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

What type was Carl Jung?

Abe

So many witty things to say, so few people to tell
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
76
Location
Here
#1
Google doesn't help, and all of the threads I have found so far stray almost immidiately from the topic.
So please, give the simplest answer possible and support your answer with as least fluff as possible...
What personality type was Carl Jung?
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#2
He was INTJ according to himself.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#4
One note: HE wasn't ANYTHING according to himself, that is he never blatantly said so, so anyone who says "he said he was..." and some direct answer is lying...

It is extremely super widely contended,
I've looked over too many threads...People have him all over the place...
INTP, ISTP, INTJ, INFJ, seriously, everywhere, at least no one I've seen ever claims 'E'


I can't give ya super conclusive evidence or an answer, but closest i've seen is
INFJ/INTP...so many arguments for both sides...
so, if anyone can make a very comprehensive/logic-based AND evidence-based, I'd be very glad to look on it.
 
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
101
#5
He was an Introvert with Intuition and Thinking. I can't find the video now, but he mentioned being an Intuitive Thinker in an interview that I saw on YouTube. I have not seen anything definitive about whether his type is an INTP or INTJ.
 
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
101
#7

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#8
Another article: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-myers-keirsey-etc-on-jungs-type/

Jung identifies himself as both ISTP (early life) and INTP (later life).
Myers identifies Jung as I-TP.
Keirsey & son identify Jung as INFJ.
Von Franz identifies Jung as an as an N-domiant type (i.e. EN-P or IN-J).
Van der Hoop identifies Jung as ISTP.
Jung identifies himself as having Histrionic traits.
Michael Fordham (Jung’s student) identifies Jung as having Narcissistic, Schizophrenic and Paranoid traits.
Henry A. Murray (Harvard professor of Psychology) identifies Jung as having Schizophrenic traits.
The Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) identifies Jung as both INTP and INTJ.
Aniela Jaffe (Jung’s secretary and co-author of ‘Memories, Dreams, Reflections’) identifies Jung as an N-domiant type (i.e. EN-P or IN-J).
Sonu Shamdasani (author of ‘Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology’) identifies Jung as I-TP.
James Graham Johnston (author of ‘Jung’s Compass of Psychological Types‘) identifies Jung as an Introverted type with Ti and Ni.
V.W. Odajnyk (author of ‘Archetype and Character‘) identifies Jung as both INTP (early life) and INTJ (later life).
Hans Schmid-Guisan (Jung’s friend and collaborator on ‘The Question of Psychological Types‘) identifies Jung as an I-T type.
Angelo Spoto (author of ‘Jung’s Typology in Perspective’) identifies Jung as INTJ, as well as raising the possibility that Jung “broke the model” by having two dominant functions(!).
Walter Kaufmann (author of ‘Discovering the Mind’) identifies Jung as an extrovert and as having Schizophrenic traits.
C.A. Meier (president of the C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich) identifies Jung as an introvert
James Oppenheim (early follower of Jung) identified Jung as an introvert with well-developed extroversion
John Beebe (Jungian analyst and editor of ‘The Question of Psychological Types‘) identifies Jung as INTJ.
John M. Thorburn (author of ‘Analytical Psychology and the Concept of Individuality’) identified Freud as a Sensation type, Jung as an Intuitive type.
CelebrityTypes Admin team identifies Jung as INFJ.
***

While we would like to be able to take credit for being the first to type Jung as INFJ, we must defer to Keirsey & son who beat us to the assessment. To our knowledge, Keirsey & son do not provide any argument for their assessment, and nor do we (yet), so perhaps our reasoning is different (in fact, it most likely is different). But at any rate, the credit for being the first to advance the assessment of Jung as INFJ belongs not to us, but to Keirsey & co.
you might recognize a few of the big names above, Keirsey, MBTI peeps, hell, it's all over the place.

Trust me, I wold love to close this once and for all...but if even the greats^ disagree to the slightest, what can I know.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#9
Another article: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-myers-keirsey-etc-on-jungs-type/



you might recognize a few of the big names above, Keirsey, MBTI peeps, hell, it's all over the place.

Trust me, I wold love to close this once and for all...but if even the greats^ disagree to the slightest, what can I know.
Pretty much sums up a lot of shit. Sorry I'm still in shock from a thread I was reading.

Sounds like he thought he was INTP not INTJ, my bad.
 
Local time
Today, 15:51
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#10
i recall him labelling himself as a dominant thinker which was as far as typology went in his books. the secondary axis of aux-tert wasn't established, meaning we can only speculate as to whether he meant something more like INTP or ISTP.

however i think he better suits the description of INFJ.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#11
i recall him labelling himself as a dominant thinker which was as far as typology went in his books. the secondary axis of aux-tert wasn't established, meaning we can only speculate as to whether he meant something more like INTP or ISTP.

however i think he better suits the description of INFJ.
>_< finally someone else, even the atypical troll ;)
not sighing with relief because you think he is an INFJ as well, but because you're providing some evidence lol

but again saying, if anyone is up for making a comprehensive argument, I'll definitely hear you out - I can't definitively make one myself :/
I haven't seen any lists or walls of texts yet...just surface/superficial points - not even any arguments.



THIRTY pages of people trying to figure it out here: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...-matrices/50838-what-mbti-type-carl-jung.html
...and I still don't conclusively know.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#12
Dude you should fix this:

"[E]ach [N]ew [T]hought [P]
ropels"

You already have it in your signature. I don't see the need for a double whammy.

So your saying you can't give reasons why he is a certain type but you want others to do what you can't do. Interesting.

Its probably bugging me more than you so feel free to ignore me. I'm just stating the obvious.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#13
Dude you should fix this:

"[E]ach [N]ew [T]hought [P]
ropels"
You already have it in your signature. I don't see the need for a double whammy.
you and the obvious QuickTwist ;), just for you, I'm going to leave it there :evil:
So your saying you can't give reasons why he is a certain type but you want others to do what you can't do. Interesting.
I am stating that I am myself unable to theorize on it conclusively, but if some one else is able to, I would love to hear it.

I'm just stating the obvious.
Oh, you're so good at it QuickTwist <3 don't ever change ;)
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#14
WARNING: WALL OF TEXT IMMINENT
@five, I already let you know much of my opinion via reps, but, considering the nonsense flying around this thread, and the fact that I can't recall another about Jung's type on the site (surprisingly), and that a lot of people are very interested in this topic and thus might end up looking here for an answer, and the fact that I've probably done more work on this question than most, I figure I should offer the results of my inquiry into this matter to the general interested public.

Source 1: The BBC Interview with John Freeman

At 8:40 of this video, Jung is asked, "Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?"

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-W-1z_qco&feature=youtu.be"].[/YOUTUBE]
Jung responds, "Naturally, I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know..."

Freeman interjects, "And reached a conclusion?"

Jung responds, "Well, you see, the type is nothing static, it changes with the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking, I always thought, from early childhood on, and I had a great deal of intuition, too. And, I had a definite difficulty with feeling. And my relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis."

Now, some people point to this interview as evidence that Jung was an INTP, arguing that the way he phrased his words indicates T-dominant, N-auxiliary, S-tertiary, and F-inferior, but, if you actually examine the bases by which they attempt to support these claims, you'll find that they're specious at best.

First, just because he says that he "was always characterized by thinking", why would we make the jump to inferring that this means he must be a T-dominant? And Ti-dominant at that? Does he ever actually indicate Ti over Te? If you're gunna use the fact that the first thing he mentioned is that he "was always characterized by thinking" as evidence that Thinking was his dominant function, then why could it not be Te, as he does not explicitly indicate one over the other (granted, most everybody agrees that he was an introvert)? More importantly, why, just because he mentioned that he "was always characterized by thinking", should we take this as ironclad evidence that he was stating that his dominant function was a T function? I could just as well, if asked, say that I have always been characterized by thinking. But I'm an Ni-dom. How could this be?!? Because I use both functions heavily, you dolt! Jung's saying that he "was always characterized by thinking" is not ironclad evidence that he was a T-dom; it can only be properly used as evidence that Thinking was always a function that he used heavily.

Second, unlike in his first observation, that he "was always characterized by thinking", in his second observation, Jung actually indicates an amount or degree to which he was characterized by iNtuition, stating that he "had a great deal of iNtuition". If you're gunna make the logical jump that just because he mentioned Thinking first, that he must be a T-dom (and a Ti-dom, at that), why would it make any less sense to make the jump that because he said he "had a great deal of intuition", that he could not be an N-dom? To make the first logical leap but not the second is to favor the fact that he mentioned Thinking first over the fact that he stated that he had a large amount of iNtuition: it's too favor order over degree/amount. I, personally, choose to do neither, as, unlike others in this thread, this is by no means my only or primary source of evidence for Jung's type; rather, I look at it from as distanced and objective as a perspective as one can, and say, "It could be evidence that he's a T-dom, and possibly a Ti-dom, but maybe not. It could, just as well, be evidence that he's an N-dom, and possibly an Ni-dom, but maybe not. What I can say is that it is evidence that both Thinking and iNtuition played a large role in his psyche."

Third, to say that one "was often at variance with the reality of things" would be an extremely fitting description, according to Jung, of an Ni-dom, for whom Se is inferior, which causes one to be "at variance with the reality of things". It is a less likely description of someone who has tertiary Si -- it's just not something one would really say to characterize that kind of person. Yes, saying that he "was often at variance with the reality of things" could be seen as evidence that Jung was just saying he was an iNtuitive, but he had already more-or-less stated that in his second observation (that he "had a great deal of intuition"). Whatever the case may be, being "at variance with the reality of things" jibes extremely well, and probably better, with the Jung's descriptions of Ni-doms in 'Psychological Types' (LINK) than it does with his description of Ti-doms.

In the last argument, I skipped over his third observation about himself and went straight to his fourth. The third thing he said about himself was that "he had great difficulty with feeling". Once again, some people (hmm, what a coincidence that they happen to be INTPs...) take this as evidence that he was a Ti-dom (Fe-inferior). But, if you look at that claim with a critical eye, how can it be strongly defended?!? All it's directly saying is that "he had great difficulty with feeling". From that, you cannot accurately infer what function his Feeling function was, and in what position it would be correctly placed. You can't. And anyone trying to say that you can is full of shit. And, just to show the absurdity of the people who try to claim from this video that Jung is definitely an INTP, consider the fact that the reasoning they use for why he is a Ti-dom is that: 1) he was an introvert; and 2) that he mentioned that he was "characterized by thinking" before he mentions any other functions. In other words, because he mentioned Thinking first, they claim that this means he was saying he was a dominant Thinker. Now here's where their idiocy reveals itself: but then, when it comes to his Feeling function, they say that he is referring to inferior Fe, even though Feeling is the third function he mentions! By their same logic as to why this video shows that Jung is a Ti-dom, it would show that he is a tertiary Feeler! There goes the notion that INTPs are masters of consistency!

In summary, to use this one video as evidence that Jung is an INTP is absurd; such a conclusion can only be reached if one takes great liberties with what can properly be inferred from it.

Perhaps little should it surprise us that the people who most readily and most often taken such liberties over the meaning of this video are INTPs trying to claim that Jung was in fact an INTP. What is most troublesome about this is the fact that these same INTPs, who would usually pride themselves on being extremely rigorous and analytical in nature, seem to completely let go of their usual critical nature when examining this video, choosing instead to stoop to a level normally beneath themselves, apparently to try to prop themselves up by showing that they are of the same type as a man they greatly revere and admire. So quickly they seem to let go of one of their supposed strengths (objectivity) for the shallow satisfaction of "proving" some sort of type-allegiance with one they greatly respect.

In addition to the points already made, it's important to take note of the fact that, right before he starts offering observations about himself, he says that "type is nothing static, it changes with the course of life".

Also, I think it is relevant to point out that typology was not as developed and was more poorly understood back when this video was made. Jung was a pioneer, breaking new ground, when he published 'Psychological Types' in 1921, and his groundbreaking work has since been greatly expanded upon. Just because the man broke the ground, does not mean that he actually understood typology better than we now do. We get to stand on his shoulders, and the shoulders of all the theorists who stood on his shoulders. Those who have a better understanding of type today are almost certainly better positioned to properly understand it than those who were at the forefront of the field back when this video was made over 50 years ago (1959). Back then, did Jung have an understanding of "tertiary temptation" or "dominant loops" (the way we now usually talk about what @Seymour, above, called "pure types")? Had he yet thrown out his original assumption that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior were all of opposite attitudinal direction to the dominant's attitude, as is now the general assumption? How well did Jung really understand the types, compared to how we understand them now?

Jung himself seemed to express in the video that he had considerable difficulty assessing his own type, stating that he "devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question".

Under these lights, we might ask not only whether Jung's type was the same throughout his entire life, but when it was that he arrived at an assessment of his type, how confident he was of his assessment, and whether or not he might have changed his assessment after this video (he did live for another couple years, and the source I reference below claims he did change his assessment after this video [which would seem to imply that his type is even distinguishable from this video in the first place, which, as I argued above, it is not]).

Lastly, I just want to add that it seems a bit suspect that Jung would offer the response that he did to Freeman's question. These videos were very prepared, and, if Jung was not explicitly made aware of what the questions would be, or even took part in writing them himself, one would not be stretching one's imagination by any means to assume that he was prepared for the question about his type. When one looks at it from this light, one must ask why he would give what is essentially an ambiguous answer. He could've just said, "I'm a dominant thinker and an intuitive", and it all would've been very clear. Considering the ambiguous answer he instead decided to offer, one might suspect that he intentionally wanted to leave the answer open. One might also question why an INTP, usually so known for their clarity of language, would give an answer that is so unclear. One might think that an answer like the one he gave would be much more fitting to an Ni-dom, as would the desire to sort of toy with his audience with such an answer...

Source 2: Alleged Conversation with Stephen Abrams

I ran across this piece of evidence while researching the question of Jung's type (LINK).

The author, Vicky Jo, who runs her own typology website, typeinsights.com, and whom I've run across on other typology forums, includes excerpts from a post and an email she supposedly received from one Stephen Abrams, who apparently had enough correspondence with Jung between 1957 and 1960 that most of the letters were published in Vol. 2 of the Jung Letters.

The post says:

Originally Posted by Stephen Abrams at typeinsights.com
It is more interesting and relevant to ask how Jung identified himself on his own typology. I have direct evidence on this point. I had a long talk with Jung at his home in Kusnacht on the morning of December 18th, 1959. I was aged 21, a Fellow of the Bollingen Foundation, and had been corresponding with Jung since 1957. I said, innocently, and in passing, “I must be what you call a thinking type.” He immediately broke in and said. “No you are an introverted intuitive type” and then he added, “just like me”. This meant, of course, that I could read Jung knowing that his prejudice coincided with mine.
Now, this meeting between Abrams and Jung, if it did actually occur, would have taken place after the filming of the interview above, so, if this man is actually Abrams, and if what Abrams is saying is true, then either Jung was rather ambiguous (either intentionally or not) about his type in the BBC interview, or he changed his mind about his type afterward, because to say, "No [you are not a thinking type] you are an introverted intuitive type, just like me" is to call oneself some type of Ni-dom, in no uncertain terms.

Now, I understand that a post and an email supposedly sent from an old man who supposedly corresponded and personally met with Jung might seem like questionable sources, but I certainly don't think it would be proper to just discount this evidence entirely, either.

I recently tried to reach out to Vicky Jo, to see if she could get in further contact with Mr. Abrams. I will post if I receive a reply.

Source 3: Jung's Mysticism, Symbolism, and Religiosity

Jung's beliefs, writing, and philosophy are noted for their highly mystic, symbolic, and religious nature; in fact, those are largely the hallmarks of Jung's thought. Mysticism and symbolism are, without a doubt, more readily and accurately associated with introverted iNtuition than they are with introverted Thinking; and religiosity is far more associated with INFJs than INTJs and INTPs.

Quoting from the comments section of the website I linked to above:

Originally Posted by Mike @ typeinsights.com
As an INTP, I was always a bit tepid on the idea that Jung was my type. He was so much broader in his imagining and mysticism (dare I say this). An INFJ or INTJ seemed more likely.
As such, I argue that, while Jung was indeed a heavy Ti-user, he was in fact an Ni-dominant. He led with Ni, but was primarily supported by Ti.

This is basically the same as saying what Seymour was getting at in his post, calling Jung a "pure type", except it's substituting this notion of "pure type" (which, imo, is antiquated) with the idea of the "dominant loop" (NiTi) or "tertiary temptation" (poorly developed auxiliary Fe, but highly developed tertiary Ti) of an INFJ.

Source 4: 'The Red Book'

Apparently, in the years leading up to World War I, Jung was having recurring nightmares and visions of impending disaster and chaos. He thought he was going insane, and so decided to record his suspected descent into madness on paper (which forms the basis of much of ‘The Red Book’) but then WWI broke out, and Jung came to believe that he had actually been intuiting the impending war.

That sounds a lot like an Ni vision foretelling the future, if you ask me…

Source 5: Freud

Freud is said to have opined to Jung that Freud felt he himself was generally unpopular and disliked by those around him, while he felt Jung was, by contrast, very popular and well regarded by those who knew him. Now, this is certainly open for interpretation, and what I’m about to say is by no means the only possibility, but I think this more likely points to Jung being an INFJ than it does to his possibly being an INTJ or an INTP, since INFJs are usually better with people, due to Fe being in the auxiliary.

Source 6: Me

I'm not an INFJ, so saying that Jung is probably an INFJ does not have to do with me trying to boost my own ego in some lame, Jung-is-the-same-type-as-me kinda way (granted, by saying he is an INFJ, that would make me his Jungian "cousin", but, that's really not a strong enough association to go around building my own ego on).

Here is my take from various places on the internet:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra @ personalityjunkie.com
A.J.,

Excellent article.

I’ve happened upon your site numerous times in the past, and each time I do, I enjoy the material presented.

I actually voted before I read your article, as I already had my belief about Jung’s type, and wanted to cast my vote before possibly being persuaded to some other belief by your write-up, but, as I got to the end, I found you concluded on the same type for Jung as I had.

Along with the points you have already made, a few other anecdotal points I have found relevant are:

1) INFJs are the strongest thinkers among the NFs, due to tertiary Ti (which, imo, is “stronger” than tertiary Te), and this would best explain Jung’s highly analytical nature, while still respecting his apparent Fness.

2) INFJs have such a high tendency towards the religious, spiritual, and symbolic, it would just seem appropriate that the importance Jung placed on such matters would be highly reflective of an INFJ’s temperament.

3) Freud is said to have opined to Jung that Freud felt he was generally unpopular and disliked by those around him, while he felt Jung was, by contrast, very popular and well regarded by those who knew him. Now, this is certainly open for interpretation, and what I’m about to say is by no means the only possibility, but I think this likely points to Jung having well developed Fe, which, while not not discounting the possibility of INFP, does more strongly suggest he was an INFJ.

I have another piece of anecdotal evidence regarding his writing style, but until I’ve read more of his works and had the opportunity to better reflect on the matter, I’ll refrain from offering my thoughts on that one.

Anyway, great article, and I look forward to further exploring your website.
Originally Posted by Zarathustra @ typeinsights.com
I’m an INTJ, and I actually think Jung was probably an INFJ.

I think his words in that interview with Freeman that some take to mean he considered himself an INTP demonstrate that he was likely a Ti-user, but, as Mark (an INTP) says above, Jung “was so much broader in his imagining and mysticism” than is at all typical, or expected, for an INTP, and this mysticism and symbolism all, in my opinion, reveals Jung’s heavy usage of Ni.

A combination of Ti and Ni would seem to point to the dominant loop (i.e., “tertiary temptation”) of either an INFJ or an ISTP.

I would argue that, in light of the fact that symbolism and mysticism are two of the hallmarks of Jung’s work, and that these are both far more associated with Ni than Ti, that he was actually an Ni-dom and a Ti-tert, and that he was thus an INFJ, not an ISTP.

Further evidence for this interpretation would be Freud’s opinion that people always liked Jung much more than him, that people seemed to naturally dislike Freud but naturally liked Jung. This would be better explained by Jung’s being an INFJ than his being an ISTP, due to Fe being in the auxiliary for an INFJ and the inferior for an ISTP, and the resultant observation that INFJs are usually good with people, while ISTPs are often very bad with people.

INTJ is another possibility, but, as an INTJ myself, I feel like Jung’s writing is more reflective of Ti (long, convoluted) than Te (short, blunt). [I also don't think an INTJ would be that likely to be so well-received by others as Freud made Jung out to be.]

Vicky, is there any chance that Mr. Abrams might know or have an opinion or quote on whether Jung was an INTJ or INFJ? Thanks.
Source 7: The Experts

I'm not a big fan of David Keirsey, but he postulates what I have already argued, that Jung is some type of Ni-dom: he just stops at INxJ. John Beebe, one of the foremost developers of Jungian typology (and an ENTP), thinks that Jung is an INxJ (I believe he thinks INFJ). Angelo Spoto, author of 'Jung's Typology in Perspective', also thinks Jung is an INxJ.

Source 8: Everybody Else

By extension, I believe the proper move here is to largely discount the opinions of people who say that Jung is the same type as them (as that might be due to them wanting Jung to be associated with their type), and look at the collective opinions of those who think Jung is of some type other than their own. From all the sources I've scoured on the internet, the type that is most often postulated as Jung's type, putting aside those who claim that Jung is of their type, is INFJ.

Source 9: The Internet

http://celebritytypes.com/
http://personalityjunkie.com/2009/12...ntj-or-infp-2/
http://personalitycafe.com/infj-foru...rson-list.html
http://improveyoureq.blogspot.com/20...er-hadley.html
http://www.theintrovertzcoach.com/famous_INFJ.html
http://www.bemyastrologer.com/jungs_...xperience.html
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...atrices/50838-what-mbti-type-carl-jung-6.html
page 6, first comment.

@Paladin-X, your argument is addressed in the first few paragraphs.
@Brontosaurie, would you let me know what you think, if you have the time?
@Everyone else! Read and argue!


please read the spoiler!!
 

TheScornedReflex

(Per) Version of a truth.
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:51
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
1,910
#15
There is a spoiler option. Saves unnecessary scrolling. Dispay that shit!
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#17
I don't have a problem with taking an analytical approach to understanding someone's personality but do you really think an 80 year old man is going to "code" his answer so that nearly no one can understand it not to mention the speed that he would have to organize all those thoughts and project them in a way that people could understand. Honestly if I were to guess I would say he is just calling it like he sees it and nothing more.

I'm not going to go into all the things that I thought that the post didn't make sense but here is one of them. Why would he go out of his way to make it appear that he was going in order when he really wasn't. Meaning it looked like he was saying Thinking is my dominant function, iNtuition is my second, Feeling is my last and Perception is somewhere in the middle. I don't know about you guys but that's pretty much how I talk. I touch on the biggest point first then the second then the last then whatever is left.

Rereading my last paragraph I see how true this really is when it comes to organizing thoghts and then talking.

[Edit] And my conclusion is that it is damn near impossible to type people.
 
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#22
He is one of the most obvious intuitives there is, istp is out of the question. His lifestyle and his work method makes it obvious he relys on ni and struggles with se.
His thinking function is introverted, for reasons previously mentioned.

Ie INFJ. The Only other type worth considering is INTP, but i think it can be ruled out with evidence of Fe, gonna need to find that evidence tho. Will get back to this.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#23
Source 3: Jung's Mysticism, Symbolism, and Religiosity

Jung's beliefs, writing, and philosophy are noted for their highly mystic, symbolic, and religious nature; in fact, those are largely the hallmarks of Jung's thought. Mysticism and symbolism are, without a doubt, more readily and accurately associated with introverted iNtuition than they are with introverted Thinking; and religiosity is far more associated with INFJs than INTJs and INTPs.

Quoting from the comments section of the website I linked to above:

Originally Posted by Mike @ typeinsights.com
As an INTP, I was always a bit tepid on the idea that Jung was my type. He was so much broader in his imagining and mysticism (dare I say this). An INFJ or INTJ seemed more likely.
As such, I argue that, while Jung was indeed a heavy Ti-user, he was in fact an Ni-dominant. He led with Ni, but was primarily supported by Ti.

This is basically the same as saying what Seymour was getting at in his post, calling Jung a "pure type", except it's substituting this notion of "pure type" (which, imo, is antiquated) with the idea of the "dominant loop" (NiTi) or "tertiary temptation" (poorly developed auxiliary Fe, but highly developed tertiary Ti) of an INFJ.
Well, religious people, who number at least 3 billion of the 6.5 billion people on this planet, believe in mystical ideas like god(s), the soul and the afterlife. Are you contending that they must all be NFs?

Perhaps you content, as many have suggested, that they are all Sensors, who just believe what they are told. But then, how do we explain all the very deep writings on mysticism and on science, philosophy, legislation, business and practical thinking, that so many, many Islamic, Jewish and Xian thinkers wrote, and suggested new ideas on both rational matters, and on mystical matters?

Are we to pretend that so many hundreds of thousands of books, that were authored by people writing on both NT-ish and NF-ish matters, that we have all read, simply do not exist?
 
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#24
He doesn't just write on spiritual matters or agree with common spiritual norms, he is spiritual as a person. That's a big difference, you're attacking a straw man by comparing him to anyone religious. Religious does not equate spiritual.
 

Abe

So many witty things to say, so few people to tell
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
76
Location
Here
#25
Here's a quick thought...
Maybe Jung didn't want people to know. What if he never confirmed his type on purpose so that no specific type would have the audacity to claim that they were better, simply because the founder of this thing was their type.
 
Local time
Today, 15:51
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#26
He doesn't just write on spiritual matters or agree with common spiritual norms, he is spiritual as a person. That's a big difference, you're attacking a straw man by comparing him to anyone religious. Religious does not equate spiritual.
what does spiritual mean other than "deep", "unique" or "thoughtful"?

something to do with considering that the absolute inane stupidity of religion may actually be valid? being "agnostic" in that superior way where you don't wanna call yourself an atheist cause it sounds too "judgmental"? self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" smeared on every bypasser?

or perhaps using feeling more than thinking yet being intellectual?

TimeAsylum: i can't offer you any opinion beyond agreeing with what's been said. except for the "broader in scope of imagination part" which i reject for pure ego reasons.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#27
well then, I guess we're deeming him INFJ.
If anyone would care to reject this, I would like to see a comprehensive argument as the one posted in the spoiler.
 
Local time
Today, 15:51
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#28
well then, I guess we're deeming him INFJ.
If anyone would care to reject this, I would like to see a comprehensive argument as the one posted in the spoiler.
yes. i believe there is a stronger case to be made for that. the only sign of IxTP is his self-typing, really. one might argue that he made the system and that his verdict is to be taken as precedent of sorts. in the "legal" sense that is. naturally he is a causal precedent.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#29
yes. i believe there is a stronger case to be made for that. the only sign of IxTP is his self-typing, really. one might argue that he made the system and that his verdict is to be taken as precedent of sorts.
Yes, but an argument against what you are saying is made in there too:
Ok so Jung SAID:
-I'm certainly characterized by Thinking
-I have a great deal of intuition
-I have trouble with feeling

Now, like (99/100) posts agree he's I>E

So, if you seriously want to take this leap (that is, heavily assuming he was going in order of dominant, instead of just out rightly saying so
then you can "ASSUME" he said Ti>Ne, BUT THEN, he says feeling third, not fourth, nor does he say a forth, and people can have trouble with their tert, but if we are still going in order then that warrants Ti>Ne>Fi> (because we know the dominant we can infer the inferior as well): Ti>Ne>Fi>Se, but most people are saying because he had 'trouble' with feeling that it's his inferior, so we are already assuming he was speaking in order (which is only a little far fetched, but then choosing where to put feeling is even more far fetched).

So two narrow-ish conclusions you might draw from that video would indeed be:
Ti>Ne>Fi>Se (INTJ)
or
Ti>Ne>Si>Fe (INTP)
but you must also agree you had to make some leaps.
(eliminating ISTP, I mean c'mon).
One argument you might make though is why would an INFJ have trouble with feeling in their auxilary? We would have to assume an overdeveloped tert Ti, but Dr Aj Drenth (Personality Junkie) also lists Jung as an INFJ, (Ni>Fe>Ti>Se).

note: none of these are really my 'personal' arguments, I just restated what was in the spoiler

Don't get me wrong, I wanna know lol.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#30

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#32
I'm pretty confident by now that we'll never satisfactorily answer this question. He typed himself as some type of thinker if I recall, but the debate tends to end up in either INFJ or INTP, both of which posses Ti. INFJ's can be nicely analytical at times.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:51
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#33
But it's not impossible. You just need enough data.
Well, religious people, who number at least 3 billion of the 6.5 billion people on this planet, believe in mystical ideas like god(s), the soul and the afterlife. Are you contending that they must all be NFs?

Perhaps you content, as many have suggested, that they are all Sensors, who just believe what they are told. But then, how do we explain all the very deep writings on mysticism and on science, philosophy, legislation, business and practical thinking, that so many, many Islamic, Jewish and Xian thinkers wrote, and suggested new ideas on both rational matters, and on mystical matters?

Are we to pretend that so many hundreds of thousands of books, that were authored by people writing on both NT-ish and NF-ish matters, that we have all read, simply do not exist?
Here's a quick thought...
Maybe Jung didn't want people to know. What if he never confirmed his type on purpose so that no specific type would have the audacity to claim that they were better, simply because the founder of this thing was their type.
I'm pretty confident by now that we'll never satisfactorily answer this question. He typed himself as some type of thinker if I recall, but the debate tends to end up in either INFJ or INTP, both of which posses Ti. INFJ's can be nicely analytical at times.

@everyone I quoted, You all make good points and IMO I think the only thing that matters is how one types ones self.
 
Local time
Today, 15:51
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
11
Location
Germany
#34
INFJ is obvious from his bad Te and Si descriptions in Psychological Types.

Yeah, that's what I've arrived at as well. His work definitely shows Ni, but not in the "mature" fashion as from a Ni-dom.
Ehhh nope :confused: his writing style is totally Ni-dom.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#36
He doesn't just write on spiritual matters or agree with common spiritual norms, he is spiritual as a person. That's a big difference, you're attacking a straw man by comparing him to anyone religious. Religious does not equate spiritual.
For a lot of people, such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas of Acquinas, the Baal Shem Tov, the Chassidic Rabbis, the Sufis, and millions of others, the 2 were the same. Such people frequently wrote about how religion is not a matter of lip service, but a spiritual yearning for a deep spiritual connection with the divine.

Not everyone in history came to a deep spiritual connection via a religion. But that was always known. Religions were vehicles for spirituality that helped many, and others found their own way.

A lot of people today, however, have a strong belief in individualism when it comes to personal beliefs, and believe that all organised and communal methods of helping each other attain greater spirituality are automatically a rejection of their current desire to re-invent existing concepts as if they invented what has been said and done many times before. They see religion as "the enemy", the invisible boogeyman who they can blame for the problems of society.

Jung said:
I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life.

Source
Jung may or may not have been religious. That is something that currently, I do not know. But I do know that this quote shows that he thought of a "religious outlook" in the same way as people like yourself think of spirituality.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#37

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#39
Yes, but an argument against what you are saying is made in there too:
Ok so Jung SAID:
-I'm certainly characterized by Thinking
-I have a great deal of intuition
-I have trouble with feeling

Now, like (99/100) posts agree he's I>E

So, if you seriously want to take this leap (that is, heavily assuming he was going in order of dominant, instead of just out rightly saying so
then you can "ASSUME" he said Ti>Ne, BUT THEN, he says feeling third, not fourth, nor does he say a forth, and people can have trouble with their tert, but if we are still going in order then that warrants Ti>Ne>Fi> (because we know the dominant we can infer the inferior as well): Ti>Ne>Fi>Se, but most people are saying because he had 'trouble' with feeling that it's his inferior, so we are already assuming he was speaking in order (which is only a little far fetched, but then choosing where to put feeling is even more far fetched).
Well, there are a few ways to look at that:

1) He was laying out the order of the functions. but I gather that he pitted the inferior against the superior, with N against S, and T against F.

2) He was laying out how much he was conscious of his functions, just like how some INTJs have developed their Fi, and others their Se. Then he'd be a Ti-dom, with inferior Fe better developed than tertiary Si. As he was raised by a minister, and had to struggle with family issues with his mother's mental health from a child, that would not be too surprising to those who also had such issues in their family. Might be surprising for those who've never had to wrestle with such issues.

So two narrow-ish conclusions you might draw from that video would indeed be:
Ti>Ne>Fi>Se (INTJ)
or
Ti>Ne>Si>Fe (INTP)
Those only differentiate by the functions of the subconscious, which as Jung pointed out, tend to be primitive and archaic. Then INTJs would be people who are often indecisive and who aren't that ambitious by nature, but who are self-motivated about the things that they don't think about and are handled by the subconscious, and INTPs would be people who are often indecisive and who aren't that ambitious by nature, but who are motivated to help others about the things that they don't think about and are handled by the subconscious. Then the difference between INTJs and INTPs lies not in what they say and do deliberately, but what they omit to say, and forget to do. Then MBTI would be a typology of the unconscious mind, of the things that we aren't even aware of. Then anyone here couldn't type themselves, because their type would be dependent on what they can't directly perceive in themselves, and others could mostly not type them either, unless they had known them so well, that they knew the inner workings of their subconscious in great detail, of the things that they keep mostly hidden. Only the few that have known them their whole lives might stand a chance to type them, and they often know nothing of typology.

In both cases, the conscious judging function is introverted, which according to the normal way to type with MBTI, would make him a P in both cases.

One argument you might make though is why would an INFJ have trouble with feeling in their auxilary? We would have to assume an overdeveloped tert Ti, but Dr Aj Drenth (Personality Junkie) also lists Jung as an INFJ, (Ni>Fe>Ti>Se).
True. But look at his analysis:

Jung’s Personality Type: INTP, INFJ, INTJ, or INFP?

He only considers the INxx types:
Drenth said:
There is little doubt that Carl Jung was both an introvert and a strong intuitive.
Drenth says that
Drenth said:
Jung was far too analytical, systematic, and attentive to detail to qualify as an INFP.
Drenth says about INTP:
Drenth said:
The fact that INFP is Jung’s least likely type doesn’t bode well for the INTP. Though Jung was seemingly very even-handed and adaptable in his writing, his work seems more consistent with that of a judger than perceiver. Since INTPs are often right-brained thinkers, they are frequently attracted to monistic (a TP quality) and holistic (an NP quality) explanations. They tend to be more interested in synthesis (the unified whole) than analysis (the parts), finding connections between disparate elements and uniting them under a single theoretical umbrella.

Jung was both deeply analytical and pluralistic in his thinking. Although a student of Eastern religions, he seemed to retain a more marked degree of delineation between what was human and what was divine than is typical of monistic perspectives, such as Buddhism. Jung also articulated a pluralistic psychology comprised of numerous psychological archetypes and symbols, a sort of inner Platonic realm. He saw these symbols as deeply meaningful and integral to human spirituality. INTPs, in contrast, are more apt to emphasize the unity of mind and body, as commonly described in Buddhist metaphysics.
I am quite surprised by this. First, because he suggests that monism in entirely incompatible with pluralism, as suggested by Stanford here. Monistic concepts suggest that everything comes from a single central concept. Standford suggests that pluralists believe that there are multiple central concepts. This then would suggest that polytheists are pluralists, while monotheists are monists. This is a problem, because pluralists often think that there are many roads to the same ineffable truth, which suggests that they are monists as well, only that they are pluralists about the external concepts, but monists when it comes to their central causes. The IT equivalent is where you have many subclasses coming from the same abstract base class. In Drenth's view, this can never be, that there cannot be 2 descendants from the same central ancestor, a denial of the principle of the evolution of species. I doubt that Drenth is against evolutionary theory. But there is a huge logical contradiction here.

Second, Drenth seems to see Ne as being holistic, and Ni as being analytic. I'm quite surprised at this, because a number of INTJs on INTJf have pointed out to me several times, that Ni is extremely holistic.

Third, he suggests that NPs are not analytic. But INTPs have Ti, and Ti is considered as a core of logic, and logic is considered almost entirely analytic by nature.

Effectively, he is describing INTPs as being focussed on the big picture, but not worrying too much about the details. One thing that I have learned about INTJs on INTJf, is that they are always focussed on the big picture, and tend to believe that the details can be sorted out later, and find difficulties with INTPs, because they so often focus on the inconsistencies in the details that seem to contradict the big picture. The way he describes INTPs, is actually the way that INTJs tend to describe themselves.

Drenth said:
Another argument against deeming Jung an INTP is his body type. Jung sported a rather large and imposing physical frame, distinct from the characteristically ectomorphic (i.e., elongated, narrow, lighter-weight) body type commonly found among INTPs.
I find this surprising. First, because he supposes that body type is an automatic predictor of type, but also, because he suggests that INTPs have the tall skinny frame, that is the body type of many, many INTJs on INTJf.

Here is why Drenth types Jung as INFJ:
Drenth said:
Though difficult to prove unequivocally, It is my assertion that Jung was actually an INFJ rather than an INTJ. The most compelling reason for this, in my view, is Jung’s ineluctable attraction to religion and spirituality. While he was no stranger to scientific thought, Jung consistently reiterated his belief that attempts at pure objectivity, hyperrationality, and scientism had left humanity in a rather disenchanted and dismal state. So rather than endorsing the scientific salvation narrative, Jung turned to religion and psychology. He felt that the overarching problem in his psychiatric clientele was a lack of purpose and meaning in life. For the vast majority of individuals, Jung believed that a religious solution was essential for restoring their psychological health and vitality.

While it would be unfair to suggest that INTJs are not religious or interested in spiritual matters, for Jung, these were matters of ultimate importance. If Jung had been a strong thinking type, it seems likely that his penetrating intellect would have led him to study mathematics, the sciences, or philosophy. Instead, he opted to devote the majority of his efforts toward humanistic and religious topics, those which are most commonly embraced by feeling types. Even a cursory exploration of career demographics suggest that religious vocations are of marked and frequent interest to INFJs, while falling lower on the priority list for INTJs. It is also worth noting Jung’s regular use of “art therapy,” both personally as well as with his clients, which is certainly consistent with an INFJ designation.
Drenth types Jung on the basis of his interests, and not his approach to those interests.

Accordingly, what Jung is saying, is that because I chose to study maths as a degree, and do IT, then I must be an INTP, while any INTP that has an interest in psychology or any NF-related subjects, would have to be an INFJ.

If what he is saying is true, then we don't really need to understand someone at all, to know their type, and understand how they think. We only have to look at their job and hobbies, to know how they think. Accordingly, what he is saying, if true, suggests that all mathematicians think the same way, and all psychologists think the same way. It's as if Newton and Cantor were the same person, and Jung was Freud were exactly the same type, and thought identically. But we can see that is clearly not the case.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#40
I used to think that Einstein was an INTP, until I read this:

Here is what Albert Einstein had to say about intuition:

The really valuable thing is intuition. The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.

There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.


Source
I find it quite incredulous, that any Ti-dom would say that the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. Ti is HOW Ti-doms figure things out.

Also, to say that "The really valuable thing is intuition" sounds like something that only an Ni-dom or Ne-dom would say.

Also, to say "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant", sounds very much as if someone thinks of thinking as being a servant and helper to intuition, which is exactly how Jung describes the auxiliary function, and that suggests N-dom with T-aux.

When I read this, I became suddenly convinced that Einstein had to be an INFJ, because of how others pointed out how he clearly had Fe. But re-reading this, he sounds more like an N-dom, with T-aux, either an INTJ or an ENTP.

Come to think of it, ENTP would still have Fe.

Still not 100% sure, as this did throw me for a loop. Mind you, this could be possible, if he approached physics as a physicist with a background in mathematics. Come to think of it, I read in a biography of his about 20 years ago, that he said that the difference between him and his peers, was that they studied physics as a degree, while he studied physics with a history of mathematics, much the same as would be considered majoring in physics with a minor in a history of mathematics in American universities. That would be a physicist with a background in mathematics.
 

TimeAsylums

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
3,129
#41
I used to think that Einstein was an INTP, until I read this:

...

Come to think of it, ENTP,
Shhhh!!!:twisteddevil: at one point in time drenth had einstein on the entp page, prob removed due to controversy...

Myersbriggs and celebritytypes peg einstein as intp, but back when drenth advocated entp..can't even find any trace of einstein mention on pj (hence why I mentioned drenth to archie bc they have personal correpondence)

Since archie loves physiological symptoms,..
Einsteins wear/hair, thats inferior si not tert si
You said he wasnt a particularly smart intp, just LUCKY.
E
N
T
P
 
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#42
What personality type was ...?
After reading this thread, whose opinion am I to trust here?

If I trust YOUR opinion, am I an xSxx because I trust YOU? Am I an xxFx because I trust? Am I an Exxx because I want to talk to you about this? Am I an xxxJ because I favor your opinion?
 
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
Location
Minnesota
#43
I just finished the book "Compass of the Soul" by John Giannini (Amazing!) and he types Jung as INTJ.

If you look at his life (the 'Red Book' period)...I mean - what is he doing all the while? ...while having his nervous break down?...thinking - iT (dominant for INTP) or intuiting - iN(dominant for INTJ)...the more I thought about it the more it seems to me his insight...his genius is dominant Introverted Intuition.

Also Jung wrote on typology fairly early in his career and then kind of left it alone to explore and describe his psychology. He was still and advocate of typology until the end...but didn't pursue it...instead in encouraged the work of Meyers and Briggs.

As introverted thinkers...thinkers about thinking...we like refining the system...the map the model...we want the perfect word...see and articulate the hidden relationships...while introverted intuitive busy themselves with finding novel and ingenuous new ways of interpreting reality...I kinda think he was INTJ...but if the guy says he was probably INTP...well...that defeats that theory...you'd presume he'd be able to type himself...having originally described the polarities and all...

yup it's a pickle :confused:
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#44
I was just using my new method for typing to analyse Jung. What I saw in his books, from the random passages I turned to, was about 50% Ti with the rest a mix of Ne, Si and Fe so I strongly believe that Jung was INTP and this agrees with his self-typing.
 
Local time
Today, 06:51
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
95
#45
The first thing you have to clarify if you want to type Jung is: under whose system? Do you mean the result Jung would have gotten if he'd taken the MBTI, or a (possibly different) type based on the cognitive functions? And if you mean the latter, are you talking about Jung's conception of the functions, or the substantially different (in many respects) function descriptions/model that modern theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi use?

Myers acknowledged that most Jung scholars (all but one! she confessed) believed that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude — and you can (in case you're interested) read a lot more about that in this post. I think Myers was wrong — and the majority of Jung scholars were right — although it wasn't a very significant mistake from Myers' perspective since, although she gave the functions quite a lot of lip service in the first half of Gifts Differing, she then essentially left them behind in favor of the dichotomies.

For the reasons discussed in that linked post, I'd say the only interpretation that's really supportable in light of all the relevant passages in Psychological Types is that Jung's function model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary (for example) was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — with Ne being a Ti-dom's default, unconscious form of N and Ni being the form that N would take to the extent that the Ti-dom differentiated it and brought it into conscious, directed use as the auxiliary function.

It's clear that Jung viewed himself as a "rational type" (i.e., J-dom) at the time he wrote Psychological Types (because he told us that), and I really don't think there's any doubt that means Jung viewed himself as a Ti-dom at that time. And judging by the way he described rational types (and, to a lesser extent, introverts), I suspect that the fact that he viewed himself as a Ji-dom means he would have tested as an MBTI J if he'd ever taken the MBTI. If you read through Psychological Types looking for two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world descriptions that seem to line up reasonably well with the MBTI J/P dimension, you'll mostly find them in Jung's descriptions of the J-doms and P-doms. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."

Here's a link to Part 3 of an interview done with John Freeman when Jung (born in 1875) was 84. Forward to around 8:40 and you can watch this exchange:

JF: Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?

Jung: (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.

JF: And reached a conclusion?

Jung: Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.​

So Jung was clear about his N and T preferences, and was clearly introverted (as I understand it), but sheepishly confessed that he'd found his own type to be a "painful question," which suggests to me that, at least during some phase of his life, he must have wrestled with the issue of whether he was a Ti-dom with an N-aux or an Ni-dom with a T-aux — comparable (you could argue) to the confusion of all those forumites who wonder if they're INTJ or INTP.

Because of the way he describes his preferences in the interview, he seems to be pointing to Ti-dom with N-aux, and that's the way he's most commonly typed. But if you take a look at this page, you'll see Vicky Jo's "news flash" to the effect that Jung reportedly told Stephen Abrams (a Jung scholar) in 1959 that he was an "introverted intuitive." And, in this follow-up report, Vicki Jo quotes Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's prize pupils) declaring that Jung was an N-dom.

As a side note, I think it's pretty clear Jung was Limbic (neurotic) on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension, and that he considered at least some of his neurotic characteristics part of introversion. He also viewed much of what most MBTI theorists today would tend to label the abstract/concrete component of N/S as part of I/E. So when Jung describes "introverts" in Psychological Types, his descriptions tend to be better matches for neurotic INs than for introverts in general.

Finally, on T/F... I think T/F's the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions, and arguably the one that's the most poorly captured in modern MBTI sources — and I think there's a strong case to be made that Jung didn't have all that good a grasp on how an F preference would tend to manifest itself in, say, a male (in particular) INFJ. It's not uncommon to read that Jung was an INFJ, and people making that claim often point to his mystical bent, among other characteristics more typically associated with NFs than NTs. I view INFJ as the second-most-likely type for Jung, and I'm also a believer — consistent, as I understand it, with quite a lot of MBTI and (especially) Big Five data — that it's possible to be sufficiently middle-ish on most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions that an "x" is at least arguably the best label to use. So I also think it's possible that Jung was effectively an INxJ.

If forced to choose, though, I'd choose INTJ. And as already explained, I think that typing is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with Jung's view of himself as a Ti-dom.
 
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#46
Carl Jung was,

Ti Ni - Se Fe

Jung was a friendly person but he was private. Fe types are too friendly to the point of fakeness. Ni doms like me are more open to the inner reality of the psyche but Jung is not Ne because Ne would not have visions such as Jung Did with a spirit guide (his was a little girl). In my dreams I have experienced spirit guides but my Ni is not differentiated enough yet. My dom function is Fi. My type is:

Fi Ni - Se Te

By my model Jung was

Ti looking for internally consistent logic
Ni resolute and receptive to the inner reality
---
Se all manner of heightened senses
Fe exaggerated expression to elicit affect

And I am.

Fi personal attachment with hidden sentiment
Ni resolute and receptive to the inner reality
---
Se all manner of heightened senses
Te empirically driven applied knowledge

Both of us are pure types, I have only recently come to know my inner reality but my feelings are strong and I understand the nature of pure inner feeling. I remember that when I really loved someone I saw my Anima, she was made of golden light and brighter than the sun. It was like when Jesus was transfigured but female, a glowing plasma of intense brightness and warmth and pure love. That is how I know I am Fi dom. But I have no one I can find to attach myself to. The only people I know are fictional and because my feelings are so pure I am hurt by the thought of rejection so I keep them hidden.

Jung used Ti to explore his inner reality and in that reality he saw so many good and bad things. Freud was Te and Si. His empirical investigations into his primitive instincts were upsetting to him. All his repressed tendencies, his dark side was shown to him by Si. He said to Jung that he must only follow Freud's path because of the dangers of occult forces. Si is a very dark function. Jung saw by Ti that the psyche could be explained by symmetrical sexual energies of the libido E and I. Everything he wrote followed the internal consistencies of the flow of energy.

Fi energy allows you to become your attachments, your love is inside you, she is always with you, she is not external to you. Fe energy is an external attachment, infatuation. It is just as powerful as Fi but Fe smothers others in love Fi pulls love into the core of their being. Ni energy is the internal reality as created by the void. Ni types will understand that the inner reality is them, that their own mind is creating this reality, that what they encounter is them. You can ask your subconscious show me my truth, show me what I need to see. And it will show you what is inside you. That is what Jung did. He asked god to show him what was on the inside. The little girl came to him because she represented his kindness, his infatuation for others he normally did not express.

Energy follows a path. Even though I love science I am not Te. I do not make science a religion like Te. My first function has always been Fi because stories are real to me. Fictional characters matter to me. I cry because I don't feel like I am smart or that what I do matters. I feel bad at science because nothing I do works. I am not good at thinking. All my ideas fail because they are not good enough. I don't care about math I care about my toys. I want what I do to be meaningful. I do not research stuff just to know things. My Te is unconscious.

Now that I realize that I have been repressing my dominant function Ni has begun to work more. I see things in my dreams, spirit worlds. Fi has begun to become entities. They hold me and comfort me and are more real to me than anything else I know. It may take a while but I am sure I will be able to lucid dream. I have before but I have not been as focused on my inner reality as I have the outside. Te and Ne were dominant before but that has changed. Once you can control energy it becomes hard to know which type you are. That is why Jung was not specific on his type.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
#47
@reckful: methinks you would do better to form your own view of function order through observation rather than just relying on what the experts have said, although I recognise that you may be suppressing your views in favour of what is more well documented.

@Animekitty: I think you are INTJ-Fi. I did a function analysis of you probably yesterday and what I got was Ni-Te-Fi-Se but you spend a lot of time in Fi it seems. I also had an INTJ lecturer and when he started going into Fi he reminded me of you.

I agree that at a certain point of development, it is hard to determine your type. For example, many intelligent people forgo use of I and other subjective language, having integrated the subjective and objective quite well so that what they say seems as both at once. Still, I am sure their cognitive functions shine through. But cognitive functions are just 8 ways of thinking and there are many more, and they don't capture the highest of cognition, so it is wise to keep in mind that they are part of the story, and only that.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
#48
Jung was a friendly person but he was private. Fe types are too friendly to the point of fakeness.
Fe dominants can give this impression, but not auxiliaries and certainly not inferior Fe's.

Ni doms like me are more open to the inner reality of the psyche but Jung is not Ne because Ne would not have visions such as Jung Did with a spirit guide (his was a little girl)
The view of several Ni dominants I know is that his visions were rather immature. My observation is that is true, comparing the visions of these I know and his. This would indicate a non dominant Ni.

If you read his letters, especially to Freud he mentions his process. Freud was probably an INTJ (in both his thinking and his personal life), and if you compare the two you see Jung stand out as a kind of kindred opposite (and of course they had a famous falling out). At any rate in his letters Jung is almost apologetic when he describes how he must approach problems, e.g. "from the outside in, from the whole to the part". Clearly you can see a Ne dominant or auxiliary explaining to a non-Ne how he has to approach and solve some problem. Clearly Jung wasn't a Ne dominant, which leaves Ne auxiliary. Combined with the internal logic and systemic thinking of his theories, and many other factors (how he got the Valkyries to do all his quotidian work for him, such as Von Franz), you see clue after clue.

Jung was an INTP.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 04:51
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#49
But was he the type you don't take home to mom? Or was he a gentleman with a heart of gold?

I guess we'll never know.
 

Thre

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
3
#50
Another article: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/04/jung-myers-keirsey-etc-on-jungs-type/



you might recognize a few of the big names above, Keirsey, MBTI peeps, hell, it's all over the place.

Trust me, I wold love to close this once and for all...but if even the greats^ disagree to the slightest, what can I know.
Those claims regarding Jung's mental health would make sense since he himself said he had a neurosis, made comments that he saw and heard things others did not, and his mother was committed to an asylum with the same symptoms
 
Top Bottom