Personality Cafe banner

41 - 51 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
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.
Except this isn't quite true. This is what you want to believe because this is how you want to align the systems, but just because you want to believe it, it doesn't make it true. Yes, Jung cites behavior in PT, but he also does a lot of other things in PT completely unrelated to behavior. Did it ever occur to you to question why he spends time describing behavior, typical manifestations of the types and provide with type examples at all?

Jung also spent a lot of his time during his life lamenting the fact that in order to even make his idea somewhat acceptable within his current sphere of influence he had to adhere to the scientific principle which is fundamentally an ST thing because it's empirical. If Jung had been a part of a field of science where empirical logic is heavily rejected e.g. cultural anthropology, I think Jung would never have stressed all these behavioral traits as much as he did. The behavior is not really the meat and juice of Jungian theory but it's his delineation of the categories he's describing that are.

You keep always citing sources that support your case. That's cherrypicking to the finest degree. You lack overall scope and focus and you aren't reviewing PT in its totality. You need to stop look at the pages and you need to look at how the pages actually link together into a more wholesome thing.

It's not a false internet meme that is being passed around that Jung was not interested in traits. The man fucking explicitly states so himself. He was not happy with the fact that he had to focus on things measurable such as traits in order for people to accept his theory as something else than mere quackery.

No, you just lack reading comprehension pretty much, and I wholeheartedly agree with @blue street news that if Jung was around and knew what his theory has become aka MBTI and it even abuses his name in order to promote it even though it's so far removed anything Jungian, he would likely distance himself very far from it. MBTI does not capture the Jungian reality of type. It simplifies and makes it concrete. Jung's idea of type is not concrete.

While I'm at this very point, I might as well address this too:

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"?
I fail to see how the two quotes you provided actually genuinely correspond to "outgoingness" and "shyness" though reclusion may be somewhat apt though it still doesn't quite capture the reality in which Jung was actually trying to get at.

Another and very important facet when it comes to Jung's descriptions and when it comes to MBTI is the difference between observation of self from the self and from the outside. Also, even modern neuroscience today has moved beyond traits as an attempt to measure introversion-extroversion and tends to try to understand it through the notion of limbic energy which means that an introvert can indeed appear highly energized but will as a whole still have a greater time dealing with too much external stimulus which is actually what Jung is implying here too, though he did not mean that so much in terms of physiological as much as psychic character.

Also, when it comes to the idea that Big 5/OCEAN/SLOAN, the MBTI and modern neuroscience would somehow tap into the same temperamental idea of I/E that Jung did seems almost oddly redundant, since introversion and extroversion are in their origin Jungian constructs.

If modern science is staying true to Jung's observations, of course they will tap into the same temperamental idea. Whether this is actually something we are born with or not is however at this point, quite questionable. Some science suggests we are and some science suggests we don't. Furthermore, there is to my knowledge, no science done to test if there is a genuine correlation between Jungian introversion and extroversion and the way introversion and extroversion are defined in neuroscience today. I entirely dismiss the SLOAN/Big 5/OCEAN and MBTI definitions unless they at least admit it has to do with energy, not personality traits in themselves.

As you are likely aware, Susan Cain is perhaps the most prominent author right now when it comes to debunking the idea that introversion has actually something to do with the way the word is usually conflated to be understood i.e. someone who is socially withdrawn regardless of the causes of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,263 Posts
If you mean spontaneous as in doing things on the fly and rarely ever planning for things, yes that's true. At least for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Jung also spent a lot of his time during his life lamenting the fact that in order to even make his idea somewhat acceptable within his current sphere of influence he had to adhere to the scientific principle which is fundamentally an ST thing because it's empirical.
Here's Jung, "cherrypicked" just for you, from the 1928 article added to the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types:

Jung said:
As for the astrological type theory, to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue.

This historical retrospect may serve to assure us that our modern attempts to formulate a theory of types are by no means new and unprecedented, even though our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the need of science.
I don't disagree that Jung thought there were limits on how far "quantitative measurement" could take you in studying the human psyche — although he noted that "I believe I have shown in my [word-]assocation studies that extremely complicated psychological facts are accessible to quantitative measurement."

But he certainly didn't subscribe to the idea that, to the extent that "quantitative measurement" could and did falsify any aspect of a theoretical model, the theorist should feel free to shrug his shoulders and ignore it. He was a strong believer in the scientific method, and broke with Freud largely because of what he viewed as Freud's shortcomings in that department. As Jung described it:

Jung said:
There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious, and all signs of his normally critical and skeptical manner vanished. ...

I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me, "My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakeable bulwark." ... First of all, it was the words "bulwark" and "dogma" that alarmed me; for a dogma, that is to say, an indisputable confession of faith, is set up only when the aim is to suppress doubts once and for all. But that no longer has anything to do with scientific judgment; only with a personal power drive.

This was the thing that struck at the heart of our friendship. I knew that I would never be able to accept such an attitude. ...

When ... Freud announced his intention of identifying theory and method and making them into some kind of dogma, I could no longer collaborate with him; there remained no choice for me but to withdraw.
Jung's original concepts of extraversion and introversion involved multiple personality characteristics that Jung's model said would co-vary — and that, as I already explained to arkigos, is an aspect of Jung's model that is susceptible to testing by quantitative scientific means. And Myers put that model to the test and discovered, as McCrae and Costa rightly note, that various aspects of extraversion (and introversion) that Jung's model grouped together did not co-vary.

Faced with those facts, I believe Jung would have accepted Myers' adjustments to his typology, rather than telling her that her studies were "an ST thing" and he was going to stick with his original model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
No, you just lack reading comprehension pretty much. ...

I fail to see how the two quotes you provided actually genuinely correspond to "outgoingness" and "shyness" though reclusion may be somewhat apt though it still doesn't quite capture the reality in which Jung was actually trying to get at.
It was four quotes, not two, and I'd say anyone who reads them and then posts that they "fail to see how [they] correspond to 'outgoingness' and 'shyness'" is probably committing a sin less forgivable than a "lack of reading comprehension."

Here's a recap of a few excerpts from those same quotes:

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. ... 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. ...

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. ...

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 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, ... a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," ... 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. ...

He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. ... 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
·
18,510 Posts
@reckful "seems inhibited" is not the same as "shyness". You are making leaps that aren't there. Similarly, "a desire to influence events" does not mean the same as being outgoing. If you think that, you are simplifying.

Another thing is that Jung is talking about two dimensions in these extracts, one of them has to do with psychic orientation. I do relate to his introverted description here, but anyone who knows me can definitely tell I'm not a shy person, or lacking in outgoing-ness.

Seemingly inhibited would for example be much better translated into being or appearing somewhat withdrawn. Being withdrawn in this case is partially a mental disposition that is shown as a disinterest in the external world or object, which goes perfectly in line with the rest of his theory. Saying it's equal to shyness is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful "seems inhibited" is not the same as "shyness". You are making leaps that aren't there. Similarly, "a desire to influence events" does not mean the same as being outgoing. If you think that, you are simplifying.
What I said the quotes showed was that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts — in response to @blues street news's claim that, from a Jungian perspective, shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion."

Those quotes include Jung specifically describing introverts as "rather shy people" with "a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people"; and describing extraverts as "sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters" who "live in and through others" and are characterized by "a need to join in, ... the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and ... a strong tendency to make a show of oneself."

I didn't point to any one phrase or sentence in Jung's descriptions and say that that one characteristic was "the same as" shyness or "the same as" being outgoing.

As you know.

And those quotes I posted, taken as a whole, certainly show that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts.

As I'm confident you also know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
What I said the quotes showed was that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts — in response to @blues street news's claim that, from a Jungian perspective, shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion."

Those quotes include Jung specifically describing introverts as "rather shy people" with "a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people"; and describing extraverts as "sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters" who "live in and through others" and are characterized by "a need to join in, ... the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and ... a strong tendency to make a show of oneself."

I didn't point to any one phrase or sentence in Jung's descriptions and say that that one characteristic was "the same as" shyness or "the same as" being outgoing.

As you know.

And those quotes I posted, taken as a whole, certainly show that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts.

As I'm confident you also know.
The only quote you provided that supports this is the first one but it appears to me that Jung is not necessarily associating the traits as much as he's making an exaggerated point in order to make the reader understand what he is talking about, since he later in fact abstracts this far removed from actual behavior in such a sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,935 Posts
ISTJ - Most Responsible

ISFJ - Most Loyal

INFJ - Most Contemplative

INTJ - Most Independent

ISTP - Most Pragmatic

ISFP - Most Artistic

INFP - Most Idealistic

INTP - Most Conceptual

ESTP - Most Spontaneous

ESFP - Most Generous

ENFP - Most Optimistic

ENTP - Most Inventive

ESTJ - Most Hard Charging

ESFJ - Most Harmonizing

ENFJ - Most Persuasive

ENTJ - Most Commanding




I took this from a website. Do you find this accurate? Does your myers briggs personality type fit those characteristics listed above?
I fit more than one of these. I feel so special
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,672 Posts
So, I'm an INFP with INFJ-like tendencies who comes off as an ESTP to strangers in desperate times.
 
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
Top