Personality Cafe banner

81 - 92 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
Jung said:
The one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.
Psychic relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance.For our present-day culture the extraverted attitude is the governing principle in the problem of human relationship; naturally, the introverted principle occurs, but it is still the exception, and has to appeal to the tolerance of the age.
This quote brought up by @Deus Absconditus is interesting. It makes it seems like Jung thought extraverts prefer both extraverted judgment and extraverted perception (yeah, what a surprise!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
These observations were a very interesting to read. Well, I respect the source of the theory and when my head is too confused with all the things I read on the internet, I always go back to the source (even though it is not clear as water to understand). I don't know what Jung would say if he was alive and continued to formulate this theory... but from my own experience of my existence, I relate to Myer's model of paring 1 extroverted and 1 introverted function on the conscious realm. I am an extrovert but I am consciously aware when I go inward and check in with my subjectivy's take on the outside world.
I didn't read Jung as much as you did. But I guess if he did not say much about the auxiliary, he probably said even less about the terciary. Well... I see a lot of people type Jung as INFJ. If he really was... he could be in a Ni>Ti Loop. Making him doubt his own type. I mean, we have to admit, analyzing your own mind that much must be very hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
I came back just to say I think Jung was INTJ

 
From what I understand he admited he was Intuitive and Thinker. Also an Introvert. First he thought he was Introverted Thinker but there are evidences where he says he is Introverted Intuitive. And from this point, arises in the MBTI community this forceful want of making Jung use Introverted Intuition and Introverted Thinking at the same time and because ISTP is a Sensation type, people type him as INFJ. But in his interview he says Feeling was always difficult for him and I find his work very pragmatic. So why the hell couldn't he be an INTJ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
360 Posts
This unnecessary discussion reminds me of what i read - immature NTs are the most irrational, illogical and stupid paradoxically. They go overboard beyond the obvious logic and make their own personalised ''logics''. Iam an extreme Infp and i can easily tell my process of Fi - Ne- Si - Te as i visualise it as i do. I always knew i preferred human feelings much more than logic unlike most others, even more than other feeling based people. When i saw MBTI and cognitive functions, it only assured what i've been experiencing but clarified that iam not abnormal and others are not evil like i thought. Myers clearly got what Jung said and i agree with her. We Infps can get what a person actually means almost instinctively. We INFPs can go deepest in any subject and reach the core. Jung's assistants which u didn't even state got it wrong. Most are on the same boat doesn't make it correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #85 (Edited)
Iam an extreme Infp and i can easily tell my process of Fi - Ne- Si - Te as i visualise it as i do. ... Myers clearly got what Jung said and i agree with her. We Infps can get what a person actually means almost instinctively. We INFPs can go deepest in any subject and reach the core. Jung's assistants which u didn't even state got it wrong. Most are on the same boat doesn't make it correct.
For starters, Myers said that an INFP's function stack was Fi-Ne-Se-Te, not Fi-Ne-Si-Te.

And as for Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary, I'd encourage you to give the long Jung passage in post 70 a read. As I note in that post, Jung clearly says that extraverts are extraverted in both their judgments and perceptions.

How can you possibly reconcile that Jung quote — from Chapter 10 of Psychological Types — with the idea that Jung thought that half of extraverts (the Pe-doms) would be introverted in their judgments, and the other half of extraverts (the Je-doms) would be introverted in their perceptions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
This is something I myself have suspected for a while. I think Myers was guilty of reading only the parts of Psychological Types that she though was relevant to her mission of finding a way to legitimize her temperament theory by tacking an existing typology onto it, hence her taking Jung's line about the Auxiliary in chapter 10 out of context, because she didn't read the rest of the context!

I think the best way to think of the psychological types is to take the E or I attitude as outside of and encompassing both the Primary and Auxiliary functions.

---------------------------------------------------------

So "Introverted Feeling with Intuition" would NOT be:

[Introverted Feeling] [with Intuition]

but instead be:

[Introverted [Feeling with Intuition]]

---------------------------------------------------------

Or to put it in a kind of mathematical notation, an INFJ would be:

I-(F/n)|E-(s/T)
That sounds reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
What are your thoughts on the work of Helen Fisher?

This is just the general picture which can be considered very highly correlated with cognitive functions (cmiiw)

The Explorer: Se, Ne, Te (strong)
The Builder : Si, Ni, Ti, Fi (strong)
The Negotiator: Fe, Ni, Si, Fi (strong)
The Director: Te, Ti, Se, (strong)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
573 Posts
With that as background, and if you assume that the "painful" part of Jung's typing decision was the choice between Ti-dom with an N-aux and Ni-dom with a T-aux, I think it's worth noting that, if you assume Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant, Jung's "painful" dilemma would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ne or Ni-Te, which readers of Psychological Types know Jung viewed as substantially different function pairs. By contrast, if you assume Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the same attitude as the dominant, Jung's "painful" dilemma would have involved figuring out whether he was Ti-Ni or Ni-Ti — the same two functions, and therefore a considerably more understandable source of uncertainty.
Jung: Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.


The only ones in conflict with the reality of things are idealistic or mystic... If you are an authentic intuitive and thinker, you can inadvertently ignore reality. Which is not the same thing.


It's the demonstration that people are not really objective about themselves. Between the picture they have of themselves, and the reality perceived from the outside, I am no exception, there is a nuance. As you and your certainty to use (Ti) equally with (Te)... When I already wrote it, jung's introverted thinking was at an average level. So unable to decide between his first ideas and the last, yet contradictory.

Everything converges to INFJ. Ni-Fe-Ti-Se with a balanced central axis.
 

·
Plague Doctor
Joined
·
5,927 Posts
They are the loops. If yo have dom Fi you must have Se or Ne as aux if you are a human.
Not in Jungian typology. In Jungian typology, the dom and aux are in the same attitude while the tertiary and inferior are in the opposite attitude. My function stack in Jungian typology is: Ni-Ti/Fe-Se. Grant Stack would be: Ni-Te/Fi-Se. That's why my function stack in my signature is spelled the way it is: Ni-T/F-Se.

Jung specifies that the two functions one uses are in the same attitude while the other two functions and their attitude are repressed. That is very different from being unconscious, though. People have access to what they repress. They just prefer to use the functions in their preferred attitude. Consider it like where one puts their attention while in a room. If reading, they will "tune out" the rest of the room and focus on the pages or words, etc ... That's how it works.

The Harold Grant stack that you mention is in direct conflict with Jungian typology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
I'm glad I joined PerC so I could finally see that I haven't thought about this stuff half as hard as I think I have. :confused:
 

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

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

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

And sorry for my bad english. ��
 
81 - 92 of 92 Posts
Top