Jung's Personality Types

Jung's Personality Types

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thank Tree10Thanks
  • 8 Post By LiquidLight
  • 2 Post By LiquidLight

This is a discussion on Jung's Personality Types within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; So I found this website which has quick and concise definitions of Jung's type (note: these are not MBTI style ...

  1. #1
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Jung's Personality Types

    So I found this website which has quick and concise definitions of Jung's type (note: these are not MBTI style type descriptions so they may contradict the notions that are commonly held). You may find yourself for instance seeing yourself as an IS (Introverted Sensing type) based on Jung's definition but not be a Si-dom in JCf/MBTI. I thought I'd post it though just so people could truly see the difference between Jung and MBTI. Obviously these are dominant function types so you can't try to make say ISFJ work in this framework, but you can maybe figure out if you are an IF-type with a Sensing auxiliary.

    I also don't agree with the job descriptions these types would be good for that are posted here, but oh well.

    The Personality Theory of Carl Jung: Understanding Introversion, Extroversion, and the Eight Orientations | Suite101.com

    The Eight Personality Types Defined by Carl Jung


    Jung developed a theory of eight different personality types. Jung's personality types are as follows:

    Extroverted Thinking – Jung theorized that people understand the world through a mix of concrete ideas and abstract ones, but the abstract concepts are ones passed down from other people. Extroverted thinkers are often found working in the research sciences and mathematics.

    Introverted Thinking – These individuals interpret stimuli in the environment through a subjective and creative way. The interpretations are informed by internal knowledge and understanding. Philosophers and theoretical scientists are often introverted thinking-oriented people.

    Extroverted Feeling – These people judge the value of things based on objective fact. Comfortable in social situations, they form their opinions based on socially accepted values and majority beliefs. They are often found working in business and politics.

    Introverted Feeling – These people make judgments based on subjective ideas and on internally established beliefs. Oftentimes they ignore prevailing attitudes and defy social norms of thinking. Introverted feeling people thrive in careers as art critics.

    Extroverted Sensing – These people perceive the world as it really exists. Their perceptions are not colored by any pre-existing beliefs. Jobs that require objective review, like wine tasters and proofreaders, are best filled by extroverted sensing people.

    Introverted Sensing – These individuals interpret the world through the lens of subjective attitudes and rarely see something for only what it is. They make sense of the environment by giving it meaning based on internal reflection. Introverted sensing people often turn to various arts, including portrait painting and classical music.

    Extroverted Intuitive – These people prefer to understand the meanings of things through subliminally perceived objective fact rather than incoming sensory information. They rely on hunches and often disregard what they perceive directly from their senses. Inventors that come upon their invention via a stroke of insight and some religious reformers are characterized by the extraverted intuitive type.

    Introverted Intuitive – These individuals, Jung thought, are profoundly influenced by their internal motivations even though they do not completely understand them. They find meaning through unconscious, subjective ideas about the world. Introverted intuitive people comprise a significant portion of mystics, surrealistic artists, and religious fanatics.
    Obviously these are not all-encompassing definitions (I'm still trying to find a source that spells out how Jung defined the types in clear concise terms besides Psychological Types) but you can see that many of the definitions here fly in the face of commonly held MBTI/Kiersey-esque assumptions.
    Ace Face, Nymma, electricky and 5 others thanked this post.



  2. #2
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Additionally, from this white paper http://www.blutner.de/Jung.pdf

    ...The MBTI is based on questionnaires with so-called forced-choice questions. Forced-choice means that the individual has to choose only one of two possible answers to each question. Obviously, such tests are self-referential.

    That means they are based on judgments of persons about themselves. Socionics rejects the use of such questionnaires and is based on interviews and direct observation of certain aspects of human behavior instead. However, if personality tests are well constructed and their questions are answered properly, we expect results that often make sense. For that reason, we do not reject test questions principally, but we have to take into account their self-referential character. Another difference relates to the fact that socionics tries to understand Jung’s intuitive system and to provide a deeper explanation for it, mainly in terms of informational metabolism (Kepinski & PZWL, 1972).

    Further, Socionics is not so much a theory of personalities per se, but much more a theory of type relations providing an analysis of the relationships that arise as a consequence of the interaction of people with different personalities.

    The 16 psychological types correspond to the 8 sectors. if we take into account that the two dominant (conscious) psychological functions can be either in the extraverted attitude or in the introverted attitude.

    Taking C.G. Jung’s theory seriously, the expression of a person’s psychological type is more than the sum of the
    four individual preferences expressed by the MBTI. This is because of the way in which the preferences interact
    through type dynamics and type development. Although the interpretation of the MBTI acknowledges the role of
    type dynamics and type development, these concepts do not enter the test procedure. As an example, assume that for a person X, the test results indicate a perfect balance between Extraversion and Introversion (i.e. 50% E, 50%). Assume further that we also find a perfect balance between Thinking and Feeling and a low percentage of the irrational functions. Obviously, the type of extraverted thinkers and the type of introverted thinkers are both in agreement with this test results. Unfortunately, there is no way to discriminate the two types by simply testing the percentage of E, I, T and F. The reason is that, due to type dynamic in the case of extraverted thinkers, the ET function is superposed with the IF function. And in the case of introverted thinkers the IT function is superposed with the EF function. In both cases we get 50% E, 50% I, 50% F and 50% T. Hence, though there is a big difference between the personality types that agree with the test results, there is no way to determine the correct Jungian type by using the MBTI. What we need are particular test questions that directly test for the functions in a certain attitude.

    More recently, Singer, Loomis, and their followers (Loomis, 1991; Loomis & Singer, 1980; Loomis, 1987; Myers, 1962; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Singer & Loomis, 1984) have criticized several aspects of the MBTI, including the fact that this test: (a) does not really include Jung’s claim that the psychological functions cannot be considered in isolation, but always with respect to a definite attitude, (b) does not regard quantitative interpretation of the MBTI scores, and (c) assumes bipolar opposites of psychological functions rather than logically independent response items corresponding to the two poles of the “opposites”.

    With regard to the latter point, Loomis and Singer argued that if Jung’s bipolarity assumption was correct, that is, if the oppositional arrangement of the functions was inherently within the individual psyche, then it was not necessary to use forced-choice questions to assess an individual’s typology. On the other hand, if Jung’s bipolar assumption was not valid, changing the forced-choice items in the GW and the MBTI to another format would have an effect on the resulting profiles.” (Loomis, 1991, p. 45)

    This change of the procedure changed the outcomes drastically. For instance, from 79 subjects of the MBTI study (modifying the original MBTI material) 36 (46%) were found who did not have the same superior function on the revised version as they had on the original version and 29 (36%) were found who did not have the superior function opposed to the inferior function (Loomis & Singer, 1980).

    Though Loomis and Singer, as well as the school of Socionics, generally stress the consideration of psychological functions as always being relative to a certain attitude, extraverted or introverted, this crucial point was disregarded in the Loomis & Singer (Loomis & Singer, 1980) experimental study. Possibly, this could explain the surprising result. In forced-choice questions for both parts of the question – “be personal” or “be objective” in example 2 – the same attitude is taken. However, when two isolated questions are constructed, then it is possible that different attitudes are taken for the two questions: For example, could be interpreted as highlighting introverted feeling, connecting us to our inner values. And could be interpreted as highlighting extraverted thinking, connecting us to the outer, physical world. In contrast, when asking, one and the same attitude is taken, though it is not always clear which attitude.

    Assuming that the extraverted attitude is more probable we get a preference for the answer “objective”. Hence, it could be that our superior function is Thinking, and Feeling is the inferior one. This contrasts with the revised case of two isolated questions where both Thinking and Feeling could be the two highest ranked psychological functions. In this way, the results of the Loomis and Singer (1980) study become understandable.

    For good reasons C.G. Jung was relatively vague concerning the details of type ranking and type dynamics. However, he seems to claim that the auxiliary function has the same attitude as the first function (otherwise the auxiliary function could not support the first function), and he insists on claiming that the unconscious inferior function always has the opposite attitude of the superior function.

    Recent experimental studies made use of the full inventory of the Singer–Loomis type development inventory and clearly demonstrated the shortcomings of the MBTI. Unfortunately, these studies were not really conclusive about empirical constraints concerning possible sequences of psychological functions in a certain attitude and other aspects of type dynamics (Dugan & Wilson, 2002; VachaHaase & Thompson, 2002; Wilson, Dugan, & Buckle, 2002)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 01:00 AM
  2. Deepdive into Jung's Psycological types.
    By Inveniet in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 01:15 AM
  3. Jung's Psychological Types read-- Help with application
    By Sketchy Cadet in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-05-2011, 12:37 PM
  4. C.G. Jung's actual Personality Type?
    By ChaysexMoney in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 09:16 PM
  5. Psychology results/theories vs personality (Jung/MBTI) tests
    By slowriot in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 09:10 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 02:47 AM.
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