Jung on the I/E dichotomy in the online Chapter X of Psychological Types:
On the reverse of I/E in the subconscious:It seems to me, that Jung expected that any reader would not take his word for it, and look at real life to see if Jung's claims stand up to scrutiny.
You're making a red herring argument. Either Jung provided data, or he didn't.
Empirical scientific studies are a way for readers to not have to bother, and simply take the scientists' word for it.
If these readers are laypeople, then logically, they ought to. Outside the ivory tower, where research is instantaneous and cost-free, the opinions of experts in a given field carry weight among the lay. Among these experts, however, skepticism must therefore be rigorous and everpresent lest the laypeople be misinformed.
In other words, the authors of empricial scientific studies intend for them to be scrutinized by their peers (hence the process of 'peer-review') and
ignored by the public until their conclusions become theory. Once the conclusions become theory, the authors of the aforementioned studies intend for them to be used by their peers and the general public until the former finds a problem with the theory, at which point the process begins anew.
And finally, the scientific method demands that experiments be repeated independently at least once to see if their results can be reliably reproduced. Indeed, taking them at face value would actually be the antithesis of the "science" that you criticize. I highly suggest reading articles on the Scientific Method and Philosophy of Science if you want to learn more. It's not hard going (I can even explain it to you if you'd like).
Jung seemed to expect more scepticism and investigative effort of his readers, than do modern scientists.
You, scorpio, have persistently presented this rationalization: not codifying and substantiating one's theories on the grounds that one's readers ought to pick up the slack is not good practice, but rather an excuse for being too lazy to be explicit and rigorous. Moreover, I'm baffled by the fact that these two virtues have not been ingrained into you by the years of mathematical experience that you claim to have. After all, mathematics, of all fields, is certainly among the hardest and the driest.
You seem to take the attitude that your conclusions are so resounding and so important that those seeking to understand and test them ought to spend time and effort that would not have been necessary had you simply taken a few minutes to state your point clearly and provided the necessary data. My intention is not to accpet your ideas true at face value, but rather to have a simple, consistent, and codified means of testing and understanding them.
For instance, supplying a link to a study to back up a point allows your reader to simply click the link and see if you have interpreted the study properly instead of spending hours hunting through the Internet for a study that they can't be certain even exists (and you, the one not posting the link, can always tell them "search harder, lazy-bones").
That's a reasonable approach. I find much use in its details. But then again, I prefer to do things Jung's way. So I use experience of life, to build a framework of where it makes sense and is consistent with the reality of people's behaviour and expressed cognition.
I do the same. I simply don't call it the MBTI/Pod'Lair/Jungian Theory, but the conjecture of the same name.
True.
But when you look at how much INTJs and INTPs talk about what scientific studies "proved" about intelligence, it's quite clear to me that even people wth your attitude towards MBTI, still accept much of the soft sciences as infallible truth, so long as it is consistent with their existing beliefs about people.
Unfortunately for your attempted disproof by contradiction, I've yet to make a claim of that nature.
Nevertheless, I'll beware any tendency to do so. Thanks!
Most who consider Freud as debunked, either never read him, and just go by rumours about him, or have their own theories they wish to become dominant. The little exposure that I personally had to Freud as a teen, made it fundamentally clear to me, that when it came to a lot of what he said, he knew what he was talking about.
Note my use of the conditional "if" statement; I never said that Freud was or was not debunked. I was questioning TimeAsylum's logic in reasoning from the axiom that Freud was.
There is plenty of data on the brain based on empirical findings, such as in neuroscientific studies. Thanks to modern MRI and fMRI machines, and MRI-based headsets, detailed brain scans happen all the time. The same is true of detailed anatomical studies of autopsies, and of what is found in those undergoing brain surgery. We dozens of thousands of scans, maybe even hundreds of thousands of scans. We have way more data than Newton or Boyle had.
Good, but to my knowledge, none of it supports the theory of cognitive functions as described by Jung et. al.
I doubt you'll find it. Jung's words suggest a different approach to science.
Call me arrogant, call me dogmatic, but "science" has no approaches; it is an "approach" in itself. The Scientific Method (which is what I presume you refer to by "science" is a step-by-step process that arrives at an inductive, empirical conclusion the same way every time. Other "approaches" are not science, but something else entirely.
Then take up Auburn's challenge, and see if they work in your observations of people IRL?
I can't quantify those observations, nor can I observe people in sufficient detail to use the theory effectively, nor is anyone even
expected to follow the archetypes perfectly. Jung's theory is unfalsifiable for reasons both practical and theoretical, rendering it unscientific.
-Duxwing
(bold) @Architect
