Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary - Page 10

Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 91 to 92 of 92
Thank Tree151Thanks

This is a discussion on Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; I'm glad I joined PerC so I could finally see that I haven't thought about this stuff half as hard ...

  1. #91

    I'm glad I joined PerC so I could finally see that I haven't thought about this stuff half as hard as I think I have.

  2. #92

    The thing is, that the function+attitude descriptions/definitions vary from theory to theory. That makes it incredibly difficult and confusing. I found out about Jung and MBTI for more than a decade. I took a classical dichotomy test and scored as INFJ. The type description confirmed, that the result was correct. Since then, I‘ve read several descriptions and did lot‘s of further testing. I‘m 100% sure, I‘m a representative if the INFJ ‚personality‘. When I learned about ‚the function stack‘, I related very well to the Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-stack, BUT: I always scored high on Fi, too. And I relate to the Fi-function-descriptions, as well. If I use the function+attitude-definitions of the MBTI, I would define my stack as Ni-F-T-Se. Years later, I did my first socionics test, the result: EII. The descriptions were very relatable, too. But when I found out, that the EII has conscious Fi+Ne, I was very surprised. How could that be? The IEI description wasn‘t representing ‚me‘. I did further testing, read the different function descriptions in the different positions and found out, that MBTI/Ne wasn‘t socionics Ne, MBTI Te wasn‘t socionics Te.... In MBTI, I relate most to Ni, followed by Fe/Fi/Ti/Te. I don‘t relate to Ne. In socionics, on the other side, I relate to Fi, followed by Ni/Ne/Fe. I don‘t relate to socionics-Te at all. I decided to just look at the archetypes. I do not need consistency according to the functions, especially if they are defined so differently. For me, the INFJ is (to some degree) the same archetype like the EII. The last step for me was reading the original source in german: Carl Jung. According to Carl Jung, I would be an Introverted Feeler with Intuition (Fi-N-S-Te or Fi-Ni-Se-Te), I guess. It seems, like socionics-types and their functions are very close to the Jungian original. BUT: while I think that Jung was great and had much insight according the human psyche and did a great job in defining different types, his functions are too ‚theoretical‘ and their existence still couldn‘t been validated. I think the same about socionics. It‘s a theoretical approach from where different types are defined. In other words: first the functions and their definitions, than the types and their descriptions.
    MBTI, on the other hand, is in the first place dichotomy-based. Like the Big5, you can test your preferences through a test. And this test can be used to check validity. And here, I‘m on the same line with reckful. I don‘t think, there is a specific cognitive ‚stack‘. I think, that we should look at the different dichotomies and dichotomy-pairs to define something or compare people. Let‘s take the INFJ again. My preferences are quite clear: I>E, N>S, J>P. Only my deciding-function is kind of ambiguous F60>T40. So, my function pairs are IN - IF - IJ - NF - NJ - FJ. The opposite would be ES - ET - EP -ST - SP - TP. And here is my explanation, why according to MBTI-descriptions I relate so strong to the Ni-dom descriptions, and do relate to some degree to Fi+Fe. The ‚function‘ Ni is formed by INJ (IN+NJ). I prefer both pairs. Furthermore I relate to FJ (Fe) and IF (Fi), but not too much to FP (Fi) and EF (Fe). And because I am borderline F/T, I also see some similarities to TJ (Te) and IT (Ti) descriptions.

    INJ > IF/FJ > IT/TJ > (ISJ/ENP) > EF/FP > ET/TP > ESP
    Ni > Fi/Fe > Ti/Te > (Si/Ne) > Fe/Fi > Te/Ti > Se

    That’s the reason, why I relate so well to MBTI-Ni. If there would be something like a ,stack‘ in MBTI, mine would be Ni-F-T-Se. I think, the MBTI-function+attitude-descriptions are nothing more than IN+NJ+FJ+IF, plus IJ+NF temperaments. And I think, that describes my personality very well. Even better than Jung/Socionics.
    Overall, that’s the reason, why I relate to Fi-N-S-Te in the Jungian theory, to EII in socionics and to INFJ (Ni-F-T-Se) in MBTI.

    And sorry for my bad english. ��
    Last edited by alyara; 07-07-2019 at 06:39 AM.


     
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] You know you're Ne auxiliary when...
    By Kilgore Trout in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 02:11 PM
  2. Is the auxiliary the same attitude as the dominant?
    By PaladinX in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 11:16 PM
  3. [ISTP] Your Auxiliary Se
    By GENIUSandVIOLENCE in forum ISTP Forum - The Mechanics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-16-2012, 08:53 PM
  4. Jung Earlier vs. Jung Later
    By Dreamer777 in forum Jungian Theory
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-02-2012, 05:42 PM
  5. Jung's Unconscious Attitudes (Auxiliary E/I)
    By Functianalyst in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 01:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0