an alternate system where more types are thought of. He gave an example of how it would work as a system in a way like enneagram is made up in terms of the system used, but instead MBTI was the binary system that was used. In this regard Socionics seems to surpass both interpretations of typology IMO.

As I see it, Jung was just was saying there is one primary type out of the 8 types and someone could make a system where Ti has 3 types of TiN, TiF, TiS.

Just for shits and giggles:
At 8:40 Jung types himself.
https://youtu.be/hD-W-1z_qco?t=8m40s

What I am gathering from how Jung typed himself is that there is a character function that you have, followed by a large quantity of another function, a function you have great difficulty with and a function you are not in touch with.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#28
OK, here's what I think.

I think a lot of people are right about this, but in different ways.

Much of the foundation is grounded in that what one observant person seems to understand another observant person may understand differently or more. This is basically what Jung and Architect and some others are saying: it is in our nature to take an idea and make it our own, and adding to it to create a wholer depiction of what it means to be human.

Basically Jung was saying: Someone could potentially see his idea and create an alternate system where more types are thought of. He gave an example of how it would work as a system in a way like enneagram is made up in terms of the system used, but instead MBTI was the binary system that was used. In this regard Socionics seems to surpass both interpretations of typology IMO.

As I see it, Jung was just was saying there is one primary type out of the 8 types and someone could make a system where Ti has 3 types of TiN, TiF, TiS.
I agree with everything you just said except for "TiF". That's definitely not one of the possible subtypes. Thinking and feeling are in direct opposition. Basically, you always have to have either TiNe or TiSe, but you can't have a sort of even balance between the two. One or the other must predominate because intuition and sensation are again in direct opposition. So the only way to extend subtypes beyond MBTI is to categorize each individual type (INTP, ISTP, INTJ...) as two different types. One of them will have a fairly well-developed auxiliary function, and the other one will not. This is also the reason why you see a degree of variation in physical constitutional type between people who have the same MBTI type. My whole hypothesis is that it's not possible for the psyche and body to develop in different directions. They develop together and that's why Ti-INTPs and Ne-INTPs are going to look different, and certainly their motivations and aptitudes will be somewhat different as well.

Just for shits and giggles:
At 8:40 Jung types himself.
https://youtu.be/hD-W-1z_qco?t=8m40s

What I am gathering from how Jung typed himself is that there is a character function that you have, followed by a large quantity of another function, a function you have great difficulty with and a function you are not in touch with.
Yes exactly. Celebrity Types pins him as an INFJ, but I see INTJ.

Not to mention males and females.

Now there's 48
Actually, it should be 64 since you have 32 types (16 * 2).
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#29
I agree with everything you just said except for "TiF". That's definitely not one of the possible subtypes. Thinking and feeling are in direct opposition. Basically, you always have to have either TiNe or TiSe, but you can't have a sort of even balance between the two. One or the other must predominate because intuition and sensation are again in direct opposition. So the only way to extend subtypes beyond MBTI is to categorize each individual type (INTP, ISTP, INTJ...) as two different types. One of them will have a fairly well-developed auxiliary function, and the other one will not. This is also the reason why you see a degree of variation in physical constitutional type between people who have the same MBTI type. My whole hypothesis is that it's not possible for the psyche and body to develop in different directions. They develop together and that's why Ti-INTPs and Ne-INTPs are going to look different, and certainly their motivations and aptitudes will be somewhat different as well.
It struck me like this: TiN=intuitive and speculative, TiS=logical and mathematical, TiF=empirical and positivist.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#30
Socionics said:
LII (INTj) Subtypes

Logical subtype INTj-Ti

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Appearance

The logical subtype is usually calm, serious and self-contained. Often quite categorical and uncompromising in his judgments, not leaving any room for appeals. When the topic of conversation does not interest him, he is silent and austere, looks at his partners with gravity. If someone behaves disdainfully, he can put them in their place. Able to clearly and laconically, without superfluous emotions, explain his thoughts. Does not like lengthy discussions and discourse. Spend lots of time thinking and reflecting: analyzing and comparing various phenomena, figures and facts. Makes an impression of a strong-willed person. His lips are often densely compressed, speech precise and abrupt, voice lacks in varying intonations. Balanced, even, correct, unemotional. However, his otherwise frozen facial expression sometimes reflects his internal emotions in unexpected and impulsive movements of muscles.

Character

He has well-developed analytic thinking abilities of a logical inclination and is well-versed in systems, schemes, classifications and structures. Identifies the main components and cuts off anything that is of secondary nature. Likes to generalize particulars and discrete facts. Distrustful of new ideas until he can check them for himself; thereupon, he can become their staunch supporter and proponent. Realistic about evaluating the prospects, potential, and opportunities of any project. Puts business above personal interests and relationships. In the interests of his work can ignore his convenience and comfort. Very appreciative of fairness and reasonable order. Usually he is polite, proper, and serious. Very straightforward in his behavior, lacks in flexibility and diplomacy in his relations. Fairly stable in his feelings and affections. Does not like uninvited guests and unexpected phone calls. Unlikely to take initiative with unfamiliar people. As a rule, has few friends, limiting his social circle to work colleagues and a few like-minded associates. Poorly versed in how other people relate to him and is thus quite restrained in communication. Hides his impressionability under the mask of austerity. Does not seek to win over the sympathies of others. Prefers to talk about topics that interest him, and ignores or omits anything extraneous. If the topic is of no interest to him, he tries to avoid the conversation to not waste his time. He doesn't like compliments, imposing and annoying advice, or too much attention directed at his person, but deep inside he is in need of a positive evaluation of his activities. Purposeful; persistently and stubbornly strives for implementation of the set objectives. Inclined to present himself with increased demands. Hard-working and meticulous when carrying out his work. Can make himself do a job that is uninteresting but required. Dislikes doing several things at once, especially in a hurry. This is a person of his word. Proponent of discipline and order backed up by administrative means rather than by conscience and sense of personal responsibility. He believes that if a person has made a choice, then he or she is fully accountable for this decision. Dislikes having to defend his interests, but if needed he can stand up for himself, showing stubbornness and uncompromising attitude. Poorly tolerates being ordered around. Coolly responds to any external strong-willed pressuring. To sharp criticisms may respond in kind; If necessary, can deliver a reproof. Himself resorts to coercion very rarely, only when other measures fail. Knows how to plan his activities so as to avoid unnecessary congestion. Prefers to lead a calm, measured style of life. Tries to watch his health as key to good performance. Can do with a minimum of things, does not seek comfort, and dislikes excess. Attentive to his close ones, but reluctantly takes care of domestic problems. He would rather devote most of his time to work and hobbies.

Description by Victor Gulenko

Concrete and regulated, an organizer in science, does not entrust too [outlandish?] ideas. Scholars, but only in their own narrow area of competence. Their behaviour is dry, restrained; they can be authoritarian. Does not love discussions and frictions in a group; operates from a distant psychological distance. Strict adherent of reasonable systems. Clothing is strict.

Sexual behavior

Nervous within the emotional sphere, reserved and distrustful. Desire constant stable relations. Find it difficult to display initiative with contacts, however, this difficulty fades when they are confident with their feelings. Usually restrained in expressing emotions; a loyal partner. Attracted to those that reach for them through pleasant food, comfort, sexual initiative, concern for their health and fulfillment of their requirements. They are unpretentious in their private lives. Afflicted by those that disrupt their rules and installations.

Intuitive subtype INTj-Ne

Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

Appearance

The intuitive subtype appears soft even a bit diffident in communication. In conversation, he is restrained, attentive, attempts to come into good favor of his partner by giving advice and impressing him or her with his knowledge and conclusions. In such cases, his serious demeanor and gaze soften, goodwill permeates his voice. Not always absolute and categorical in his statements, but obstinate and uncompromising in his actions. May keep silent and refrain from the discussion, but won't change his opinion. His usually imperceptible emotions become visible during moments of extreme nervous pressure within intonations of his voice and impulsive gestures. Gait is calm and synchronous. Pose appears a bit restrained, especially in the shoulders which may be stooped. His movements are somewhat unsure and dilatory. Gestures are stingy and constrained, occasionally unconsciously impulsive and poorly coordinated.

Character

Likes to analyze various phenomena and processes. Inclined towards anything that is new and unusual, especially if it falls into the sphere of his interests. Often has a rich imagination and tries to introduce elements of creativity into his work. Has a good feel for the prospects of new ideas and initiatives. Willingly develops and works out new ideas for practical application. Able to analyze specific topics in great depth, but also shows an interest in the adjacent fields. Stable in his work performance, but quickly grows tired of routine and is in need of fresh impressions and changes. Excitable in disputes; can inspire others with some idea. Becomes uncompromising in debates when his principles are concerned, but tries to develop in himself tolerance for other people's weaknesses and for differing points of view. Usually knows how to hear out his conversation partner and to encourage his initiative in useful direction. Evaluates abilities of others and finds them a proper application. May be a good speaker and lecturer capable of briefly and clearly conveying the material to his listeners. Reserved, amiable to an extent, polite, and even-tempered, but rarely becomes very close with anyone, for he easily tires of social interaction. If he is interested in a person, he is able to come into his or her good favor by establishing intellectual contact and intriguing with ideas and new suggestions. Quite private, does not like discussing his personal life and does not allow his feelings to take precedence over the interests of business or personal principles. Although in relation with others he is reserved and distrustful, he is inclined to reciprocate the feelings of another person and show attention to his or her problems. Seeks support in active, lively, and strong-spirited people, who know how to encourage and provide help in business matters. Needs an emotional, optimistically oriented partner who would know how to raise his vitality. But at the slightest infringement of his independence, he retreats into himself, stubbornly defending his principles up to a break up of relations. Allows himself to get directed only by those who can persuade gently and not too aggressively. Enemy of the administrative pressuring and control; considers it obstructive to the development of a person's potential. Convinced that the main thing in work is not sense of duty but interest in the project. Strives for independence. However, at the same time he is usually disciplined, punctual, and conscientious. Makes up his plans himself and follows them exactly. Usually does not run late to events but makes it in the allotted time. Sometimes he is too categorical in his judgments and intolerant of different points of view. He will not dramatically change his beliefs, conclusions, habits and orientations under the influence of new facts and circumstances. He reviews and changes his former views with much difficulty and sometimes exhibits senseless obstinacy. Due to high self-esteem and a developed sense of dignity, it can be difficult for him to admit to being wrong. All of this does not make him the easiest partner to deal with and creates plenty of interpersonal problems in his life. Internally, he may acutely experience his disappointments, but tries to avoid quarrels out of fear of losing control and losing respect of others. Skeptical and distrustful, but does not show this. Restrained in the expression of his feelings, but when he is in a good mood can liven up the conversation with his humor. Yielding and compliant in matters of everyday life. If he cannot completely avoid household chores and other mundane tasks, he will try to postpone them. Dislikes bureaucracy, having to petition various departments and to prepare documents. Shows inertness in such matters even if he sees that his project is suffering. Tries to rely on the help of others in such cases. Does not always take care of his health, but understands its importance. In treatment of illness lacks in consistency and follow-through. Tries to keep up with latest tastes and prevailing styles, to have a presentable appearance.

Description by Victor Gulenko

Analyst; a good scientist and conceptualist. Their primary attention is given to global issues. A generator of ideas. Achievements with potential are more important to them than the result of the current moment. Soft, correct and careful in his social contacts. Outwardly frequently very slim, gives more attention to external appearance and health than Logical subtype.

Sexual behavior

Attentive and internally emotional partners. Willing to take the sexual initiative, but also careful and farsighted. They are inclined to sharp fluctuation in mood and may be inconsistent in their feelings. Erotically are affectionate and tender; aiming for new impression. Intimate relations require more than trust and sincere concern, need variety in sex in order to raise their moods. However, react negatively when others are obtrusive and limit their freedom.
I put the socionics description of the two subtypes up here. I have to say I agree with most of it. Notice that their Ne-type of INTP is also on the slim side when compared with the Ti-Type. So they have observed the same thing I have. The Ti-type is also more of a specialist and likely less of a dilettante than the Ne-type. My discrete math prof. fits the Ti-type description perfectly. They really nailed it. That's how I know I'm not that kind of INTP.

For a long time, I thought Architect was right when he mentioned that some INTPs get "stuck" in Ne instead of Ti. Now I think this isn't accurate. Some INTPs are just that way ie they are a different type. I'm betting Architect is more the Ti-type than the Ne-type, but I could be wrong. If he sees this thread, maybe he'll comment on that.

As for career ramifications, the Ne-type is a good analyst, conceptualist, and researcher. Hence, compsci may or may not be a good fit. I think I'll stick with it for now, but it would explain some of the doubts I've had about the field. What I love most is to solve/think about humanity's problems. So if software engineering allows me to do that, I'll probably like it, but the idea of becoming a specialist where I can't see the connection between what I'm doing and this central mission is a deal-breaker for me.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#31
It struck me like this: TiN=intuitive and speculative, TiS=logical and mathematical, TiF=empirical and positivist.
TiN is intuitive and speculative, TiS is empirical and positivist, and then there is Ti (no N or S) where the individual has a weaker auxiliary. Jung is not differentiating between Ti-weak N, and Ti-weak S, but I am and so is Socionics. There's no way to be strong in both T and F. According to Jung that absolutely cannot happen. The whole theory would fall apart if that were true.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#32
TiN is intuitive and speculative, TiS is empirical and positivist, and then there is Ti (no N or S) where the individual has a weaker auxiliary. Jung is not differentiating between Ti-weak N, and Ti-weak S, but I am and so is Socionics. There's no way to be strong in both T and F. According to Jung that absolutely cannot happen. The whole theory would fall apart if that were true.
Err.. not necessarily? As I understand how most people write a book like psychological type its takes a while to do. As such people go through different phases. Jung himself said type was not static, as seen in the video I linked.

I am saying that it is not necessarily "strong in feeling as well" but the way the type manifests itself is a combination of the two. I'm not quite sure I know how to articulately posture it. Basically TiF would be grounded in logic value base of Ti, rather than being grounded in logical reality (TiS) or grounded in logical imagination (TiN).
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#34
Err.. not necessarily? As I understand how most people write a book like psychological type its takes a while to do. As such people go through different phases. Jung himself said type was not static, as seen in the video I linked.

I am saying that it is not necessarily "strong in feeling as well" but the way the type manifests itself is a combination of the two. I'm not quite sure I know how to articulately posture it. Basically TiF would be grounded in logic value base of Ti, rather than being grounded in logical reality (TiS) or grounded in logical imagination (TiN).
My opinion is that you're mixing up "logical principles" with "values." INTPs can be very emotional and defensive of their principles but these are thoroughly different from the values of an Fi type. Value-based judgement is along the lines of "this is good" and "this is bad." Is this "fair" and "just"? Principles are not the same thing. They are more akin to what the Ti-dom feels is a law of the universe. Anything that doesn't take that law into account is seen as inferior. For example, when I see a homeless person, I wonder about all the causative factors that led them to be in that condition and what's going on in their heads, but my mother, an ISFP, will instantly feel great compassion for the individual and be outraged and/or stirred to do something about it.

But talk to me about nutrition or healthcare in general, and I'll be able to tell you instantly everything that's wrong with the healthcare system and how it should be fixed to be more in accordance with what I know about economic, social, and health laws of the universe. Fi will not seek to go this far and be concerned with whether or not the healthcare system as a whole is taking good care of the suffering of others and the poorest among us.

So anyway, when Jung says that "type is not static" he's not saying that you switch from one type to another, just that your type continually evolves and the functions are brought into greater reconciliation with one another.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#35
My opinion is that you're mixing up "logical principles" with "values." INTPs can be very emotional and defensive of their principles but these are thoroughly different from the values of an Fi type. Value-based judgement is along the lines of "this is good" and "this is bad." Is this "fair" and "just"? Principles are not the same thing. They are more akin to what the Ti-dom feels is a law of the universe. Anything that doesn't take that law into account is seen as inferior. For example, when I see a homeless person, I wonder about all the causative factors that led them to be in that condition and what's going on in their heads, but my mother, an ISFP, will instantly feel great compassion for the individual and be outraged and/or stirred to do something about it.

But talk to me about nutrition or healthcare in general, and I'll be able to tell you instantly everything that's wrong with the healthcare system and how it should be fixed to be more in accordance with what I know about economic, social, and health laws of the universe. Fi will not seek to go this far and be concerned with whether or not the healthcare system as a whole is taking good care of the suffering of others and the poorest among us.
Who said anything about Fi? I certainly didn't, and I didn't mean it that way. I simply think of values in a Ti way when I think of "empirical and positivist." Its a way to view the world, that is what I am getting at.

So anyway, when Jung says that "type is not static" he's not saying that you switch from one type to another, just that your type continually evolves and the functions are brought into greater reconciliation with one another.
You are certainly an INTP. I can tell by the way you cannot deviate from the system you have come up with in your mind. So how sure are you of what Jung said on a scale of 1-10?
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#36
Who said anything about Fi? I certainly didn't, and I didn't mean it that way. I simply think of values in a Ti way when I think of "empirical and positivist." Its a way to view the world, that is what I am getting at.
I'm not really sure what you mean.



You are certainly an INTP. I can tell by the way you cannot deviate from the system you have come up with in your mind. So how sure are you of what Jung said on a scale of 1-10?
Well...I like to be strict about definitions. Keeps things clear in my head. So maybe this is all just semantics, but Jung is very absolute when it comes to separating thinking and feeling. I guess you could think about thinking principles as "values" but I prefer to just refer to them as "principles" so there's no confusion.

10. There's a little bit in PT where he says that Ni and Si-doms are the "most useless of men." I very much disagree with that single sentence, and as reckful pointed out in other posts, there is a kind of "mystic" component he assigns to Ni-doms that is very much at odds with every single INTJ I've ever met, and I don't know enough INFJs to know if this matches up. Certainly ISTJs are the workhorses of society and ISFJs...I again don't know enough to make any assertions there.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#37
I'm not really sure what you mean.

I mean strip away the i in Fi and the e in Fe and what are you left with is what I see as the third category of Ti.


Well...I like to be strict about definitions. Keeps things clear in my head. So maybe this is all just semantics, but Jung is very absolute when it comes to separating thinking and feeling. I guess you could think about thinking principles as "values" but I prefer to just refer to them as "principles" so there's no confusion.

10. There's a little bit in PT where he says that Ni and Si-doms are the "most useless of men." I very much disagree with that single sentence, and as reckful pointed out in other posts, there is a kind of "mystic" component he assigns to Ni-doms that is very much at odds with every single INTJ I've ever met, and I don't know enough INFJs to know if this matches up. Certainly ISTJs are the workhorses of society and ISFJs...I again don't know enough to make any assertions there.
How can it be a 10 when you don't even agree with everything?

You have to remember that Jung never said emphatically that there were even 3 types to each Dom function. It is open to interpretation like much of the book. So I agree that there are somethings Jung says that are strongly clear cut, but others, because of the way he put his ideas down on paper, it is not exactly clear what he meant.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#38
I mean strip away the i in Fi and the e in Fe and what are you left with is what I see as the third category of Ti.




How can it be a 10 when you don't even agree with everything?

You have to remember that Jung never said emphatically that there were even 3 types to each Dom function. It is open to interpretation like much of the book. So I agree that there are somethings Jung says that are strongly clear cut, but others, because of the way he put his ideas down on paper, it is not exactly clear what he meant.
The stuff I agree with, I'm sure he's right about it b/c I've observed it to be true in myself and others. Have you actually read PT?
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#39
The stuff I agree with, I'm sure he's right about it b/c I've observed it to be true in myself and others. Have you actually read PT?
I've read some of it, yes.
 

del

Randomly Generated
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
282
Location
St. Paul, MN
#40
You guys are much more well-read on this than me, so I'll ask: does Jung say anywhere Ti has to be associated with an extraverted perception function?

I remember trying to figure this out once, and I came to the tentative conclusion that this was all an invention of Myers-Briggs.

I interpreted Jung's subtypes as more generic. For example, instead of TiNe it would just be TiN -- just generic intuition. Not extraverted, not introverted. However, I guess one could also interpret Jung as allowing the possibility for types like TiNi (which, I know, is heresy to Myers-Briggsians).

Or I could be all wrong.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,845
Location
California, USA
#41
You guys are much more well-read on this than me, so I'll ask: does Jung say anywhere Ti has to be associated with an extraverted perception function?

I remember trying to figure this out once, and I came to the tentative conclusion that this was all an invention of Myers-Briggs.

I interpreted Jung's subtypes as more generic. For example, instead of TiNe it would just be TiN -- just generic intuition. Not extraverted, not introverted. However, I guess one could also interpret Jung as allowing the possibility for types like TiNi (which, I know, is heresy to Myers-Briggsians).

Or I could be all wrong.
@your question

Nope, only that there must be alternating Rational/Irrational functions. According to his Types you can only have T paired with N or S, and so forth. In other words types are grouped by NT, SF, NF, and ST, assuming there exists a secondary function that has been differentiated.

There are three interpretations I know of discussed in old Jungian and Socionics articles.

One is that the following three functions are all either Intro/Extro in opposition to the primary to counterbalance the dominating influence of the primary's orientation. Ti NeSeFe . This means that only Ti is 'conscious' and all other functions are bubbling out of the subconscious.

The second interpretation which is most popular is that the functions alternate in E/I direction. TiNeSiFe

The third is that all functions except the one opposite to the primary have the same E/I direction. TiNiSiFe. This one means that you pull the other functions into the conscious sphere but they are still weak.


You are right to make those objections.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,096
#42
You guys are much more well-read on this than me, so I'll ask: does Jung say anywhere Ti has to be associated with an extraverted perception function?
No, but it's supposed to help 'balance out' the neurotic nature of Ti. By having an irrational (Ne/Se) attitude that stands in opposition to Ti, one's ego is more or less tamed.

Though Jung's rational/irrational is often thought to mean that rational applies reason, while irrational does not. But irrational for Jung simply means 'perception', so it stands outside reason, rather than being confused with what's unreasonable.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#43
You guys are much more well-read on this than me, so I'll ask: does Jung say anywhere Ti has to be associated with an extraverted perception function?

I remember trying to figure this out once, and I came to the tentative conclusion that this was all an invention of Myers-Briggs.

I interpreted Jung's subtypes as more generic. For example, instead of TiNe it would just be TiN -- just generic intuition. Not extraverted, not introverted. However, I guess one could also interpret Jung as allowing the possibility for types like TiNi (which, I know, is heresy to Myers-Briggsians).

Or I could be all wrong.
Basically comes down to whether or not the tertiary has the same orientation as the dominant or not. From my standpoint, it's not much of an issue since the tertiary is also largely unconscious, so in practice it kind of gets glued together with the inferior to a certain extent.

That said, it's pretty clear to me that TiNiSiFe flat out makes no sense. The reason I think this is that ENTPs share a lot of similarities with INTPs, and I say this having dated an ENTP for years and having had several ENTP friends. There's a very strong shared mental connection there, and if the auxiliary were Ni instead of Ne, you likely would not see this pattern. Also, in terms of solving mathematical proofs, my impression is that INTJs have the upper hand precisely b/c Ni is convergent and abstract as opposed to divergent and objective. INTJs also clearly don't operate using Ti. They're fundamentally empiricists not rationalists like INTPs. That leads to the conclusion that they're using Te. Plus if you compare an INTJ and an ENTP (Ne vs Ni), the differences could not be more stark. ENTPs are zany all-over-the-map creatures that leap from one thing to the next. INTJs are the exact opposite. Focused, driven narcissists that are hell-bent on accomplishing their objectives. Which ones are more more similar to INTPs? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Bottom line: The current Harold Grant model is valid from what I've observed in real life. There's lots of objections that could be raised if you interpret Jung's writings from different angles, but in the end who gives a sh*t? You either find it to be an accurate reflection of reality or not. If it's not useful to you, then don't use it. That's all that matters at the end of the day.
 

OmoInisa

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
201
Location
London, UK
#44
Basically comes down to whether or not the tertiary has the same orientation as the dominant or not. From my standpoint, it's not much of an issue since the tertiary is also largely unconscious, so in practice it kind of gets glued together with the inferior to a certain extent.

That said, it's pretty clear to me that TiNiSiFe flat out makes no sense. The reason I think this is that ENTPs share a lot of similarities with INTPs, and I say this having dated an ENTP for years and having had several ENTP friends. There's a very strong shared mental connection there, and if the auxiliary were Ni instead of Ne, you likely would not see this pattern. Also, in terms of solving mathematical proofs, my impression is that INTJs have the upper hand precisely b/c Ni is convergent and abstract as opposed to divergent and objective. INTJs also clearly don't operate using Ti. They're fundamentally empiricists not rationalists like INTPs. That leads to the conclusion that they're using Te. Plus if you compare an INTJ and an ENTP (Ne vs Ni), the differences could not be more stark. ENTPs are zany all-over-the-map creatures that leap from one thing to the next. INTJs are the exact opposite. Focused, driven narcissists that are hell-bent on accomplishing their objectives. Which ones are more more similar to INTPs? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Bottom line: The current Harold Grant model is valid from what I've observed in real life. There's lots of objections that could be raised if you interpret Jung's writings from different angles, but in the end who gives a sh*t? You either find it to be an accurate reflection of reality or not. If it's not useful to you, then don't use it. That's all that matters at the end of the day.
Someone hand him a bouquet.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,845
Location
California, USA
#45
Here's another fun anecdote. I'm currently studying math with an ISTP. The guy lost his favorite mechanical pencil the other day. Spent an hour looking for it because he couldn't bear the thought of having to hold an inferior writing tool in his hand. It literally pains him psychologically because he's highly conscious of how it feels against his fingers. That's NOT what an INTP would do. Foremost among his considerations when choosing a new laptop is how the keyboard is built and keys are laid out, and no surprise, he chose a ThinkPad. It's these little details that make you appreciate the differences between people and MBTI allows you to aggregate all this information into a coherent concept and pattern. I enjoy it.
tbh that sounds like autism. On an unrelated note I love the feel of my mech keyboard with mx browns, and just went in for one with mx clears.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
#46
Someone hand him a bouquet.
:D

tbh that sounds like autism. On an unrelated note I love the feel of my mech keyboard with mx browns, and just went in for one with mx clears.
You're not an ISTP now are you? I appreciate good ergonomics. Architect mentioned this one. I can attest to its niceness. It's what I'm using right now.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,845
Location
California, USA
#47
You're not an ISTP now are you? I appreciate good ergonomics. Architect mentioned this one. I can attest to its niceness. It's what I'm using right now.
Perhaps but I've been in the game too long to be objective, at least I'm assuming Thinking Introvert with Se/Ni.

Was that from a thread on keyboards? We should have one if not. That one looks interesting but I'm not sure if I could type on it as an index finger 'typer'.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,640
#48
What are your thoughts on this?
He said that Thinking (Ti or Te) can be split into "intuitive (Ni) and speculative (Ne), logical (Ti) and mathematical (Te), empirical (Si) and positivist (Se),". I think that he might be suggesting that T-doms can be T-dom with N-aux, pure T-dom and T-dom with S-aux. He said that other subtypes "could be made" of the other functions. Since he said "could be made", it sounds to me like they would be other subgroups, that depend on their auxiliary.

I find his choices very interesting, as "speculative" sounds very much like Ne, "empirical" sounds like the way that SJs reason with Si, and "positivist" is very much how SPs are so continually optimistic and opportunistic. It suggests to me that he lists 6 subgroups. But since he says that there are only 3 subgroups, he clearly thinks that each pair is equivalent to one, and cannot be split further. It thus occurs to me, that he might be suggesting that any ISTP can be both positivist (Se) OR empirical (Si). Thus, if the auxiliary function is Sensation, then both Si AND Se are available to the ISTP.

He also suggests that Thinking can be logical and mathematical. But that corresponds with T, not N or S. That is possible, because Jung wrote that the auxiliary is a help and support to the dominant, and is also always subject to the dominant (hence the name: dominant). However, that also suggests that one doesn't need an aux type. Jung also wrote that a person with an undifferentiated auxiliary would have an undeveloped and primitive thinking, which we would NOT expect of someone who is logical and mathematical.

I don't know how to resolve this yet.

What are the practical implications of this regarding career/work and how does this relate to MBTI?
The description of the subtypes of Thinking suggests types of careers. The dominant may be HOW one reasons, while the subtypes tell us in which fields of work the dominant naturally leans.

Jung mentions 3 possible subtypes, not 2. MBTI only recognizes Ti being associated with either Se or Ne, giving rise to the INTP and ISTP subtypes, but Jung seems to think there is a third subtype of Ti that is not covered by the above two. I'm not even certain that this is a valid relation since Jung could actually be saying that the INTP can be subdivided into 3 subtypes and so can the ISTP. The reason I say this is because I have observed many INTPs (at least I believe they are) that are highly mathematical/logical, but I am more on the side of "intuitive/speculative." Trying to sort all of this out to see if Jung's ideas are the same or different from MBTI in this regard. Should there actually be 24 different types as opposed to 16 according to Jung?
Probably. I don't recall Jung ever saying there were 16 types. I think that the 16 types came from Myers and Briggs. In this system, there are the 8 Jungian types, and the 16 types of MBTI, 24 types in total.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#49

scorpiomover

The little professor
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,640
#50
10. There's a little bit in PT where he says that Ni and Si-doms are the "most useless of men." I very much disagree with that single sentence,
He said "fruitless", not "useless". You have to look at the whole paragraph. As Jung explained, "we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method." They cannot bear fruit, because "what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability,". Why? Because, as Jung wrote, "Their life teaches more than their words." They communicate how to do what they do, by doing it. They cannot separate thought and deed. It's one to them. Even when they say they are separating them, they are still strategising and trying to achieve an objective. Everything is about achieving a goal to them. Even when they are relaxing, they are still trying to achieve a goal. Hence their preferred forms of entertainment: getting the high score in video games, and winning debates. Thus, in order to learn from an Ni-dom or an Si-dom, one has to watch what they do, figure out what they are doing and why, and then try to do it themselves. Even when they criticise others, they are not making objective criticisms but are speaking in context, which only says "you didn't do what I wanted", or "you did what I wanted, but I'd rather not praise you for it at the moment, for reasons of my own." When they praise others, it's also to achieve an objective in the context.

and as reckful pointed out in other posts, there is a kind of "mystic" component he assigns to Ni-doms that is very much at odds with every single INTJ I've ever met,
Remember, INTJs do everything to achieve an objective. When they give you rational arguments why they are right, they are not explaining why they think what they think. They are telling you things that they think will persuade you to believe them. That is why, when you point out flaws in their argument, they come up with another argument, and another, until you give in. The argument is not the reason for their claim. It is merely a method of persuasion. If one method fails to persuade you, then reason dictates to try another and another, until one method works.

So you aren't hearing the real reasons. It's often because of something they "saw" in their mind, such as a hopeful ideal. At other times, they actually get an impression and base their ideas on what they think it means. Hence why INTJs so often go on and on about function/meaning/purpose.

and I don't know enough INFJs to know if this matches up.
INFJs see their visions as real images.

Certainly ISTJs are the workhorses of society and ISFJs...I again don't know enough to make any assertions there.
Took me a long time to understand them. Everything is processed through the sensory system. When they are hungry, they complain about everything but the fact that they are hungry. When they are fed, they stop complaining. It's like when their stomach grumbles, it takes over their mouth and grumbles for real.
 
Top Bottom