DrSketchpad
Active Member
So, I've come to a conclusion (yeah I know) to make a mega-thread of sorts that "rounds up" evidence that gives or takes credence to Jungian based typology. Here's why:
I've been thinking about the functions and dichotomies presented by Jung and Myers-Briggs and whether or not I should give credence to one, both or neither of them. First I think of "What different parts of consciousness in the average person could personality be made of?" I usually get something like the 8 functions we know of.
Ne - divergent imagination - is aware of many possibilities
Ni - more convergent leaps of imagination, less concerned with being aware of every possibility.
Se - perception through your senses more according to the world itself (This also brings out a point I'll make another thread for)
Si - also sensory perception, but more personal and impressionistic
Fe - sense of worth, more "objective", extroverted.
Fi - also worth-sense, but more according to personally held values when thinking of the "object". more in tune with personal feeling states.
Te- Reasoning towards objects themselves
Ti - Subjective reasoning about the subject
(These are probably incorrect on many levels, however, that's not the point of this thread)
And then I think, well it makes sense that a person would start to quickly use a certain function because it was useful to them, or maybe they're incredibly genetically predisposed to act/think in a certain fashion/pattern. And isn't type just describing which way we become lopsided in this manner?
And so there are other things that make up consciousness, namely memory and willpower (as I think Jung also talked about) but memory is too inconsistent for the purpose of typology ( however, maybe not how we prefer to process the raw sensory input, think Se and Si (again, I'll make another thread)). This leaves us with the functions (or if you'd rather just use the MB dichotomies, then whatever (I'm pretty sure I'm losing my point real quick)).
This probably leaves much to be desired in terms of reasoning/descriptions, however, this isn't my main purpose for this thread believe it or not, as you're probably already aware the PURPOSE of this thread is to round up more empirical sources dealing with Jungian typology. Studies, talks on studies, or even patterns that you're sure are linked to functions, or maybe even why you think a more dichotomy centric POV is "better" , but please use any sources you can find and the best discussion you can muster.
However crudely this thread has been stringed together, is again, besides the point; you know what to do from here if you wish to participate. All discussion pertaining to this subject is welcome, but please keep it neutral. No one likes threads being derailed because we forgot to put on our big-boy pants when we got out of bed.
To start, I've watched this before (I think) and I've seen discussions revolving around it (again, I think) I'll put up the Google "Neuroscience of personality" talk to kickstart things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA
I've been thinking about the functions and dichotomies presented by Jung and Myers-Briggs and whether or not I should give credence to one, both or neither of them. First I think of "What different parts of consciousness in the average person could personality be made of?" I usually get something like the 8 functions we know of.
Ne - divergent imagination - is aware of many possibilities
Ni - more convergent leaps of imagination, less concerned with being aware of every possibility.
Se - perception through your senses more according to the world itself (This also brings out a point I'll make another thread for)
Si - also sensory perception, but more personal and impressionistic
Fe - sense of worth, more "objective", extroverted.
Fi - also worth-sense, but more according to personally held values when thinking of the "object". more in tune with personal feeling states.
Te- Reasoning towards objects themselves
Ti - Subjective reasoning about the subject
(These are probably incorrect on many levels, however, that's not the point of this thread)
And then I think, well it makes sense that a person would start to quickly use a certain function because it was useful to them, or maybe they're incredibly genetically predisposed to act/think in a certain fashion/pattern. And isn't type just describing which way we become lopsided in this manner?
And so there are other things that make up consciousness, namely memory and willpower (as I think Jung also talked about) but memory is too inconsistent for the purpose of typology ( however, maybe not how we prefer to process the raw sensory input, think Se and Si (again, I'll make another thread)). This leaves us with the functions (or if you'd rather just use the MB dichotomies, then whatever (I'm pretty sure I'm losing my point real quick)).
This probably leaves much to be desired in terms of reasoning/descriptions, however, this isn't my main purpose for this thread believe it or not, as you're probably already aware the PURPOSE of this thread is to round up more empirical sources dealing with Jungian typology. Studies, talks on studies, or even patterns that you're sure are linked to functions, or maybe even why you think a more dichotomy centric POV is "better" , but please use any sources you can find and the best discussion you can muster.
However crudely this thread has been stringed together, is again, besides the point; you know what to do from here if you wish to participate. All discussion pertaining to this subject is welcome, but please keep it neutral. No one likes threads being derailed because we forgot to put on our big-boy pants when we got out of bed.
To start, I've watched this before (I think) and I've seen discussions revolving around it (again, I think) I'll put up the Google "Neuroscience of personality" talk to kickstart things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA