On Jung: Dichotomies

[Adymus]

Jung was never trying to create a complete system of typology. Your claim that his work was not 'accurate to reality' is baseless as well and just your viewpoint.

My viewpoint is baseless?

How would I have a viewpoint in the first place if it wasn't based on something?

And maybe not a system of typology as we know it today, but most certainly a framework of cognitive function understanding, which is essentially no different.

 

[Saoshyant]

My viewpoint is baseless?

How would I have a viewpoint in the first place if it wasn't based on something?

Yeah that was a nice way of saying I disagree with you. Or perhaps not so nice! I think Carl Jung was 'in touch with reality'.

 

[Adymus]

Now that you are online Saosh, there is something I wanted to ask, and was curious to see how you would defend your stance.

In what way is the Jungian Introverted Intuitive type = MBTI Ti and Fi? You are saying that a perception is equal to a judgment, Jung makes no claim of the Introverted Intuitive type using their Intuition as a form of judgment anything like Ti or Fi. Furthermore, do you realize Ni techically does not even exist in Jung's work? He is not talking about Ni as the specific function like it is done in MBTI, he is talking about the Introverted intuitive type, that is why his descriptions read like a story of a person's life, and not how their cognitive functions actually work.
Lastly, if you actually believe that his work is so vague that a perception cannot be differentiated between both a thinking and feeling Judgment even though they are completely different in nature, why are you so faithful to it?

 

[Saoshyant]

In what way is the Jungian Introverted Intuitive type = MBTI Ti and Fi? You are saying that a perception is equal to a judgment, Jung makes no claim of the Introverted Intuitive type using their Intuition as a form of judgment anything like Ti or Fi.

Right, I am saying that the MBTI is wrong. I never meant that Jung's Ni was actually equally MBTI Ti and Fi. In my examples of Jung = MBTI, I was showing EyeseeCold examples of how Socionics translates the MBTI functions.

Furthermore, do you realize Ni techically does not even exist in Jung's work? He is not talking about Ni as the specific function like it is done in MBTI, he is talking about the Introverted intuitive type, that is why his descriptions read like a story of a person's life, and not how their cognitive functions actually work.

My view is that what Jung was trying to describe is the same thing that MBTI/other typologies are trying to translate.

Lastly, if you actually believe that his work is so vague that it cannot be differentiated between both a thinking and feeling Judgment, why are you so faithful to it?

I don't and I hope the first response clears it up for you.

 

[Adymus]

Right, I am saying that the MBTI is wrong.

Wrong about what exactly?

 

[Saoshyant]

Wrong about what exactly?

In accurately translating Jung's descriptions of pyschological types into cognitive functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

I hope you guys can get on some common solid ground because I sure as hell can't follow most of what you're saying. "You're" = all of you.

 

[Adymus]

In accurately translating Jung's descriptions of pyschological types into cognitive functions.

So your position is that Jung was spot on in his understanding and if MBTI or other models are not in alignment with Jung, then they are wrong?

 

[Saoshyant]

So your understanding is that Jung was spot on in his understanding and if MBTI or other models are not in alignment with Jung, then they are wrong?

'Spot on' is a little strong, but I would say he is accurate.

And yes, I think the MBTI is theoretically 'wrong' when they extract their descriptions into cognitive functions. If they replaced the functions correctly, the descriptions would still end up very similiar. Almost impossible for someone to tell the difference when looking at the descriptions/persons. So its not a black and white issue here, they are kinda right and kinda wrong.

Like I said in a post earlier there ain't much difference between a Ti+Ne(MBTI) and Ni+Te(Socionists belive the 2nd function to be 'creative'; hence the confusion in MBTI with INTPs having 'Ne") in Socionics. Kind of went in depth here, but it is still related.

 

[Jedi]

Furthermore, do you realize Ni techically does not even exist in Jung's work? He is not talking about Ni as the specific function like it is done in MBTI, he is talking about the Introverted intuitive type, that is why his descriptions read like a story of a person's life, and not how their cognitive functions actually work.

Actually he does. He describes the function and the type separately.

EyeSeeCold, do the Socionic's function descriptions match up with MBTI's?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Actually he does. He describes the function and the type separately.

EyeSeeCold, do the Socionic's function descriptions match up with MBTI's?

Not exactly.

Problem areas:
Dominant Ni being viewed as a vision function (that's creative/auxiliary Ne)

Dominant Ti being viewed as an intensive subjective thinking function. (that's dominant Ni)

Introverts(and, though not presently important, extraverts) act out the inverse of their creative function when their competence is at stake. Heavy use of this may confuse a person's type. INTps have Te creative, when they are on the ropes they will assert themselves using Ti logic. INTjs have Ne creative, when on the defense they will assert themselves with Ni, and block out anything that is wishful thinking and obscure or may abruptly leave due to them already knowing what will happen.