[ENTJ] Question about ENTJ's and Te - Page 3

Question about ENTJ's and Te

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
Thank Tree45Thanks

This is a discussion on Question about ENTJ's and Te within the ENTJ Forum - The Executives forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by Enfpleasantly I doubt that you're seeing a bigger picture than anyone else. I'm not sure how old ...

  1. #21
    Unknown Personality

    Quote Originally Posted by Enfpleasantly View Post
    I doubt that you're seeing a bigger picture than anyone else. I'm not sure how old you are, but my Dad is close to 60 and I am not sitting on a computer provided by him or wearing anything from Hollister :) Of course, you might've just been referring to your kids and not assuming something about me, I wasn't sure though, so I wanted to clear that up.

    Let me just say this to you straight...

    In the eyes of your kids (if they think the same way my family did about my Dad) then they see you choosing business over them, whether you want to admit that or not.

    You say it's all about them, but I think that's only partially true because couldn't you work a lower position job that's less time consuming? Maybe downgrade cars, downsize house? You are working to maintain a lifestyle that your kids have grown accustom to. Of course they love their material things right now, because it feels nice of have nice things, but I'm betting they would still have nice things if you weren't in your high maintenance position. So, is it about them, or is it about you? Being the boss, the status, the money, the fancy things, the recognition...that's what drove my Dad. It was just convenient to say "I do all this for you guys" yeah, no he didn't.
    Of course I was talking about my kids with the Hollister comment.
    Why on earth would I take a lower position? That to me is insane.
    If I wanted to be a soccer mom, I would have been. I didn't. While I chose this path, I didn't chose my career over them. I simply chose to have a career. I also chose to go to college, the first one in my family. I paid for my own degree. I also chose to buy a house and make sure that my family is taken care of - and I do that as a single mother. I suppose I could be like other single mothers that I've met who work part time and the government supports so that I could have more "quality" family time, but that life isn't attractive to me. I want more for my kids. I can afford to pay for my kids to go to college and they will. The things that WE have, we have because I worked my ass off. And I do them so that we can be part of the "have," rather than the "have not" camp. Can I lose it all tomorrow and be ok? You bet. I grew up poor. Maybe if you had, I would make more sense to you. Of course, maybe if my kids had, I would make more sense to them too.

  2. #22

    Quote Originally Posted by MsCheshire View Post
    Of course I was talking about my kids with the Hollister comment.
    Why on earth would I take a lower position? That to me is insane.
    If I wanted to be a soccer mom, I would have been. I didn't. While I chose this path, I didn't chose my career over them. I simply chose to have a career. I also chose to go to college, the first one in my family. I paid for my own degree. I also chose to buy a house and make sure that my family is taken care of - and I do that as a single mother. I suppose I could be like other single mothers that I've met who work part time and the government supports so that I could have more "quality" family time, but that life isn't attractive to me. I want more for my kids. I can afford to pay for my kids to go to college and they will. The things that WE have, we have because I worked my ass off. And I do them so that we can be part of the "have," rather than the "have not" camp. Can I lose it all tomorrow and be ok? You bet. I grew up poor. Maybe if you had, I would make more sense to you. Of course, maybe if my kids had, I would make more sense to them too.
    My Dad was gone all the time because of school. My Mom worked overtime night shift to give us necessities, plus a little extra nice things that she bargain shopped for at TJ max here and there. We lived in a modest ranch home with one bathroom. So I wasn't spoiled in material things at all, but it was also not poverty. Anyway, my Mom worked nights and was there with us during the day after she slept for a few hours...she worked her ass off too. She never made us feel like a burden on her and she never complained when we acted like typical, normal, unappreciative teenagers. So, I grew up with a "schoolohilic" Dad and a Mom who maintained life for us along with Motherhood. She's a badass ENTJ if I do say so myself.

    And there is an area in between having a life of luxury and living on the government.

  3. #23

    @Enfpleasantly @MsCheshire a simple question, without a need to have an answer: you both are brainstorming about scenario's that could or may be reality. But please, you both are projecting your own vision on the kids in this story. I accept and understand both and want to remind you about the main question or goal: how do the children think ór feel about their familylife? The only way to get a fact is to ask mscheshire' kids about their happiness in association of parents. Of course, I would suggest in a dillemma form (e.a. What would you have rather? Playing a favorite game with your mom, or no mom and have a xbox around all day?)

    Also, I would like to give my lesson well learnt: the most expensive thing in the world you can give is your undivided time. Why? You can only spent it once.

    PS. If I made grammar errors, please correct me. I want to learn.
    Cantarella and Enfpleasantly thanked this post.

  4. #24

    Quote Originally Posted by 2eng2009 View Post
    I think we as Te's tend to treat many things as if they can be logically spelled out and ordered. Unfortunately for us this is not how the world works. There are obviously a lot of circumstances where Te plays a great role in helping us to succeed, but relationships are not black and white, or orderly in many cases. I'm not saying that Te can't play a helpful role in any relationship whether it be parental or romantic, but we have to be careful to not let that be our only method to our madness. There is grey out there, especially in relationships and it can be a difficult pills for us to swallow. The good thing is with conscience effort and awareness we can become better at recognizing that shade. It will do nothing more than make us better people, parents, friends, and partners :)

    That's my thought for what it's worth.
    This is so hard for me. Could you give me tips or some well learnt advices? (I am 23 and an academic student with a 21hr/wk job)
    2eng thanked this post.

  5. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Nighty88 View Post
    enfpleasantly MsCheshire a simple question, without a need to have an answer: you both are brainstorming about scenario's that could or may be reality. But please, you both are projecting your own vision on the kids in this story. I accept and understand both and want to remind you about the main question or goal: how do the children think ór feel about their familylife? The only way to get a fact is to ask mscheshire' kids about their happiness in association of parents. Of course, I would suggest in a dillemma form (e.a. What would you have rather? Playing a favorite game with your mom, or no mom and have a xbox around all day?)

    Also, I would like to give my lesson well learnt: the most expensive thing in the world you can give is your undivided time. Why? You can only spent it once.

    PS. If I made grammar errors, please correct me. I want to learn.
    I said the perspective I was offering *might* be similar to her childrens', and I also made sure I stated that I was talking about my situation and how it made myself and my siblings feel. Also, I do assume that her children probably share a similar perspective as I did based on her writing. It seems from her posts that they ask for more time from her.

    We just have opposing views on this, and it's highly unlikely we would ever agree :) As far as your sentiments on what is more valuable to you @Nighty88, I agree with you completely. However, I do understand that some parents have to work and be away from their families just to make ends meet, but sacrificing time with your family just for luxury items and pride (status position at work, material belongings, accomplishments, etc.) is in fact making your family a lesser priority than your own personal desires.

    2eng is not only the first person in his family to ever go to college, he is the first to even graduate HS; he is very proud of his accomplishments, but they come 2nd to his Wife and kids. He must have a job in order to provide, of course, but working extensive hours to meet the demands of a certain position would be totally voluntary.

    To each his own. Everyone should live their lives the way they see fit, as long as it's not causing damage to people who have no choice but to depend on them. Of course, those are just *my* personal beliefs :)

    Edit: What you said about not being able to get time back is beautiful, and exactly the point I was trying to make, well said.
    Mr.Adrian thanked this post.

  6. #26
    ENTJ - The Executives

    Quote Originally Posted by Nighty88 View Post
    This is so hard for me. Could you give me tips or some well learnt advices? (I am 23 and an academic student with a 21hr/wk job)
    Well the journey has been a long one. I still prefer using black and white logic to find the answer. To me there has to be an answer or explanation for everything, or at least that is how I used to think. Obviously we use Te as our dominant function, so to put that into question at times can be difficult. I went to college for engineering, a great career for someone who lives in the black and white, right? Well yeah, it is comfortable and it is a great career choice for a Te, there was always an answer and only one right answer, black and white. The problem with this? Not really a problem, but it set in concrete that this is the correct way to think, and that there is always an answer. This may or may not pertain to you, the purpose of telling you this is just as a disclaimer. Mainly to say that I may have been slightly more jaded because it reinforced this way of thinking...

    Now after my rant, I can attempt to answer your question. How do we learn to see the grey, to step outside of the black and white, as it pertains to relationships? It is a difficult process because it goes against what we think and how we naturally function. For me it is a process of constantly questioning what I think, whether it is actually the right answer or way to interact with someone, or is there a better way? A good thing to remember is that even as "thinkers" we have feelings, we are run by our emotions in every stage of our lives. Certainly feelings aren't always black and white, they are derived in the grey, it's how we feel based on a core set of values or feelings, or whatever elicits your emotions. I think it is a process of learning to trust our feelings, to realize that our rational thoughts and our feelings are very difficult to combine. I know for me I am constantly fighting my thoughts and feelings. This is where my Te use is handy though, as I can have an irrational thought and battle that against what I know, and it helps me to "get through it". I don't know that there is any clear answer how to do this, again unfortunately it's not a black and white issue.

    Also it didn't hurt to have a strong willed ENFP in my life to call me out at times :)
    Mr.Adrian, Enfpleasantly and Laguna thanked this post.

  7. #27

    Quote Originally Posted by 2eng2009 View Post
    Well the journey has been a long one. I still prefer using black and white logic to find the answer. To me there has to be an answer or explanation for everything, or at least that is how I used to think. Obviously we use Te as our dominant function, so to put that into question at times can be difficult. I went to college for engineering, a great career for someone who lives in the black and white, right? Well yeah, it is comfortable and it is a great career choice for a Te, there was always an answer and only one right answer, black and white. The problem with this? Not really a problem, but it set in concrete that this is the correct way to think, and that there is always an answer. This may or may not pertain to you, the purpose of telling you this is just as a disclaimer. Mainly to say that I may have been slightly more jaded because it reinforced this way of thinking...

    Now after my rant, I can attempt to answer your question. How do we learn to see the grey, to step outside of the black and white, as it pertains to relationships? It is a difficult process because it goes against what we think and how we naturally function. For me it is a process of constantly questioning what I think, whether it is actually the right answer or way to interact with someone, or is there a better way? A good thing to remember is that even as "thinkers" we have feelings, we are run by our emotions in every stage of our lives. Certainly feelings aren't always black and white, they are derived in the grey, it's how we feel based on a core set of values or feelings, or whatever elicits your emotions. I think it is a process of learning to trust our feelings, to realize that our rational thoughts and our feelings are very difficult to combine. I know for me I am constantly fighting my thoughts and feelings. This is where my Te use is handy though, as I can have an irrational thought and battle that against what I know, and it helps me to "get through it". I don't know that there is any clear answer how to do this, again unfortunately it's not a black and white issue.

    Also it didn't hurt to have a strong willed ENFP in my life to call me out at times :)

    It is hard for me to choose between the logical side and emotional side of me. If there is one. Let me elaborate with an RL example.

    I had a female friend for 1,5 years before she ended her relationship with her boyfriend. This relationship lasted for 6 years. She was in tears and everything and in this situation I did not know what to do in an logical way. So let myself be emotional and empatic. In doing so, I opened up and let her see my vulnurable inner structure. I showed her te way I would handle things and she liked it.

    In the process, I felt a hugh connection with her. And after 2 months I did not know what I felt. I was flabergasted around her. Also to mascade this, I tried to provoke her. I was happy to be with her, until she said to me that she was with a 30+ old man. For him this meant an affair. I was furious. Yes, furious at him. She was not happy with the situation. She said he gave her a good feeling, but the only thing I saw was that she was being used/manipulated for sex. Which made me more angry. At which point my Te kicks in and said: why are you angry? Are you jealous? Are you in love? What?! This is not acceptable with your friend. But well, my Fi made up his mind: in love.

    Well, I explained her my feelings. She did not reciproke. She said she wanted to be friends and in that moment nothing more. Which gave me some faith (this makes me feel stupid when typing this). I said that I would accept the friendship and that I could handle and control my feelings. Oh boy, I was wrong. So after six months, at which my feeling was grown into a heavier kind, I told her again that she had this effect on me. She still did not reciproke.

    I was using my Te to think why she did not reciproke. This could be because of this 30+ old flame. So I gave her some advise to drop this sexual relationship.

    After 7 months she followed my advise on taking control of her own and cutting the sexual relationship with this 30+ old guy. But after I heared that, I went into his shop with her and there were all sorts off signals between her and him that gave me a feeling of betrayal. Trust and honesty are the two standards on the top of my list, so I became real angry. I left and did not let this emotion show. The next day I called her and said, I do not want to have any contact whatsoever anymore. I said that I am a guy in love with you and if you are not in love with me, then goodbye.

    You see the black and white there? I tried the grey side, but I feel like manipulated and being used. And everytime this happens I am hurt and say to myself, never again. As trivial af this is, this only leads to isolation.

    So when do I know if someone is sincere and trustworthy of my inner workings? Do you have some well learnt advices on this?

    Also, how do you see relationships? More emotional bonding or logical bonding? This is where I am struggling.
    2eng thanked this post.

  8. #28

    double post

  9. #29

    double post

  10. #30
    ENTJ - The Executives

    I'm gonna post Extroverted thinking by Carl Jung:

    2. The Extraverted Thinking Type

    It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

    In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

    If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.

    We have now outlined two extreme figures, between which terminals the majority of these types may be graduated.

    In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence. The further we penetrate into their own province, the more do the unfavourable results of their tyranny impress us. Another life still pulses at the periphery, where the truth of the formula can be sensed as an estimable adjunct to the rest. But the further we probe into the special sphere where the formula operates, the more do we find life ebbing away from all that fails to coincide with its dictates. Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the most disagreeable results of an extraverted formula, since they are the first to be unmercifully blessed with it. But above all the subject himself is the one who suffers most -- which brings us to the other side of the psychology of this type.

    The fact that an intellectual formula never has been and never will be discovered which could embrace the [p. 437] abundant possibilities of life in a fitting expression must lead -- where such a formula is accepted -- to an inhibition, or total exclusion, of other highly important forms and activities of life. In the first place, all those vital forms dependent upon feeling will become repressed in such a type, as, for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, the art of friendship, etc. Irrational forms, such as religious experiences, passions and the like, are often obliterated even to the point of complete unconsciousness. These, conditionally quite important, forms of life have to support an existence that is largely unconscious. Doubtless there are exceptional men who are able to sacrifice their entire life to one definite formula; but for most of us a permanent life of such exclusiveness is impossible. Sooner or later -- in accordance with outer circumstances and inner gifts -- the forms of life repressed by the intellectual attitude become indirectly perceptible, through a gradual disturbance of the conscious conduct of life. Whenever disturbances of this kind reach a definite intensity, one speaks of a neurosis. In most cases, however, it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself some preventive extenuations of his formula, worded, of course, in a suitable and reasonable way. In this way a safety-valve is created.

    The relative or total unconsciousness of such tendencies or functions as are excluded from any participation in the conscious attitude keeps them in a relatively undeveloped state. As compared with the conscious function they are inferior. To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the remaining contents of the unconscious, from which they acquire a bizarre character. To the extent that they are conscious, they only play a secondary rôle, although one of considerable importance for the whole psychological picture.

    Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

    The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

    Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

    The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than [p. 441] a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counter-position, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.

    In my experience, this type, which is doubtless familiar to my readers, is chiefly found among men, since thinking tends to be a much more dominant function in men than in women. As a rule, when thinking achieves the mastery in women, it is, in my experience, a kind of thinking which results from a prevailingly intuitive activity of mind. [p. 442]

    The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there.

    The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective [p. 443]

    data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it -- I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame.

    But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.

    The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions. [p. 446]



    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm



    There is a ton of proverbial bullshit but you can suss through it and get to the point... if you have a functioning brain.


     
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 01-14-2014, 05:48 AM
  2. [ENTJ] INFP and ENTJ relationship question.
    By Vatar in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 02:31 PM
  3. An Interesting Question: ENTJ and ENFJ Related
    By RobynC in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 11:06 PM
  4. [ENTJ] One Stop ENTJ Question Shop
    By Diphenhydramine in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 10-29-2010, 06:20 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 06:22 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