Types, Functions, and Ideology

[Analyzer]

I am interested in diving deeper into correlations between different types and their philosophies. How do different types come to different understandings of the world? I believe ideologies are mostly inherited in different traits or temperaments and are not something that can be necessarily learned. You may be more reassured and intellectually cultivated in your beliefs and thinking, but doing a complete 180 degree change doesn't seem realistic. For example, I have never heard of an authoritarian person become an anarchist. There is a "collective unconscious" at work and depending on how your cognitive functions are developed, different patterns of cognition will manifest itself.

Does anyone have any advanced material from Jung or any other psychological studies discussing any relations between types and ideologies? Any thoughts?

 

[OmoInisa]

This makes some sense. Ideologies, from the most primitive to the most elaborate, usually have certain elemental principles behind them. These principles would naturally appeal to certain temperamental dispositions more than others. This alignment is most identifiable at that elemental level. At the high level of a complete ideological system, there are often enough elements for a belief system to acquire adherents from a diversity of temperaments.

Nonetheless there are sometimes amusing examples of individuals who clearly, while having dramatically altered their ideology, haven't really changed in their elemental affiliations. Christopher Hitchens is a classic example. His wild swing from fervent Marxism to Neo-conservatism might seem like a change of worldview. However his elemental disposition was towards a monochromatic sense of justice and reason.

Also, the tendency to cling on to a belief system is itself dependent on type. Ni-ego is more rigid and impervious in its ideologies than Ne-ego. The former tends more to hold on to the totality of its convictions in the face of contradictions. Then when there is a critical mass of contrary data, it discards the dogma and picks up a new one.
See Hitchens again.

 

[david251]

the closest I can get to answering your question is this :

http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.jungpsychtypes.toc.htm

But the personal psychological equation becomes even
more important in the presentation or the communication
of observations, to say nothing of the interpretation and
abstraction of the experimental material! Nowhere, as
in psychology, is the basic requirement so indispensable
that the observer and investigator should be adequate to
his object, in the sense that he should be able to see not
the subject only but also the object The demand that he
should see only objectively is quite out of the question, for
it is impossible. We may well be satisfied if we do not
see too subjectively. That the subjective observation and
interpretation agrees with the objective facts of the psychological
object is evidence for the interpretation only in so
far as the latter makes no pretence to be universal, but
intends to be valid only for that field of the object that is
under consideration. To this extent it is just the beam
in one's own eye that enables one to detect the mote in
the brother's eye. The beam in one's own eye, in this
case, does not prove (as already said) that the brother has
no mote in his. But the impairment of vision might
easily give rise to a general theory that all motes are
beams.

He doesn't mention ideology but he mentions subjectivity in observance of reality. Subjectivity plays a great role in creating ideology. Also subjectivity refers to our inner world so if you are a certain type you must have a specific set of preferences which means your inner world, thus subjectivity, must be similar to people of the same type as yours. If subjectivity among a group of the same type has the same characteristics, then ideologies should share similar natures I guess?

 

[Architect]

I am interested in diving deeper into correlations between different types and their philosophies. How do different types come to different understandings of the world?

I think it's fairly clear from my observations. I have a couple of heuristics that apply specifically to different types. Sensor types are the most likely to be religious, and the most religiously dogmatic. This is due to the fact that they have intuition in their inferior. It has the place of a distant motivation, but being the inferior is childish and relatively undifferentiated. This explains why religion so crude and cartoonish. The other part is that sensors have a strong sense of tradition and group activities which are hallmarks of religious ideology.

On the dogmatism you can see the simultaneous innate fear that sensors have of their inferior. Like all inferiors they both love and hate it. To deal with this dichotomy they resort to fundamentalism and dogmatism. Fundamentalism is an obvious attempt of them to integrate their inferior. They trying to integrate these fanciful, intuitive ideas from religion with their pragmatic sensing dominant. The result is they try to prove that these childish, fanciful ideas are the basis for reality.

As intuitive I find religion laughable, childish and poorly thought out. The idea that it is actually good for people is completely ludicrous. At any rate you can obviously see the workings of the sensor mind in it.

Liberalism and democracy are hallmarks of the intuitive thinker, and socialism of intuitive feeling. Conservatism and other forms of government are motivated by sensate inclinations, who prefer a more rigidly controlled and defined society.

I'm running out of time but there many other examples, the most interesting is in French society. They can clearly see a battle between the intuitive feelers and the judging sensors. Likewise in the U.S. public school system, as noted in PUM (Please Understand Me).

 

[JansenDowel]

This is made more obvious by Steven Pinkers Blank Slate and the many twin studies. How one might go about identifying and measuring the relevant features of human psychology is another question. A very difficult question that everyone wants an answer to.

 

[Architect]

This is made more obvious by Steven Pinkers Blank Slate and the many twin studies.

I don't see what studying twins has to do with it, there's no evidence that I know of the twins are born with the same personality, less the same type. Anecdotally it appears the twins have the same correlation between personality that normal siblings do, i.e. not much.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Thanks to david251 link. In chapter 8 of Psychological Types, he quotes William James:

"THE existence of two types has also been revealed in modern pragmatic philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of William James [1]. He says:

"The history of philosophy is, to a great extent, that of a certain clash of human temperaments (characterological dispositions)" (p. 6.) "Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries, when philosophizing, to sink the fact of his temperament.... Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament. Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and 'not in it,' in the philosophic business, even though they may far excel him in dialectical ability.

"Yet in the forum he can make no claim, on the bare ground of his temperament, to superior discernment or authority. There arises thus a certain insincerity in our philosophic discussions: the potentest of all our premises is never mentioned." [2]

Whereupon James proceeds to the characterization of the two temperaments. Just as in the province of manners and customs we find formalists and free-and-easy persons, in the political world authoritarians and anarchists) in literature purists or academicals and realists, in art classics and romantics, so in philosophy, according to James, there are also to be found two types, viz. the "rationalist" and the "empiricist". The rationalist is "your devotee to abstract and eternal principles". The empiricist is the "lover of facts in all their crude variety". [3] Although no man can dispense either with facts or with principles, yet entirely distinct points of view develop which correspond with the value given to either side."

INFJ that I am, I've found I'm drawn and repelled by certain philosophies. Further, I've also had that inkling/sense that the drawing and repelling is not as a result of what I was taught or socialized into but a reflection of 'me', mine and others fixed personalities in a broad sense. That's not to say all INTPs or ISFJs or what have you, are drawn to specific philosophies, but general underlying elements within classes of philosophies (if that makes sense).

 

[ddspada]

That's not to say all INTPs or ISFJs or what have you, are drawn to specific philosophies, but general underlying elements within classes of philosophies (if that makes sense).

Sure thing. The two "big" INTP philosophers, Decartes and Kant, both use modules of reasoning which are INTP-ish. Descartes proposed that we can doubt everything, even maths and empirical experience, except the fact that we are doubting, and that is what ultimately can give us certainty. Kant asks whether our human minds, even when honed to their very best, are even capable of correctly formulating philosophical questions. They do not say very similar things, but one can definitely see how their approach to the human mind within philosophy was formulated via Ti-Ne.

(I know I'm oversimplifying them both, but I hope my point is understood.)

 

[OrLevitate]

Maybe you've already read it but just in case; the links under the name of aleksey bashtavenko in the Online Typology resources thread are relevant.

 

[Analyzer]

Thanks to david251 link. In chapter 8 of Psychological Types, he quotes William James:

"THE existence of two types has also been revealed in modern pragmatic philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of William James [1]. He says:

"The history of philosophy is, to a great extent, that of a certain clash of human temperaments (characterological dispositions)" (p. 6.) "Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries, when philosophizing, to sink the fact of his temperament.... Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament. Wanting a universe that suits it, he believes in any representation of the universe that does suit it. He feels men of opposite temper to be out of key with the world's character, and in his heart considers them incompetent and 'not in it,' in the philosophic business, even though they may far excel him in dialectical ability.

"Yet in the forum he can make no claim, on the bare ground of his temperament, to superior discernment or authority. There arises thus a certain insincerity in our philosophic discussions: the potentest of all our premises is never mentioned." [2]

Whereupon James proceeds to the characterization of the two temperaments. Just as in the province of manners and customs we find formalists and free-and-easy persons, in the political world authoritarians and anarchists) in literature purists or academicals and realists, in art classics and romantics, so in philosophy, according to James, there are also to be found two types, viz. the "rationalist" and the "empiricist". The rationalist is "your devotee to abstract and eternal principles". The empiricist is the "lover of facts in all their crude variety". [3] Although no man can dispense either with facts or with principles, yet entirely distinct points of view develop which correspond with the value given to either side."

INFJ that I am, I've found I'm drawn and repelled by certain philosophies. Further, I've also had that inkling/sense that the drawing and repelling is not as a result of what I was taught or socialized into but a reflection of 'me', mine and others fixed personalities in a broad sense. That's not to say all INTPs or ISFJs or what have you, are drawn to specific philosophies, but general underlying elements within classes of philosophies (if that makes sense).

Yeah it is an interesting insight as the whole inquiry into philosophy and social theory does not factor people's disposition for certain thinking as it really depends on their temperament. This whole notion doesn't seem to be considered by moralists or anyone interested in the improvement of society. How could you possibly make people accept certain modes of thinking and behavior if they are just not naturally fitted to understand and adopt them? I think there is definitely an opportunity for basing philosophical inquiry by using typology and mere incorporating previous doctrines of epistemology into it. It might than vary well become a tautology, but what is geometry?

The problem with this idea though is I could see others questioning the validity of inherinted traits or types and continue to push dogmas and ideas of their own, while extrapolating and making them objective fact. Empiricism and Rationalism both have their weakness and strengths. Typology in general really seems more suited to IN types as a framework for understanding man and their place in the world. Either way it adds more knowledge to this spectacle of life.

 

[Analyzer]

Maybe you've already read it but just in case; the links under the name of aleksey bashtavenko in the Online Typology resources thread are relevant.

Thanks yeah there's some good stuff on there. Jung's Psychological Types appears to be the ultimate source as far as books go. A lot of the research is based off his work.

 

[JansenDowel]

I don't see what studying twins has to do with it, there's no evidence that I know of the twins are born with the same personality, less the same type. Anecdotally it appears the twins have the same correlation between personality that normal siblings do, i.e. not much.

Twins reared apart have very similar personalities as adults. This seems to imply a genetic component to personality.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Yeah it is an interesting insight as the whole inquiry into philosophy and social theory does not factor people's disposition for certain thinking as it really depends on their temperament. This whole notion doesn't seem to be considered by moralists or anyone interested in the improvement of society. How could you possibly make people accept certain modes of thinking and behavior if they are just not naturally fitted to understand and adopt them? I think there is definitely an opportunity for basing philosophical inquiry by using typology and mere incorporating previous doctrines of epistemology into it. It might than vary well become a tautology, but what is geometry?

The problem with this idea though is I could see others questioning the validity of inherinted traits or types and continue to push dogmas and ideas of their own, while extrapolating and making them objective fact. Empiricism and Rationalism both have their weakness and strengths. Typology in general really seems more suited to IN types as a framework for understanding man and their place in the world. Either way it adds more knowledge to this spectacle of life.

I'll admit my perspective is biased/colored by my type, but it seems to me that 'the spectacle of life' we see is the result of tensions and opposing forces both within (the tension between a person's dominant and inferior function) and between people, cultures, societies (the clash and jockeying of all the types and their biased philosophies). These tensions seem to be the wheelhouse that propels individuals and groups toward...reconciliation or some form of harmony? And by that I mean, reconciliation and harmony that is not static but is both solid and flexible that is a genuine expression and reflection of individuals and society. (A little Ni-ing)

 

[Analyzer]

I'll admit my perspective is biased/colored by my type, but it seems to me that 'the spectacle of life' we see is the result of tensions and opposing forces both within (the tension between a person's dominant and inferior function) and between people, cultures, societies (the clash and jockeying of all the types and their biased philosophies). These tensions seem to be the wheelhouse that propels individuals and groups toward...reconciliation or some form of harmony? And by that I mean, reconciliation and harmony that is not static but is both solid and flexible that is a genuine expression and reflection of individuals and society. (A little Ni-ing)

Yeah I see what you are saying, basically by everyone having their own biases and modes of thinking it all comes together to form a holistic understanding of the world. That's interesting as it's sort of like just accepting these inconsistencies, tensions, clashes, and figuring what as an individual you can add based on your own temperament.

I am all for this but I think self-knowledge or what Jung calls Individuation is key for this too blossom.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Yeah I see what you are saying, basically by everyone having their own biases and modes of thinking it all comes together to form a holistic understanding of the world. That's interesting as it's sort of like just accepting these inconsistencies, tensions, clashes, and figuring what as an individual you can add based on your own temperament.

I am all for this but I think self-knowledge or what Jung calls Individuation is key for this too blossom.

Actually, individuation, both at an individual and society level is what I was getting at. The tensions and forces are not to be accepted but used to advance toward individuation, at first for the individual and by extension, society. I view the tensions and forces as:
*an invitation (of our own free choice within our static personality type)
*The tensions/forces are neutral. Neither good or bad without value judgment.
*They are customized to each individual’s stumbling blocks to overcome. In other words, we acutely feel those tensions in our co-constructed conundrums.
*We cannot escape these tensions and forces. They are fundamental and always present even if we choose to avoid or ignore them.

Society is made up of MANY individuals and if enough of those people make some progress (or digress for that matter) toward or away from individuation, then society as a whole advances or not. Our biased typological philosophies that clash with each other will look and feel different depending on the relative individuation continuum. Philosophical tensions will never be eliminated no matter how individuated we become as a society but the tone, intensity and anxiety will be calmed down. Less Bothersome I suspect. Or something like that...

 

[OrLevitate]

Actually, individuation, both at an individual and society level is what I was getting at. The tensions and forces are not to be accepted but used to advance toward individuation, at first for the individual and by extension, society. I view the tensions and forces as:
*an invitation (of our own free choice within our static personality type)
*The tensions/forces are neutral. Neither good or bad without value judgment.
*They are customized to each individual’s stumbling blocks to overcome. In other words, we acutely feel those tensions in our co-constructed conundrums.
*We cannot escape these tensions and forces. They are fundamental and always present even if we choose to avoid or ignore them.

Society is made up of MANY individuals and if enough of those people make some progress (or digress for that matter) toward or away from individuation, then society as a whole advances or not. Our biased typological philosophies that clash with each other will look and feel different depending on the relative individuation continuum. Philosophical tensions will never be eliminated no matter how individuated we become as a society but the tone, intensity and anxiety will be calmed down. Less Bothersome I suspect. Or something like that...

Wu Xing

 

[Oddity]

I think it's fairly clear from my observations. I have a couple of heuristics that apply specifically to different types. Sensor types are the most likely to be religious, and the most religiously dogmatic. This is due to the fact that they have intuition in their inferior. It has the place of a distant motivation, but being the inferior is childish and relatively undifferentiated. This explains why religion so crude and cartoonish. The other part is that sensors have a strong sense of tradition and group activities which are hallmarks of religious ideology.

On the dogmatism you can see the simultaneous innate fear that sensors have of their inferior. Like all inferiors they both love and hate it. To deal with this dichotomy they resort to fundamentalism and dogmatism. Fundamentalism is an obvious attempt of them to integrate their inferior. They trying to integrate these fanciful, intuitive ideas from religion with their pragmatic sensing dominant. The result is they try to prove that these childish, fanciful ideas are the basis for reality.

As intuitive I find religion laughable, childish and poorly thought out. The idea that it is actually good for people is completely ludicrous. At any rate you can obviously see the workings of the sensor mind in it.

Liberalism and democracy are hallmarks of the intuitive thinker, and socialism of intuitive feeling. Conservatism and other forms of government are motivated by sensate inclinations, who prefer a more rigidly controlled and defined society.

I'm running out of time but there many other examples, the most interesting is in French society. They can clearly see a battle between the intuitive feelers and the judging sensors. Likewise in the U.S. public school system, as noted in PUM (Please Understand Me).

I agree on all points.

I don't remember the parts in PUM about the public school system though. I should read it again.

 

[Architect]

I don't remember the parts in PUM about the public school system though. I should read it again.

It was in the first edition and I think they showed a sine to illustrate the point. Don't know if it made it into the second edition. Certainly is true, I can see it as my kid makes his way through the grades. We just are getting out of the Bush "No Child" SJ system to the "Common Core" NF system (which is a million times better). Eventually kids test scores will go to crap and they'll go back to some SJ system, and so on.