Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 51 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,314 Posts
What does "hard charging" even mean? I'm not an iphone.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
INFJ - Most Contemplative
Oh yeah definitely, for better or worse. XD

ESFJ - Most Harmonizing
ENFJ - Most Persuasive
I'm an ambivert in the grand scheme of things and identify a lot with ENFJ, and I'm not sure that 'persuasive' is the word I'd use to describe this type. My good friend is a clear ENFJ, and I'd say that the ESFJ descriptor, 'most harmonizing,' fits her better. Or maybe 'most engaged'- in activities, social relationships, her inner life, etc.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
@DonutsGalacticos @reckful @UglierBetty

Please, stop. Take a moment. Betty, Openness does not mean 'open-mindedness'. It ties more into conceptualization, ability to learn new things easily, and general abstraction. 'Openness to New Experiences' has to do with how well you process abstract information and adapt, deviate from structure, be creative. While I disagree that it perfectly correlates to intuition, you overreacted a little. Reckful was just citing his point of view.

DG, what you did was (or at least could be viewed as) arrogant. Please try and be a bit more polite, and you may instigate less conflicts. Also, you were a bit rude when Betty pointed it out.

Reckful, your stance could be perceived as a bit aggressive and cold. I understand you were stating your observations, and Betty did overreact. However, you didn't really clearly clarify the issue, and your intuitive-artistic views were presented fairly bluntly.

I'm not the best at gauging emotions, so apologize if no conflict was present, or if it was different than I perceived. However, it looked like some aggressive faces were being displayed, and I'd hate to see unnecessary fighting.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
It's funny how people think N's are creative and S's aren't. My ISTJ friend and ISTP brother and the two most creative people I know, and I'm an intuitive and I'm the least creative person I know.

These same people also claim that intuitives make up only 20% of the population yet are responsible for 90% of the art industry. I don't see how that's possible lol
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
If MBTI wants N to be the creative artistic type, then fabulous. Self contained system doing its thing. It's just a shame they chose to co-opt Jung's terminology... since it is not vaguely reflective of it. Not vaguely. It absolutely and openly contradicts him. Expanding on Jung is one thing, but they just did something else entirely 'inspired by' Jung, but it isn't the same thing at all.

So, now that a renaissance back to Jung (building from there, not from Myers) has happened, there is a confusion. Like a Christian arguing with a Muslim that his view of Redemption is wrong because he doesn't understand 'religious principles' but really he is just arguing something altogether different, though it confuses the mind by using the same or similar words to similar ends.

I am trying to discipline myself into saying stuff like 'If you mean MBTI, then X... but if you mean JCF, then Y.."

Then, of course, we can rip each other up over which viewpoint is better. And in doing so will expose in ourselves certain cognitive lenses. The same lenses that a long long time ago prompted Carl Jung to consider at length the problem of types. Which was a question of cognition... and thus answered by a study of cognition.

MBTI is something else entirely. Such a pursuit is hardly even a pretense of that system.
As I've explained to you before, and I assume you're only pretending to forget, Jung's original type categories loaded up extraversion and introversion (for example) with multiple characteristics that decades of data have now firmly established — as a matter of fact, not varying "cognitive lenses" — do not statistically co-vary.

As further explained in this recent post (which responded to one of your posts), one of the big reasons the MBTI version of S/N differs from Jung's original conceptions of sensation and intuition is that Jung thought that abstract/concrete — in the theory vs. facts sense — went to the heart of E/I, with introverts tending to be abstract and extraverts tending to be (as Jung put it) "concretistic."

But decades of MBTI and Big Five data both have made it clear that there is absolutely no significant statistical correlation between E/I and a tendency to be abstract/theoretical vs. concrete/factual. There are abstract extraverts (MBTI ENs) and concrete introverts MBTI ISs), and an introvert is no more likely to be abstract/theoretical than an extravert.

So notwithstanding your reference to MBTI-ers clinging to their dogma in the face of a "renaissance back to Jung," you have it precisely backwards.

But by that I'm not meaning to suggest that the more well-respected theorists in the back-to-the-functions contingent — e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi — come close to sharing your contempt for the facts, and for the many improvements Myers unquestionably made to Jung's original type categories. As noted in that linked post (with illustrative quotes), the version of S/N that those theorists are working with is essentially Myers' statistically supportable version, rather than Jung's original version.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
@reckful, I disagree with your definitions of Jung's view on introversion and extraversion. I believe it's more of a externally focused/internally focused thing. And again, where does Jung use concrete to describe extraverts? I've only seen him use it for ST function pairs.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
@reckful, I disagree with your definitions of Jung's view on introversion and extraversion. I believe it's more of a externally focused/internally focused thing. And again, where does Jung use concrete to describe extraverts? I've only seen him use it for ST function pairs.
Thanks for asking! :tongue:

That post I already linked to (and the two posts it links to) will get you started.

And if you're still hungry after that, you can find a veritable Jung abstract/concrete feast (with a cornucopia of quotes) in two back-and-forths I had with Naama. The first just includes this post and this post; and the second involves more posts (and many quotes) and starts here.

ADDED: Since that last thread is a long multi-poster thread (and a few of my posts don't add much to the others), here are individual links to the abstract/concrete posts I'm inclined to point you to:

32
44
48
50
58
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
As I've explained to you before, and I assume you're only pretending to forget, Jung's original type categories loaded up extraversion and introversion (for example) with multiple characteristics that decades of data have now firmly established — as a matter of fact, not varying "cognitive lenses" — do not statistically co-vary.

As further explained in this recent post (which responded to one of your posts), one of the big reasons the MBTI version of S/N differs from Jung's original conceptions of sensation and intuition is that Jung thought that abstract/concrete — in the theory vs. facts sense — went to the heart of E/I, with introverts tending to be abstract and extraverts tending to be (as Jung put it) "concretistic."

But decades of MBTI and Big Five data both have made it clear that there is absolutely no significant statistical correlation between E/I and a tendency to be abstract/theoretical vs. concrete/factual. There are abstract extraverts (MBTI ENs) and concrete introverts MBTI ISs), and an introvert is no more likely to be abstract/theoretical than an extravert.

So notwithstanding your reference to MBTI-ers clinging to their dogma in the face of a "renaissance back to Jung," you have it precisely backwards.

But by that I'm not meaning to suggest that the more well-respected theorists in the back-to-the-functions contingent — e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi — come close to sharing your contempt for the facts, and for the many improvements Myers unquestionably made to Jung's original type categories. As noted in that linked post (with illustrative quotes), the version of S/N that those theorists are working with is essentially Myers' statistically supportable version, rather than Jung's original version.
It is so interesting that you invariably assume that I am up to something. Essentially, you constantly accuse me of being a dishonest person. Constantly. That seems so foolish. I don't even know how to approach it.

Actually, in this case I am quite aware that you explained it to me before. I simply didn't accept it as a valid rebuttal. For example, I have 'answered' many of your posts, sometimes repeatedly. Why do you keep posting them?

Are you pretending to forget my obviously utterly factual and incontestable posts? You must be a real piece of work to employ such fakery. Or you just didn't agree with me, felt that I didn't understand the first time, and felt compelled to reiterate your counters as the situation dictated. I am guessing the second.

No, no, certainly not that. Better just assume malicious intent again. Somewhat ironically, it is rather a violation of your own empirical principle to do so, isn't it? It is also inappropriate. I've asked you to stop before and I am asking again.

---

I'll respond to your point, however, on the question of Jung and I/E and the proposed significance and implication of Myers' removing of concrete/abstract to S/N.

First, as I am sure you understand, Jung had his own view of Abstraction:

 
Abstraction

As the word already implies, is the drawing out or isolation of a content (e.g. a meaning or general character, etc.) from a connection, containing other elements, whose combination as a totality is something unique or individual, and therefore inaccessible to comparison. Singularity, uniqueness, and incomparability are obstacles to cognition, hence to the cognitive tendency the remaining elements, though felt to be essentially bound up with the content, must appear irrelevant.
Abstraction, therefore, is that form of mental activity which releases the essential content or fact from its connection with irrelevant elements; it distinguishes it from them, or, in other words, differentiates it. (v. Differentiation). In its wider sense, everything is abstract that is separated from its connection with non-appertaining elements.
Abstraction is an activity belonging to psychological functions in general. There is a thinking which abstracts, just as there is abstracting feeling, sensation, and intuition, (v. these concepts). Abstracting-thinking brings into relief a content that is distinguished from other irrelevant elements by its intellectual, logical qualities. Abstracting-feeling does the same with a content characterized by feeling; similarly with sensation and intuition. Hence, not only are there abstract thoughts but also abstract feelings, which latter are defined by Sully as intellectual, aesthetic, and moral [2]. Nahlowsky adds the religious feeling to these. Abstract feelings would, in my view, correspond with the 'higher' or 'ideal' feelings of Nahlowsky [3]. I put abstract feelings on the same line as abstract thoughts. Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as distinguished from sensual sensation (v. Sensation), and abstract intuition would be symbolical as opposed to phantastical intuition, (v. Phantasy, and Intuition).
In this work, the concept of abstraction is linked up with the idea of the psycho-energic process involved in it. When I assume an abstracting attitude towards an object, I do not let the object affect me in its totality, but I distinguish a portion of it from its connections, at the same time excluding the irrelevant parts. My purpose is to rid myself of the object as a single and unique whole, and to extract only a portion of it. Awareness of the whole undoubtedly takes place, but I do not plunge myself into this awareness; my interest does not flow out into the totality, but withdraws itself from the object as a whole, bringing the abstracted portion into myself, i.e. into my conceptual world, which is already prepared or constellated for .the purpose of abstracting a part of the object. (It is only by virtue of a subjective constellation of concepts that I possess the power of abstracting from the object). 'Interest' I conceive as that energy = libido (v. Libido), which I bestow upon the object as value, or which the object draws from me, even maybe against my will or unknown to myself. I visualize the abstracting process, therefore, as a withdrawal of libido from the object, or as a backflow of value from the object to a subjective, abstract content. Thus, for me, abstraction has the meaning of an energicdepreciation of the object. In other words, abstraction can be expressed as an introverting libido-movement.
I call an attitude (v. Attitude) abstracting when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates to already prepared abstract contents in the subject a certain essential portion of the object The more abstract a content the more unrepresentable it is. I adhere to Kant's view, which maintains that a concept is the more abstract, "the more it excludes the differences of things" [4], in the sense that abstraction at its highest level is absolutely removed from the object, thereby attaining the extreme limit of unrepresentability. It is this abstraction which I term the idea (v. Idea). Conversely, an abstraction that still possesses representability or obviousness is a concrete (y. Concretism) concept.
Concretism

By this term I understand a definite peculiarity of thought and feeling which represents the antithesis to abstraction. The actual meaning of concrete is 'grown together'. A concretely-thought concept is one that has grown together or coalesced with other concepts. Such a concept is not abstract, not isolated, and independently thought, but always impure and related. It is not a differentiated concept, but is still embedded in the sense-conveyed material of perception. Concretistic thinking moves among exclusively concrete concepts and views; it is constantly related to sensation. Similarly concretistic feeling is never free from sensuous relatedness.
Primitive thinking and feeling are exclusively concretistic; they are always related to sensation. The thought of the primitive has no detached independence, but clings to the material phenomenon. The most he can do is to raise it to the level of analogy. Primitive feeling is always equally related to the material phenomenon. His thought and feeling depend upon sensation and are only faintly differentiated from it Concretism, therefore, is an archaism (j.v.). The magical influence of the fetish is not experienced as a subjective state of feeling, but sensed as a magical effect. This is the concretism of feeling. The primitive does not experience the idea of divinity as a subjective content, but the sacred tree is the habitat—nay, even the deity' himself. This is concretism of thinking. With civilized man, concretism of thought consists in the inability to conceive of anything which differs from the immediately obvious external facts, or in the inability to discriminate subjective feeling from the sense-given object.
Concretism is a concept which falls under the more general concept of "participation mystique" (q.v.). Just as "participation mystique" represents a fusion of the individual with outer objects, so concretism represents a mixing-up of thought and feeling with sensation. It is a state of concretism when the object of thinking and feeling is at the same time also an object of sensation. This coalescence prevents a differentiation of thought and feeling, anchoring both functions within the sphere of sensation, i.e. sensuous relatedness; accordingly they can never be developed into pure functions, but must always remain the mere retainers of sensation. The result of this is a predominance of the factor of sensation in the psychological orientation. (Concerning the importance of the factor of sensation v. Sensation; Types).
The disadvantage of concretism is the subjection of function to sensation. Because sensation is the perception of physiological stimuli, concretism either rivets the function to the sphere of sense or constantly leads it back there. The effect of this is a sensual subjection of the psychological functions, favouring the influence of external facts at the expense of individual psychic autonomy. From the standpoint of the recognition of facts, this orientation is, of course, valuable, but from the standpoint of the interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual it is definitely prejudicial. Concretism produces a state where facts gain the paramount importance, thereby suppressing the individuality and its freedom in favour of the objective process. But since the individual is not only determined by physiological stimuli, but also by factors which may even be opposed to the external fact, concretism effects a projection of these inner factors into the outer fact, thus provoking an almost superstitious overvaluation of mere facts, as is precisely the case with the primitive. A good example of this is seen in Nietzsche, whose concretism of feeling resulted in an excessive valuation of diet; the materialism of Moleschott is a similar instance ("Man is what he eats"). An example of the superstitious overvaluation of facts is also provided by the hypostasizing of the concept of energy in the monism of Ostwald.
It seems pretty straightforward that my thinking is quite Abstract and that your thinking is quite Concrete. There is a natural urge to read this as my asserting some superiority. That is by no means the case. In fact, I take a great deal of pride in the Concreteness of my Intuition and tend to resist and struggle against the Abstraction of the Intuition of Ne. It is unrepresentable, too private, to soaked with the subject. It is a dangerous thing, and Jung never once stated that the ideal state is Abstraction alone. Rather, we mistake him if we think he means that Concretism is worse... because he simply said that Concretism is bad when alone. Undoubtedly, he would not be any more positive toward Abstraction operating alone:

It follows, therefore, that both functions are involved in a real understanding of the object, as indeed they are also essential to a real creativeness in art. Both functions are also constantly present in the individual, although for the most part unequally differentiated.
He states the following a little earlier, at such a time he is referring to Concretism in the form of 'feeling-into'. Thus, in this context, as you likely know, 'feeling-into' is the transposition of subjective elements into an object, imbuing it with them. This is extraverted, he says. Also:

Whereas the feeling-into impulse is conditioned by a happy, pantheistic, trustful relationship between man and the phenomena of the outer world, the impulse to abstraction is the result of a great inner uneasiness or fear of these phenomena, and in the religious connection corresponds with a strong transcendental colouring of every idea. Such a state might be called an immense spiritual agoraphobia. When Tibullus says 'primum in mundo fecit deus timorem' ('The first thing God made in the world was fear '), this very feeling of dread is admitted as the primal root of artistic energy."
This is literally true; feeling-into does presuppose a subjective attitude of readiness, or trustfulness vis-a-vis the object. It is a free movement of response, transveying a subjective content into the object; thus producing a subjective assimilation, which brings about a good understanding between subject and object, or at least simulates it. A passive object allows itself to be assimilated subjectively, but in doing so its real qualities are in no way altered; although through the transference they may become veiled or even, conceivably, violated. Through the feeling-into process similarities and apparently common qualities may be created which have no real existence in themselves. It is quite understandable, therefore, that the possibility of another kind of aesthetic relation to the object must also exist -- an attitude, namely, that neither responds nor advances to the object, but, on the contrary, seeks to withdraw from it, and to ensure itself against any influence on the part of the object by creating a subjective psychic activity whose function it is to paralyse the effect of the object.
Thus, 'feeling-into' is fundamentally extraverted, and fundamentally concrete. Concrete simply meaning 'grown together'. Thus, abstraction essentially IS introversion. They are very nearly if not precisely the same term. If you give it any other meaning, then you are making a new word. You are not 'fixing' Abstraction, you are making a new 'abstraction' altogether if you rend it from Jung's meaning. Then to say that Jung was wrong about Abstraction? He defined it! How can he be wrong about it when in delineating it he also defined it! That is like saying Myers was wrong about her own ideas of N vs S. She made them!!!

Saying Jung was wrong about Abstraction is a gross absurdity. I say 'jflsknfkd' is a word I just made up and it means "inside-out taco, a 'shell' of meat filled with a corn tortilla." You later define 'jflsknfkd' as 'an inside-out BURRITO' and then people are arguing on a forum about whose definition is correct. Absurd.

I inferred somewhat in previous posts that you thought my calling you a Concrete Thinker was absurd and somehow reflective of my poor understanding. I was definitionally correct, but you were perhaps thinking of the wrong 'concrete'. My Ne is quite concrete. All Ne is fairly concrete. Jung allowed for a subjective factor to remain in any function, and was not always entirely positive in his recounting of what might occur if the subjective factor were wholly removed. Thus, an extraverted function needn't be wholly concrete, though obviously effectively and mainly so.

You cannot extract Introversion from Abstraction, nor Extraversion from Concretism. You can only redefine them and then reapply the new definitions to the old in an accusatory manner. This is a conflation and an error in thinking.

So, no, Myers did not fix Jungs application of Concrete/Abstract from E/I to S/N. She made up (or simply used) new (or different) words with the same letters as Jung's words... which are now being used to conflate and misunderstand Jung. If you want to critique Jung, you have to use his own definitions.

Yes, Ne is invested into the object and thus concrete. Nowadays we call this 'objective' and see it positively. Concrete, though, now means something else. This is actually something of a concretism itself, humorously.

Your rebuttal?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
It is so interesting that you invariably assume that I am up to something. Essentially, you constantly accuse me of being a dishonest person. Constantly. That seems so foolish. I don't even know how to approach it.

Actually, in this case I am quite aware that you explained it to me before. I simply didn't accept it as a valid rebuttal. For example, I have 'answered' many of your posts, sometimes repeatedly. Why do you keep posting them?

Are you pretending to forget my obviously utterly factual and incontestable posts? You must be a real piece of work to employ such fakery. Or you just didn't agree with me, felt that I didn't understand the first time, and felt compelled to reiterate your counters as the situation dictated. I am guessing the second.

No, no, certainly not that. Better just assume malicious intent again. Somewhat ironically, it is rather a violation of your own empirical principle to do so, isn't it? It is also inappropriate. I've asked you to stop before and I am asking again.

---

I'll respond to your point, however, on the question of Jung and I/E and the proposed significance and implication of Myers' removing of concrete/abstract to S/N.

First, as I am sure you understand, Jung had his own view of Abstraction:



It seems pretty straightforward that my thinking is quite Abstract and that your thinking is quite Concrete. There is a natural urge to read this as my asserting some superiority. That is by no means the case. In fact, I take a great deal of pride in the Concreteness of my Intuition and tend to resist and struggle against the Abstraction of the Intuition of Ne. It is unrepresentable, too private, to soaked with the subject. It is a dangerous thing, and Jung never once stated that the ideal state is Abstraction alone. Rather, we mistake him if we think he means that Concretism is worse... because he simply said that Concretism is bad when alone. Undoubtedly, he would not be any more positive toward Abstraction operating alone:



He states the following a little earlier, at such a time he is referring to Concretism in the form of 'feeling-into'. Thus, in this context, as you likely know, 'feeling-into' is the transposition of subjective elements into an object, imbuing it with them. This is extraverted, he says. Also:


Thus, 'feeling-into' is fundamentally extraverted, and fundamentally concrete. Concrete simply meaning 'grown together'. Thus, abstraction essentially IS introversion. They are very nearly if not precisely the same term. If you give it any other meaning, then you are making a new word. You are not 'fixing' Abstraction, you are making a new 'abstraction' altogether if you rend it from Jung's meaning. Then to say that Jung was wrong about Abstraction? He defined it! How can he be wrong about it when in delineating it he also defined it! That is like saying Myers was wrong about her own ideas of N vs S. She made them!!!

Saying Jung was wrong about Abstraction is a gross absurdity. I say 'jflsknfkd' is a word I just made up and it means "inside-out taco, a 'shell' of meat filled with a corn tortilla." You later define 'jflsknfkd' as 'an inside-out BURRITO' and then people are arguing on a forum about whose definition is correct. Absurd.

I inferred somewhat in previous posts that you thought my calling you a Concrete Thinker was absurd and somehow reflective of my poor understanding. I was definitionally correct, but you were perhaps thinking of the wrong 'concrete'. My Ne is quite concrete. All Ne is fairly concrete. Jung allowed for a subjective factor to remain in any function, and was not always entirely positive in his recounting of what might occur if the subjective factor were wholly removed. Thus, an extraverted function needn't be wholly concrete, though obviously effectively and mainly so.

You cannot extract Introversion from Abstraction, nor Extraversion from Concretism. You can only redefine them and then reapply the new definitions to the old in an accusatory manner. This is a conflation and an error in thinking.

So, no, Myers did not fix Jungs application of Concrete/Abstract from E/I to S/N. She made up (or simply used) new (or different) words with the same letters as Jung's words... which are now being used to conflate and misunderstand Jung. If you want to critique Jung, you have to use his own definitions.

Yes, Ne is invested into the object and thus concrete. Nowadays we call this 'objective' and see it positively. Concrete, though, now means something else. This is actually something of a concretism itself, humorously.

Your rebuttal?
My rebuttal is that you're tiresome. As I said, this is not a matter that is really up for reasonable disagreement.

Jung believed in the scientific method. Jung's conflation of extraversion/introversion and concrete/abstract (in the theory/fact sense) has now been firmly rebutted by decades of data that shows that an extravert is no more likely to be concrete (in that sense) than an introvert and an introvert is no more likely to be abstract (in that sense) than an extravert.

Your blather about "feeling-into" and tacos and etc. just makes a muddle of the issue. Yes, Jung thought the aspects of concretism that Myers moved to S were part of extraversion, which was precisely why Jung conflated them with all the other things he associated with extraversion, including the extravert's fundamental sense of empathy toward the external world and the extravert's related desire to connect with other people, and so on.

You indignantly tell me that Jung "defined" extraversion, as if that somehow means his "definition" can't really be wrong; it can only be a different definition from somebody else's (equally arbitrary) definition. You say — and honestly, arkigos, and after all the posts I've made in back-and-forths with you before now on the subject, your willful refusal to "understand" is beyond tiresome — you say, "Abstraction? He defined it! How can he be wrong about it when in delineating it he also defined it! That is like saying Myers was wrong about her own ideas of N vs S. She made them!!!"

But Jung's concept of extraversion wasn't just a defined term. He believed it corresponded to an inborn dimension of personality that involved multiple traits that co-varied. And in that respect (among others), his "definition" was part of a theoretical model that makes predictions — namely, that someone who's born extraverted will tend to have a personality that exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G characteristics. And so in that respect (among others) it's a theory that can be put to the test and proven or disproven. And if it turns out that there's an inborn personality dimension that involves A, B, C, D and E but it also turns out that those people are no more likely to exhibit F and G characteristics than the people on the other side of the dimension, then the overinclusive "definition" has turned out to be faulty.

As McCrae and Costa have (rightly) noted, Jung loaded his concept of extraversion with a number of traits that "decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show ... simply do not cohere in a single factor," and Myers, after devoting much of her life to putting Jung's concepts to the test, was able to make the adjustments necessary to end up with type categories that involved "a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices."

And Jung, as I said, believed in the scientific method. So, if Jung was alive today, there is every reason to think that he would have acknowledged that that aspect of his theoretical model had been disproven, and that he'd frown on your attitude, which seems to say, "Facts be damned. I'm not interested in facts. I just like manufacturing definitions that don't really make any falsifiable assertions about the real world."

And meanwhile, as I said, and despite their general tendency to position themselves as back-to-Jungians whenever possible, Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk and all the other well-regarded cognitive function-centric theorists are essentially working with Myers' (statistically supportable) version of S/N rather than Jung's original version because they all recognize that, much as they like Jung, this is no longer a matter on which reasonable theorists can disagree.

And you can make 10 more fact-blind posts on the subject, or 100, or 1000, and it won't change that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
....as much as they like Jung, this is no longer a matter on which reasonable theorists can disagree.
Just finished reading that McCrae and Costa paper you posted. I was astounded by how much I agree with them, or how much they agree with me. :wink:

I'll spoil my thoughts as it goes along. I am basically just citing things that were said and mainly agreeing with them.

 


There was a focus on the failings of the J/P dichotomy (which I think is most important in the context of Jung) and they DO NOT state that Jung was wrong, but state that Jung was either wrong or "inadequately operationalized" by MBTI... which is my contention.

They pointed out, as I would hope, much of the criticism of MBTI in among personality psychologists. They specifically state, as I also contend, that criticism has been offered stating that MBTI 'distorts' Jungian concepts. We agree on this, though we frame it differently.

They note, as I do, that the system is self-sufficient, consistent, and has merit.

They note that self-reporting is a trouble with Jung, which I also have repeatedly stated... and note the trouble with Si in particular, as I do.

They mention that it seems sensing and extraversion overlap. Obviously, this is untrue rather profoundly in the description of Si... so, no, there is no overlap there. Instead, they are likely referring to Jungs repeated use of the term 'sensation'. However, he does specifically delineate Sensation from sensation... so I don't understand the confusion there. That Si so clearly does not resemble extraversion is the most significant.

They agree that the intrusion of the unconscious pollutes the the clear rendering of type, and even admit that some of the description traits are intended to be superficial (though observable).

Their point on Jung's description of Extraverts is interesting, but easily dismissed as promiscuous language on the part of Jung. Jung again and again and again makes clear what he means by Extraversion. Importantly, their decades of research on extraversion is based consistently and directly on the Jungian meaning of the term? Or no? That was not clear. I am assuming no.

They did not say that MBTI was an advancement, but that some might see it so. They aptly noted that Jungian folks would likely question the use of self-reporting. I do.

I found it interesting that MBTI fails to produce clear bimodal nodes around its zero point. I agree that this is fairly questionable, and I am fine accepting this as fact because it is the result of their own tests.

I thought it was interesting that some had reported that no predictions could be derived from the test, which I think is probably insufficient to say for sure... but at least ostensibly supports my assertion that 'you get out only what you put in'.

I agree that lacking separate scales for certain dichotomies in context of other dichotomy results is a potential problem, especially in the context of Jung.

They then cite the very sort of spurious 'predictions' that I'd criticized. That Intuitives responded more imaginatively, and Sensors using physical descriptions. The immediate red flag is that you just weeded them out according to that very criteria. One would certainly hope that they'd adhere to the very criteria you'd organized them by!!

We agree that while there is a wealth of data correlation, it all remains unverifiable in any external context. Thus, it is merely an internally consistent system. That is not a difficult feat, given enough time to build it up and refine the tests based on it. It has no meaning outside of its own scope.

They note that Jungian Feeling would not correlate to MBTI Feeling at least when negatively expressed.

Studies showed that age did not correlate to function development. First, though irrelevant, I agree that interpreting this through MBTI is not going to be useful. I also question the interpretation of 'function development' because, first of all, MBTI does not test what those functions have in terms of an 'inferior' quality. It is thus not meaningful. However, I would have thought that there would be no discernable correlation. That isn't necessarily relevant. Also, there was not. I agree with the latter of their conclusions, that MBTI fails to operationalize this. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that Jung was wrong on this, though I think it is a more complex matter.

That MBTI failed to show consistent results with showing a dominant function is rather MBTIs problem... as they suggest might be the case.


Also, 'FACTS' are not a universal trump. For example:

Color Test adds Purple... correlates it to Creativity. Decades later, it turns out that all the Fine Arts students are Purples with few exceptions.

This is all FACT. However, by framing it thusly, you see that FACT alone is a abusable thing when conclusions are derived from it without considering its semantics and scope.

Thus, you are quite factual, but it does not have the weight or meaning you presume the word 'FACT' gives it.

Further, studies are not facts. They are studies. I question the studies dismantling Jung's E/I dichotomy. "Decades" of them, yet so far I only see Guilford. Surely that isn't all. Can you show me these studies so I can scrutinize them ...? and specifically their applicability to your conclusion which you claim as uncontestable. Which is not yet any sort of fact.

As for the 'facts' supporting MBTI, it appears I am not alone in my criticism of those 'facts'. It seems to me to lack much meaning out of the scope of MBTI in and of itself. Your Big Five dudes agree, it seems... and recommend themselves instead. We both see merit in MBTI, but only in context. We agree that MBTI studies do not disprove Jung at all... at least not as a matter of fact.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Early mbti theorists noted, correctly, that Jung's cognitive functions were largely untestable. Being untestable, they would need to be restructured and molded into a more measurable format in order to gain acceptance in the wider psychological community. The Jungian functions are far too complex, far too interconnected, and far too abstract to test concretely. But that doesn't matter with science. Science wants things that can be measured and thus, if mbti was to gain any acceptability with science, the functions needed to be distorted to be able to test measurable behavior.

Thus measurable behavioral traits were lumped onto cognitive functions: sensation became details and rules, intuition became creativity and abstract thinking. Extroversion became outgoingness, introversion became shyness and reclusion. Interesting dichotomies nonetheless but they have no real correlation with actual intuition and sensation nor actual introversion and extroversion.

Don't even get me started on P vs J. It essentially measures Conscientiousness as defined in OCEAN. Zero correlation with actual perception vs judgement as far as the functions are defined. But because conscientiousness is a character trait that can be measured, perceiving and judging were distorted by mbti into a pseudo-measure of conscientiousness that could be formally presented in psychological journals.

So in conclusion, @reckful is correct in ascertaining that the dichotomies as presented and defined by mbti, do indeed correlate with the Big Five OCEAN traits. But this correlation was an in-built design feature of mbti included for convenience sakes, in order to make mbti more marketable to a broader audience. If mbti had struck true to Jung's discoveries, to true intuition vs sensation, to true perception vs judgement dominance, it would be far less measurable and far less marketable. But that doesn't make Jung any less valid. It just means that true cognition is far too messy to be ascertained in hundred question tests or packaged up into neat little boxes to be sold to corporations so they can access employee productivity.

As @arkigos, as well as others, have pointed out, there are indeed fundamental differences in perception and judgement that do not correlate to such simple behavioral traits as creativity or outgoingness. These cognitive functions are much more fundamental and much more raw to be adequately summed up in neat dichotomies as found in mbti or OCEAN. And it is these traits that Jung was digging at; I believe he would be abhorred at the corporatization and simplification mbti has imposed on his discoveries.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Just finished reading that McCrae and Costa paper you posted. I was astounded by how much I agree with them, or how much they agree with me. :wink:

I'll spoil my thoughts as it goes along. I am basically just citing things that were said and mainly agreeing with them.

 


There was a focus on the failings of the J/P dichotomy (which I think is most important in the context of Jung) and they DO NOT state that Jung was wrong, but state that Jung was either wrong or "inadequately operationalized" by MBTI... which is my contention.

They pointed out, as I would hope, much of the criticism of MBTI in among personality psychologists. They specifically state, as I also contend, that criticism has been offered stating that MBTI 'distorts' Jungian concepts. We agree on this, though we frame it differently.

They note, as I do, that the system is self-sufficient, consistent, and has merit.

They note that self-reporting is a trouble with Jung, which I also have repeatedly stated... and note the trouble with Si in particular, as I do.

They mention that it seems sensing and extraversion overlap. Obviously, this is untrue rather profoundly in the description of Si... so, no, there is no overlap there. Instead, they are likely referring to Jungs repeated use of the term 'sensation'. However, he does specifically delineate Sensation from sensation... so I don't understand the confusion there. That Si so clearly does not resemble extraversion is the most significant.

They agree that the intrusion of the unconscious pollutes the the clear rendering of type, and even admit that some of the description traits are intended to be superficial (though observable).

Their point on Jung's description of Extraverts is interesting, but easily dismissed as promiscuous language on the part of Jung. Jung again and again and again makes clear what he means by Extraversion. Importantly, their decades of research on extraversion is based consistently and directly on the Jungian meaning of the term? Or no? That was not clear. I am assuming no.

They did not say that MBTI was an advancement, but that some might see it so. They aptly noted that Jungian folks would likely question the use of self-reporting. I do.

I found it interesting that MBTI fails to produce clear bimodal nodes around its zero point. I agree that this is fairly questionable, and I am fine accepting this as fact because it is the result of their own tests.

I thought it was interesting that some had reported that no predictions could be derived from the test, which I think is probably insufficient to say for sure... but at least ostensibly supports my assertion that 'you get out only what you put in'.

I agree that lacking separate scales for certain dichotomies in context of other dichotomy results is a potential problem, especially in the context of Jung.

They then cite the very sort of spurious 'predictions' that I'd criticized. That Intuitives responded more imaginatively, and Sensors using physical descriptions. The immediate red flag is that you just weeded them out according to that very criteria. One would certainly hope that they'd adhere to the very criteria you'd organized them by!!

We agree that while there is a wealth of data correlation, it all remains unverifiable in any external context. Thus, it is merely an internally consistent system. That is not a difficult feat, given enough time to build it up and refine the tests based on it. It has no meaning outside of its own scope.

They note that Jungian Feeling would not correlate to MBTI Feeling at least when negatively expressed.

Studies showed that age did not correlate to function development. First, though irrelevant, I agree that interpreting this through MBTI is not going to be useful. I also question the interpretation of 'function development' because, first of all, MBTI does not test what those functions have in terms of an 'inferior' quality. It is thus not meaningful. However, I would have thought that there would be no discernable correlation. That isn't necessarily relevant. Also, there was not. I agree with the latter of their conclusions, that MBTI fails to operationalize this. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that Jung was wrong on this, though I think it is a more complex matter.

That MBTI failed to show consistent results with showing a dominant function is rather MBTIs problem... as they suggest might be the case.


Also, 'FACTS' are not a universal trump. For example:

Color Test adds Purple... correlates it to Creativity. Decades later, it turns out that all the Fine Arts students are Purples with few exceptions.

This is all FACT. However, by framing it thusly, you see that FACT alone is a abusable thing when conclusions are derived from it without considering its semantics and scope.

Thus, you are quite factual, but it does not have the weight or meaning you presume the word 'FACT' gives it.

Further, studies are not facts. They are studies. I question the studies dismantling Jung's E/I dichotomy. "Decades" of them, yet so far I only see Guilford. Surely that isn't all. Can you show me these studies so I can scrutinize them ...? and specifically their applicability to your conclusion which you claim as uncontestable. Which is not yet any sort of fact.

As for the 'facts' supporting MBTI, it appears I am not alone in my criticism of those 'facts'. It seems to me to lack much meaning out of the scope of MBTI in and of itself. Your Big Five dudes agree, it seems... and recommend themselves instead. We both see merit in MBTI, but only in context. We agree that MBTI studies do not disprove Jung at all... at least not as a matter of fact.
Not surprisingly, there really isn't anything in your post that undercuts the point that I characterized as pretty much factually established in my last post — not to mention in a number of previous back-and-forths with you.

You say: "They then cite the very sort of spurious 'predictions' that I'd criticized. That Intuitives responded more imaginatively, and Sensors using physical descriptions. The immediate red flag is that you just weeded them out according to that very criteria. One would certainly hope that they'd adhere to the very criteria you'd organized them by!!"

Well... assuming there are four (or five) real, relatively hardwired personality dimensions and you're designing a self-assessment test to tap into them, of course the test items are going to reflect various of the characteristics that your model associates with those dimensions. But that kind of "circularity" doesn't (necessarily) mean you're not tapping into something real. That's basically what the "validity" issue is about for a personality typology and, as I've discussed in lots of previous posts (e.g., this one) — and as McCrae and Costa acknowledge in that article you read — all four of the MBTI dichotomies have been found to pass muster in the validity department based on, yes, decades of studies. In that regard, I'll just briefly and oversimply note here that, among the things that help establish a theoretical personality dimension's validity is (1) when it involves not just one characteristic but a multifaceted "cluster" of characteristics that are consistently found to co-vary in a statistically significant way, (2) when that cluster of characteristics is also found to correlate in a statistically significant way with other characteristics that the relevant test doesn't ask the subjects about, and (3) when it turns out that twins (and especially identical twins raised in separate households) are substantially more likely to match up on that dimension than less genetically-related pairs.

But that's all pretty much beside the point when it comes to the issue addressed in my last post, because the aspect of Jung's original conceptions that I explained has essentially been disproven — by the scientific method, which Jung certainly advocated — has been disproven not by way of correlations that somebody could claim were just circular. It's been disproven, on the contrary, by a lack of correlation that's been consistently reflected in countless data samples.

You say: "I question the studies dismantling Jung's E/I dichotomy. 'Decades' of them, yet so far I only see Guilford. Surely that isn't all. Can you show me these studies so I can scrutinize them ...? and specifically their applicability to your conclusion which you claim as uncontestable."

WTF? Among the "decades" of studies that have disproven the relevant lack of correlation is every MBTI data sample ever that has demonstrated that a person who types as an introvert — by virtue of E/I items that largely reflect characteristics that Jung associated with introversion — is no more likely than an MBTI extravert to choose the N side of MBTI items that reflect the preference for the abstract/theoretical over the concrete/factual that Jung (wrongly) also associated with introversion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
The Jungian functions are far too complex, far too interconnected, and far too abstract to test concretely. ...

Thus measurable behavioral traits were lumped onto cognitive functions: sensation became details and rules, intuition became creativity and abstract thinking. Extroversion became outgoingness, introversion became shyness and reclusion. Interesting dichotomies nonetheless but they have no real correlation with actual intuition and sensation nor actual introversion and extroversion. ...

So in conclusion, @reckful is correct in ascertaining that the dichotomies as presented and defined by mbti, do indeed correlate with the Big Five OCEAN traits. But this correlation was an in-built design feature of mbti included for convenience sakes, in order to make mbti more marketable to a broader audience.
Yeah, Jung's view of his types just involved "abstract" stuff, not "measurable behavioral traits." Associating extraversion with "outgoingness" and introversion with "shyness and reclusion"? Pssh. Jung knew better than to do that.

Except... he didn't, actually. The idea that Psychological Types is about deep cognition and the MBTI is about superficial behavior is mostly just one of those uninformed memes that gets passed around a lot at internet forums. At the end of the day, Jung's typology and the MBTI both deal, at their core, with internal temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested both internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior). And anyone who's interested can read more about that here.

Jung spent more of Psychological Types describing all the stuff he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. You say shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion." Well... anybody interested in a good dose of the outgoingness Jung associated with extraverts and the shyness and reclusiveness he associated with introverts — not to mention a lot of other behavioral stuff he associated with E/I — is invited to dig into the quotes in the spoiler.

 
Jung said:
[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.
Jung said:
[The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...

For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...

His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.
Jung said:
The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...

The [introvert's] sudden explosions [of emotion], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. Moreover the occasional outbursts of affect play havoc with their relations to others, and, because of their embarrassment and helplessness, they feel incapable of retrieving the situation. This awkwardness in adapting leads to all sorts of unfortunate experiences which inevitably produce a feeling of inferiority or bitterness, and even of hatred that is readily directed at those who were the actual or supposed authors of their misfortunes. ... They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them. This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.
Jung said:
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...

The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...

The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Not surprisingly, there really isn't anything in your post that undercuts the point that I characterized as pretty much factually established in my last post — not to mention in a number of previous back-and-forths with you.

You say: "They then cite the very sort of spurious 'predictions' that I'd criticized. That Intuitives responded more imaginatively, and Sensors using physical descriptions. The immediate red flag is that you just weeded them out according to that very criteria. One would certainly hope that they'd adhere to the very criteria you'd organized them by!!"

Well... assuming there are four (or five) real, relatively hardwired personality dimensions and you're designing a self-assessment test to tap into them, of course the test items are going to reflect various of the characteristics that your model associates with those dimensions. But that kind of "circularity" doesn't (necessarily) mean you're not tapping into something real. That's basically what the "validity" issue is about for a personality typology and, as I've discussed in lots of previous posts (e.g., this one) — and as McCrae and Costa acknowledge in that article you read — all four of the MBTI dichotomies have been found to pass muster in the validity department based on, yes, decades of studies. In that regard, I'll just briefly and oversimply note here that, among the things that help establish a theoretical personality dimension's validity is (1) when it involves not just one characteristic but a multifaceted "cluster" of characteristics that are consistently found to co-vary in a statistically significant way, (2) when that cluster of characteristics is also found to correlate in a statistically significant way with other characteristics that the relevant test doesn't ask the subjects about, and (3) when it turns out that twins (and especially identical twins raised in separate households) are substantially more likely to match up on that dimension than less genetically-related pairs.

But that's all pretty much beside the point when it comes to the issue addressed in my last post, because the aspect of Jung's original conceptions that I explained has essentially been disproven — by the scientific method, which Jung certainly advocated — has been disproven not by way of correlations that somebody could claim were just circular. It's been disproven, on the contrary, by a lack of correlation that's been consistently reflected in countless data samples.

You say: "I question the studies dismantling Jung's E/I dichotomy. 'Decades' of them, yet so far I only see Guilford. Surely that isn't all. Can you show me these studies so I can scrutinize them ...? and specifically their applicability to your conclusion which you claim as uncontestable."

WTF? Among the "decades" of studies that have disproven the relevant lack of correlation is every MBTI data sample ever that has demonstrated that a person who types as an introvert — by virtue of E/I items that largely reflect characteristics that Jung associated with introversion — is no more likely than an MBTI extravert to choose the N side of MBTI items that reflect the preference for the abstract/theoretical over the concrete/factual that Jung (wrongly) also associated with introversion.
I agree completely that a multi-faceted "cluster" would be more meaningful... unless that cluster was part of the original criteria, of course. Also, the question of correlation to characteristics not asked about. This is certainly more meaningful, but I will mention that it is by no means conclusive. For example, the Purple types are found to report being relatively irresponsible, or less social, or more forgetful, or whatever.... and the test didn't ask about those things. That they correlate is certainly meaningful, and a significant thing, though unquestionably such things occur and are used to support a hypothesis that is nevertheless ultimately false... because their significance toward that hypothesis is over-estimated. Rather, they only prove that such a correlation exists, and say nothing else. Such things are not really proofs, but encouraging hints. Sometimes TOO encouraging.

I agree, too, that the "circularity" of this does not mean it isn't tapping into something real. My point, then, would be that, the converse is also true.... namely, that it neither confirms or denies such a thing. It is irrelevant to such an effort.

Again, the number of studies (or their timeframe) is not strictly relevant, but their contents. There is no merit or virtue in their existence.

So, finally, you say that it is MBTI studies that disprove Jung. I see. I completely (rather, as of yet) fail to see how the studies of one system quite removed from the other can disprove said other. For example... the question of MBTI showing consistent dominant functions. It is using different criteria. Fundamentally different criteria informing questions oriented to that criteria. It cannot be used as a proof or disproof of Jung (as that paper stated, emphasizing those very problems of correlation but agreeing with me that they are not proof of the wrongness of Jung, because they could also simply show the failure of MBTI in operationalizing Jung).

You can say that MBTI disproves Myers' interpretation of Jung... or even that certain studies cast doubt or question (or even effective proof against) certain statements of Jung. I would find such things quite engaging, as I myself am not always inclined to agree with Jung and his sometimes over-generalized and ambiguous language. In that case, we would actually be getting somewhere. Real proofs dealing accurately with specific issues. What I still fail to see, and think you have failed to offer, is how this constitutes a rejection of Jung. You surely agree that someone can be wrong on a point, but not wrong on the whole. Or that in the course of a book (or a forum post!) someone can speak uncarefully or incorrectly and yet their ultimate point (and certainly unrelated points) would remain quite true. You must also surely agree that such errors can cause or be exacerbated by mistakes, ambiguities or conflations in interpretation. These things must be scrutinized in turn. Thoroughly, without jumping ahead based on broad strokes assumptions or short cuts.

So, to that end, give me an example... or as many examples as you possess... of how MBTI dichotomy correlations debunk Jung. You will, of course, be required to show that the MBTI study is testing for what Jung was expressing, and that it is doing so in a meaningful and accurate way. Like, for example, if the questionnaire asks someone if they are 'abstract' or 'concrete', whether the test taker understands what that means in a Jungian definition and thus is answering in such a way as to reflect back to Jung. Also, in that reflection, if we are disproving Jung or simply chastizing him for the use of 'jovial' in describing Extraverts, or whatever. Also, whether Jung contradicted his own statement or 'overrode' it, or whatever.

I think anything less could not honestly be considered sufficiently accurate. If you link me some studies you think are particularly damning, I will be happy to do the leg work.


EDIT: In your reply #34 above... where are those Jung quotes from? I searched for some of the phrases in Psychological Types and they didn't come up.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Yeah, Jung's view of his types just involved "abstract" stuff, not "measurable behavioral traits." Associating extraversion with "outgoingness" and introversion with "shyness and reclusion"? Pssh. Jung knew better than to do that.

Except... he didn't, actually. The idea that Psychological Types is about deep cognition and the MBTI is about superficial behavior is mostly just one of those uninformed memes that gets passed around a lot at internet forums. At the end of the day, Jung's typology and the MBTI both deal, at their core, with internal temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested both internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior). And anyone who's interested can read more about that here.

Jung spent more of Psychological Types describing all the stuff he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. You say shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion." Well... anybody interested in a good dose of the outgoingness Jung associated with extraverts and the shyness and reclusiveness he associated with introverts — not to mention a lot of other behavioral stuff he associated with E/I — is invited to dig into the quotes in the spoiler.

 






Your posts are a testament to the accuracy of Jung's assessments lol.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Your posts are a testament to the accuracy of Jung's assessments lol.
Are you saying those Jung quotes aren't inconsistent with your assertion that, from Jung's perspective, in your words, "outgoingness [and] shyness and reclusion ... have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion"?

Or are you just refusing to acknowledge that those quotes make it clear that you aren't nearly as familiar with what Jung actually wrote as your posts seem to imply?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
EDIT: In your reply #34 above... where are those Jung quotes from? I searched for some of the phrases in Psychological Types and they didn't come up.
The Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, published in 1960 (with Jung's participation), added three articles on Jung's types that he'd separately published after the original publication (in 1921) of Psychological Types:

  • Psychological Types (1925)
  • A Psychological Theory of Types (1931)
  • Psychological Typology (1936)
My collection of quotes, to the extent that it doesn't come from the first 11 chapters of Psychological Types (i.e., the original text), comes from those supplemental articles.

And all the quotes come from the revised English translation of Psychological Types that was published in 1971.

ADDED: The first quote comes from Ch. 10; the third one comes from Ch. 6; and the other two come from the 1936 article.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Thanks for asking! :tongue:

That post I already linked to (and the two posts it links to) will get you started.

And if you're still hungry after that, you can find a veritable Jung abstract/concrete feast (with a cornucopia of quotes) in two back-and-forths I had with Naama. The first just includes this post and this post; and the second involves more posts (and many quotes) and starts here.

ADDED: Since that last thread is a long multi-poster thread (and a few of my posts don't add much to the others), here are individual links to the abstract/concrete posts I'm inclined to point you to:

32
44
48
50
58
I think this may be a translation fault. Extraversion is fed from external sources, so concrete was supplemented. Or I could just be nitpicking at something I don't want to hear. I hope it's a mistranslation. If not… I'll have to part from Jung on that one. Ne types are very idealistic, not concrete at all. Thank you for digging those up! By the way, what is your view on the nature of introversion and extraversion?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
The Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, published in 1960 (with Jung's participation), added three articles on Jung's types that he'd separately published after the original publication (in 1921) of Psychological Types:

  • Psychological Types (1925)
  • A Psychological Theory of Types (1931)
  • Psychological Typology (1936)
My collection of quotes, to the extent that it doesn't come from the first 11 chapters of Psychological Types (i.e., the original text), comes from those supplemental articles.

And all the quotes come from the revised English translation of Psychological Types that was published in 1971.

ADDED: The first quote comes from Ch. 10; the third one comes from Ch. 6; and the other two come from the 1936 article.
I do find it amusing how almost no one has read the articles at the back, and that most don't realize introversion as shyness and extraversion as outgoing were originally correlated by Jung. However, the MBTI version of E and I is slightly caricaturized, leaning in favor of Ti dominants an Fe dominants.
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top