Once And For All; Calling All Typologists

[EyeSeeCold]

Carl Jung observed and classified 16 typical attitudes in human nature like so :
Extraverted
----Rational
--------Thinking
----------------Intuition
----------------Sensing
--------Feeling
----------------Intuition
----------------Sensing
----Irrational
--------Intuition
----------------Thinking
----------------Feeling
--------Sensing
----------------Thinking
----------------Feeling
Introverted
----Rational
--------Thinking
----------------Intuition
----------------Sensing
--------Feeling
----------------Intuition
----------------Sensing
----Irrational
--------Intuition
----------------Thinking
----------------Feeling
--------Sensing
----------------Thinking
----------------Feeling

The principle of this typical theory is that a function attitude must be followed by a dissimilar one in regards to the irrational/rational and extraverted/introverted dichotomies.

16 types is arbitrary(being theoretical, any number is possible), yet Jung's "function attitudes", plus his "general attitudes", is a consistent theoretical system.

As a theoretical subset of psychology, the Jungian typology system and Socionics (or any other system for that matter), do not need scientific proof of its types or postulations, regardless of that fact, they can be applied to reality. As recurrent phenomena, these 16 types have come to be widely accepted as existent, through empirical evidence. What has not been accepted universally are the postulations of how, exactly, do these types manifest and what claims can be said about the psychology and behavior of these types.

Isabel Myers adapted Carl Jung's work and created a new dichotomy for her questionnaire, called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This new dichotomy added another dimension to Jung's 16 types and altered what Jung called "Rational" and "Irrational" to Judging and Perceiving, respectively, which measure something different from what Jung intended - how these types interact with the external world. Thus Myers' types are not the same theoretical types as Jung's, even though both systems intend to represent the same phenomena.

MBTI:
Judging
----Extrovert
--------iNtuition
----------------Feeling
----------------Thinking
--------Sensing
----------------Feeling
----------------Thinking
----Introvert
--------Feeling
----------------iNtuition
----------------Sensing
--------Thinking
Perceiving
----Extrovert
--------iNtuition
----------------Feeling
----------------Thinking
--------Sensing
----------------Feeling
----------------Thinking
----Introvert
-------Feeling
----------------iNtuition
----------------Sensing
-------Thinking
----------------iNtuition
----------------Sensing

This explicitly contradicts Jung's theory of the types, because of it, Myers offers a different understanding: The idea that Irrational types have extraverted perception, and Rationals have extraverted judgment. Thus if we were to use the MBTI Four Letter Code, Socionics Three Letter Code and MBTI function order, Jung and Myers conflict like so, for example:

MBTI/Keirsey = Ni-Te-Fi-Se = Judging, Intuitive-Thinking Introvert = INTJ
Jungian = Ni-Te-Fi-Se = Irrational, Intuitive-Thinking Introvert = INTP
Socionics = Ni-Te-Fi-Se = Irrational, Intuitive Logical Introtim = INTP
Pod'Lair = Ni-Te-Fi-Se = Directive, Cerebral Subjective Perceiver = INTJ or //(#)

Thus, we can conclude:
MBTI types = Pod'Lair types =/= Socionics types = Jungian types

QED.

MBTI intends to test for Jung's types but because of the added J/P dichotomy, it actually ends up changing the types. In the process of explaining function attitudes and type characteristics, over time, this had led Myers, and later interpretors, to skew what would be the original function concepts, semantics and overall type behavior.

This fact is true regardless of acknowledging the accuracy of the visual identification of Pod'Lair or any other system. Since Socionics is the only system to regard Jung's original system, it is the theory to most represent the 16 types that all these systems intend to classify.

 

[Adymus]

Okay ESC, let's back track on your certainty here:


Ignoring the Fact that Pod'lair is not at all equal to MBTI, I wouldn't be spending my time here correcting MBTI's work if that was not true...

Your assumptions are ultimately that Jung is unquestionably correct. All that you have really proven is that MBTI and Socionics or even perhaps the original Jungian Model have inconsistencies. This is true, they do have inconsistencies.

Your utter lapse in logic begins when you conclude from this that MBTI and Pod'lair are therefor wrong, because you still have yet to prove that Socionics and Jung's assumptions were actually right.

Pod'lair is actually not based on either Jung or MBTI, so there is no reason that it should match up to their work in the first place, it is an entirely separate model. So proving Pod'lair is not consistent with Jung is completely irrelevant, because our work is neither based on Jung, nor dependent on Jung's Calculations.

The only way that your argument could be true is if Jung was unquestionably and undeniable accurate, which is absolutely absurd.

If Jung never had a way to actually prove his work, that is physically verify his work. To ensure that you assumptions are valid, you need a control, a way to verify that what you say is true is undeniably true.

Until you find that, you're just full of hot air, and you are many steps behind Pod'lair which actually does have a control as it is based on Physical Manifestations.

Done!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My argument here is pure theory. Purely in a theoretical sense, Pod'Lair, MBTI, and KTS have skewed perspectives of Jung's types. No wrong or rights. I'm speaking nothing of practicality, yet. So for now the self-evident truth is that Socionics is closer to Jung. Agreed?

 

[Adymus]

Sure, why not.

I've been saying from the beginning that Pod'lair is not based on Jung, this is not news ESC.

If you want to blindly cling onto Jung and dismiss everything that is not 100% consistent with his work, be my guest.

 

[dark]

From all I have read is that EyeSeeCold is arguing that the only typology that is actually following Jung's theory is Socionics and he presents his logic above.

I am sure he isn't saying Jung is right since I do keep seeing the word "theory" floating around.

Also we have heard that Pod'Lair and MBTI aren't the same, but we do know that their is a conversion table since people have compared them, which I am going to assume this conversion is not perfect since it works upon two different ideologies. So this only means that Pod'Lair, if to be taken as comparable to MBTI, is not in conjunction with Jung, which we cannot definitively prove if his observations had truth just yet. Yet again since Pod'Lair has different terms and ideas I am sure it can some how adapt itself to Jung's theory without the use of MBTI or Socionics. We are only evolving an idea and someday we can only hope it will become truth. Without competition there would be no evolution among ideas.

 

[dark]

@Adymus, just to make sure I am not seeing some flaw in logic, were you either the person or part of the team that created Pod'Lair? If so then the statement:

Pod'lair is actually not based on either Jung or MBTI, so there is no reason that it should match up to their work in the first place, it is an entirely separate model. So proving Pod'lair is not consistent with Jung is completely irrelevant, because our work is neither based on Jung, nor dependent on Jung's Calculations.

will make sense logically. But if you are only a follower/researcher of the ideology then you cannot logically make that claim. The only person that can truly make that claim would be the person coming up with the idea, and if that person turns out to be you, then all the more impressive.

I am all for learning everything but I dislike statements as such since it is hard to really determine another persons motives or reasoning without actually being inside their head.

 

[Adymus]

@Adymus, just to make sure I am not seeing some flaw in logic, were you either the person or part of the team that created Pod'Lair?

Yes, part of the team.

 

[Adymus]

From all I have read is that EyeSeeCold is arguing that the only typology that is actually following Jung's theory is Socionics and he presents his logic above.

No I'm pretty sure that is not all that he was suggesting, otherwise he would have worded is argument as "MBTI or Pod'lair is not consistent with Jung", as opposed to "MBTI and Pod'lair are based on Misconceptions." Because to assume they are indeed misconceptions is to assume Jung was right in the first place.

And then he went on about how he is going to expose Pod'lair's "Flaws"

but being inconsistent Jung is not a flaw, being inconsistent with facts is a flaw. Jung's work are by no means facts.

No, I'm very sure this argument was not about Pod'lair simply not being consistent with Jung, if it was the argument would have ended as soon as I said "Pod'lair is not based on Jung."

 

[tikru]

Okay ESC, let's back track on your certainty here:


Ignoring the Fact that Pod'lair is not at all equal to MBTI, I wouldn't be spending my time here correcting MBTI's work if that was not true...

Your assumptions are ultimately that Jung is unquestionably correct. All that you have really proven is that MBTI and Socionics or even perhaps the original Jungian Model have inconsistencies. This is true, they do have inconsistencies.

Your utter lapse in logic begins when you conclude from this that MBTI and Pod'lair are therefor wrong, because you still have yet to prove that Socionics and Jung's assumptions were actually right.

Pod'lair is actually not based on either Jung or MBTI, so there is no reason that it should match up to their work in the first place, it is an entirely separate model. So proving Pod'lair is not consistent with Jung is completely irrelevant, because our work is neither based on Jung, nor dependent on Jung's Calculations.

The only way that your argument could be true is if Jung was unquestionably and undeniable accurate, which is absolutely absurd.

If Jung never had a way to actually prove his work, that is physically verify his work. To ensure that you assumptions are valid, you need a control, a way to verify that what you say is true is undeniably true.

Until you find that, you're just full of hot air, and you are many steps behind Pod'lair which actually does have a control as it is based on Physical Manifestations.

Done!

So the dichotomies of e/i, n/s, t/f are not based on Jung? Pod'lair just came up with that on it's own? And the cognitive functions were not based on Jung either? It's fine if Pod'lair has improved upon the theory, which I'm sure you have, but give credit where its due.

Am I right in thinking that if we apply Pod'lair to Jung's intended audience for Psychological Types (Analysts), they would find it easier to determine their patients' types because it's based on physiological cues? And in this way they can gear their therapeutic approach to fit the needs of the individual?

It seems like, with the MBTI, Socionics, and Jungian theories, there is no way for an individual to be 100% sure if he is right about his type unless he can look at himself 100 % objectively, which is probably impossible. Therefore, Pod'lair would be superior to the other theories because when it is a fact that they are this one type backed up by evidence, they can be confident in pursuing the path that is geared for them and this path will make more sense. While with the other theories, people are constantly questioning what type they are and so a person will eventually say 'this is probably bull shit' or keep trying to look at themselves objectively without any gratification.

I don't think Jung ever intended for people to type themselves or other people; it was supposed to be for the work of Analysts and for the broadening of a general knowledge. Now perhaps we are living in a time where it is doing more harm than good. It seems to me like Pod'lair is trying to help gear the theory towards typing oneself and typing others and then learning how one can reach his own potential and can successfully cooperate with other personalities.

idk does that sound right, Adymus?

 

[Fukyo]

So the dichotomies of e/i, n/s, t/f are not based on Jung? Pod'lair just came up with that on it's own? And the cognitive functions were not based on Jung either? It's fine if Pod'lair has improved upon the theory, which I'm sure you have, but give credit where its due.

These don't exist in Pod'lair...neither did Jung made the dichotomies...

As for Adymus and ESC, is this circular argument going anywhere?

 

[tikru]

These don't exist in Pod'lair...neither did Jung made the dichotomies...

They exist.. they're just relabeled as subjective/objective, literal/interpretive, value/logic. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

And Jung may have not made the dichotomies, but through his syncretistic efforts was able to repurpose them for the modern age. And I find it unlikely that Pod'lair was not influenced by him.

 

[Adymus]

So the dichotomies of e/i, n/s, t/f are not based on Jung? Pod'lair just came up with that on it's own? And the cognitive functions were not based on Jung either? It's fine if Pod'lair has improved upon the theory, which I'm sure you have, but give credit where its due.

You have to understand that there is a difference between being based on something and being influenced by something. There were many of Jung's ideas that influenced all of us to look in a certain direction, but what we came out with was the discovery of phenomena that Jung did not discover, thus our work is actually not based on his ideas at all, Jung did not make the discoveries that we have made, those are our own.
There have been many great discoveries in the past that have been "influenced" (everything is influenced by something) by the theories before them in some way, but what came out was a complete departure from the theories that preceded them, not founded on the past theories at all.

So to answer your question, no, Jung does not deserve credit for our work, for the same reason that Evolution does not owe credit to creationism.

Subjective vs Objective is not equal to Jungian Introvert vs Extrovert
Interpretive vs Literal is not equal to Jungian Intuitive vs Sensing
Logic-Based vs Values-based is not equal to Jungian Thinking vs Feeling
Adaptive vs Directive is definitely not equal to Judging vs Perceiving, as ESC has pointed out.

I don't mean they are different because they have different names, the principles themselves are entirely different principles. These principles technically do correlate with the Jungian principles, just because we are actually referring to the same phenomenon. However we have captured this phenomenon in a way that is more accurate and with more clarity than Jung ever did. Jung did not invent the phenomenon he called "Extroversion" the phenomenon was already a part of natural law, Jung invented "Extroversion" the theoretical principle that was meant to capture the natural law phenomenon.

We, Pod'lair, captured that phenomenon with more accuracy than Jung did, so the principle belongs to us, it is not a Jungian principle, nor is it a Jungian phenomenon.

Am I right in thinking that if we apply Pod'lair to Jung's intended audience for Psychological Types (Analysts), they would find it easier to determine their patients' types because it's based on physiological cues? And in this way they can gear their therapeutic approach to fit the needs of the individual?

Yes and No. Yes because it is a vastly superior model for understanding people. No because if they were to apply Pod'lair they would no longer be Jungian Analysts, they would have to update or completely jettison their assumptions that came from the past Jungian model to make room for the more accurate principles of Pod'lair. The two Models cannot be friends, Pod'lair will undoubtably contradict the assumptions of JCE, MBTI, Socionics, etc. As Pod'lair does not base itself on how people are supposed to act, it is based on physiological cues, which gives it wiggle room so to speak in terms of how people are supposed to act. People reading in particular has a requirement that you drop your assumptions and prejudice on how these "types" are supposed to act, or what they are supposed to be like, or what kind of lives they are supposed to lead. Because you will never be able to see clearly and objective if you demand that the person you are reading be a specific type.

It seems like, with the MBTI, Socionics, and Jungian theories, there is no way for an individual to be 100% sure if he is right about his type unless he can look at himself 100 % objectively, which is probably impossible. Therefore, Pod'lair would be superior to the other theories because when it is a fact that they are this one type backed up by evidence, they can be confident in pursuing the path that is geared for them and this path will make more sense. While with the other theories, people are constantly questioning what type they are and so a person will eventually say 'this is probably bull shit' or keep trying to look at themselves objectively without any gratification.

Bingo!

I don't think Jung ever intended for people to type themselves or other people; it was supposed to be for the work of Analysts and for the broadening of a general knowledge. Now perhaps we are living in a time where it is doing more harm than good. It seems to me like Pod'lair is trying to help gear the theory towards typing oneself and typing others and then learning how one can reach his own potential and can successfully cooperate with other personalities.

idk does that sound right, Adymus?

That's two for two!

 

[Adymus]

As for Adymus and ESC, is this circular argument going anywhere?

No... It isn't.

*Facepalm*

 

[EyeSeeCold]

As for Adymus and ESC, is this circular argument going anywhere?

I'm progressing with deliberate speed with my argument. Replies from others are secondary, until I'm finished.

 

[tikru]

You have to understand that there is a difference between being based on something and being influenced by something. There were many of Jung's ideas that influenced all of us to look in a certain direction, but what we came out with was the discovery of phenomena that Jung did not discover, thus our work is actually not based on his ideas at all, Jung did not make the discoveries that we have made, those are our own.
There have been many great discoveries in the past that have been "influenced" (everything is influenced by something) by the theories before them in some way, but what came out was a complete departure from the theories that preceded them, not founded on the past theories at all.

So to answer your question, no, Jung does not deserve credit for our work, for the same reason that Evolution does not owe credit to creationism.

Subjective vs Objective is not equal to Jungian Introvert vs Extrovert
Interpretive vs Literal is not equal to Jungian Intuitive vs Sensing
Logic-Based vs Values-based is not equal to Jungian Thinking vs Feeling
Adaptive vs Directive is definitely not equal to Judging vs Perceiving, as ESC has pointed out.

I don't mean they are different because they have different names, the principles themselves are entirely different principles. These principles technically do correlate with the Jungian principles, just because we are actually referring to the same phenomenon. However we have captured this phenomenon in a way that is more accurate and with more clarity than Jung ever did. Jung did not invent the phenomenon he called "Extroversion" the phenomenon was already a part of natural law, Jung invented "Extroversion" the theoretical principle that was meant to capture the natural law phenomenon.

We, Pod'lair, captured that phenomenon with more accuracy than Jung did, so the principle belongs to us, it is not a Jungian principle, nor is it a Jungian phenomenon.

Ah, ok. Makes sense. Although, it's hard to understand the differences without the information being readily available. Maybe I'll submit a video.

 

[Adymus]

Ah, ok. Makes sense. Although, it's hard to understand the differences without the information being readily available. Maybe I'll submit a video.

You totally should, at the very least for the extra info.

 

[Glordag]

Oh, ICEE. Months later, and you're still on the same binge . Are you quite sure you're INTJ/INTp? I mean, you have unprecedented patience and capability to stay on the same rant . Edit: Oh wait, it was INTP/INT(j), wasn't it?

I kid, I kid...well, sort of. It's impressive to see you hash through the same things as much as you do. I could argue against your point, but I probably already did back in October .

Adymus has become seemingly more militant lately. I think Pod'Lair is out to make a move . Everyone arm yourselves with wit and tin foil!!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Oh, ICEE. Months later, and you're still on the same binge . Are you quite sure you're INTJ/INTp? I mean, you have unprecedented patience and capability to stay on the same rant . Edit: Oh wait, it was INTP/INT(j), wasn't it?

I kid, I kid...well, sort of. It's impressive to see you hash through the same things as much as you do. I could argue against your point, but I probably already did back in October .

Adymus has become seemingly more militant lately. I think Pod'Lair is out to make a move . Everyone arm yourselves with wit and tin foil!!

I understand things better now and I'm not arguing the same points as before. What is in the first post is absolutely true as it is formal logic, there's nothing to disagree with. With the theoretical difference as my premise, the second part of my argument would be addressing how these systems differ in practice, I haven't figured that out yet.

Oh and it's INTp/ILI-INTP and INTj/LII-INTJ

 

[Glordag]

Your MBTI and Jungian classifications still come across as completely arbitrary and subjective, to me. It's like you're parsing and presenting the data in one model/framework. That's not to say it's incorrect, just saying that it's one of many possible parses or interpretations. As such, the following logic is also one of many interpretations.

Just my two cents, and I think it's the same two cents I more or less presented previously.

(insert fail attempt to throw you a bone with underdeveloped Fe): Still, it makes for good reading/thinking, so I'm glad you're still working at it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Your MBTI and Jungian classifications still come across as completely arbitrary and subjective, to me. It's like you're parsing and presenting the data in one model/framework. That's not to say it's incorrect, just saying that it's one of many possible parses or interpretations. As such, the following logic is also one of many interpretations.

Huh? How is it arbitrary? Given the premise of each system, I demonstrated, logically, that the types are not equal to each other by analyzing their logical relationships. Formal logic does nothing new, it merely identifies and extracts information as I have done.

Just my two cents, and I think it's the same two cents I more or less presented previously.

(insert fail attempt to throw you a bone with underdeveloped Fe): Still, it makes for good reading/thinking, so I'm glad you're still working at it.

I don't consider this endeavor as part of my previous attempts.

 

[Glordag]

Your breakdown of each system seems subjective to me. I would not break them down the way you did, though I admit my breakdown would also be subjective. Your way probably works for you, but I cannot draw the same conclusions that you do, as my version of your charts would not look the same. I can't explain to you why this is the case, just point out that it is so. You can argue that any breakdown other than the one you've given is incorrect, but I'm not sure how you can make that case, exactly.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Your breakdown of each system seems subjective to me. I would not break them down the way you did, though I admit my breakdown would also be subjective. Your way probably works for you, but I cannot draw the same conclusions that you do, as my version of your charts would not look the same. I can't explain to you why this is the case, just point out that it is so. You can argue that any breakdown other than the one you've given is incorrect, but I'm not sure how you can make that case, exactly.

Okay you meant my approach is subjective? I agree, but what I have shown is inherently true.

Premise->Deduction->Extraction

The only way I could be wrong is if the premises weren't true, but I'm only arguing theory so they are.