Personality Cafe banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It strikes me as a bit odd that the whole system of 16 types is running wild with Jungs
secondary characters that are a result of compensation.

I guess what I'm about to embark on is a hairsplitting fishingtrip, but what the hell.


Jungs stand on this, the way I get him, is that if a person has a chronic tendency towards
either introversion or extroversion then they are a type.
There are 4 subtypes of this, thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition.

Hence if someone is an extroverted sensor,
they might have a compansatory impulse toward either Fi or Ti.
Ni is after all rejected.
This direction of compensation becomes a subtype of the subtype.

Jung seems very much reluctant to crawl down that rabbit hole,
from the way he writes things I get the impression that he thought
the subject was far too complex to be labeled properly.

He seemed very adamant about it becoming a formula to follow.
Internet MBTI tests anyone?
From the test, description etc environment swamping us from MBTI, Socionics and other theories,
it seems he was right, everyone and their cat wants to standarize man into neat categories.
On the one side I can see the value of having clear labels,
on the other I can see the damage that the stereotypes do, popping up like in a whack a mole.

Is the subtypes of sybtypes of subtypes necessary? ESI-Se vs ESI-Ni anyone?
Isn't it enough to have a pulse on your own outward vs inner orientation?
Does it help or is it a useful distraction from the fact of ones own imbalance?
Nothing like having to figure out the function puzzle to distract you from your life falling apart.

Jung was after all very aware of the inclination to study for the studys sake,
to the point of neglecting the patient as the ailment was more interesting than making someone healthy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Hence if someone is an extroverted sensor,
they might have a compansatory impulse toward either Fi or Ti.
Saying that an Se-dom "might have" an auxiliary function really isn't a fair characterization of Jung's perspective. In Psychological Types, he said this:

Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence. ...

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation is antagonistic to thinking; they need not be absolutely excluded, for they are not of a nature equal and opposite to thinking, as feeling is — which, as a judging function, successfully competes with thinking — but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. ...

For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function. The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.

Thirty years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:

If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.​

So Jung's model, like Myers's, really involved 16 types, not eight.

...which is not to say that Myers's model doesn't differ from Jung's in many ways. As one example: contrary to your OP, and as further explained in this post, Jung's model called for the auxiliary function of an Se-dom to be either Te or Fe (rather than Ti or Fi) — reflecting what Jung referred to as the Se-dom's "conscious attitude."
 

·
Heretic
5w4 9w8 2w1 Sx/Sp INTJ ESI
Joined
·
10,834 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Saying that an Se-dom "might have" an auxiliary function really isn't a fair characterization of Jung's perspective. In Psychological Types, he said this:
Yeah I'd expect you of all people to get riled up over the use of the word might.
Unfortunately that is more a function of english as a second language and me not paying attention
then a reflection of my stance. I have fixed it for your sake.

I see the points you make.
I had forgotten about them as they are on the other end of the 600 or so pages of brick called Psychological types.
I'm unsure if you answered my question.
I always get so angry from meeting perfectionistic corrections that it is hard for me to think clearly.
One of the perks of growing up with several type 1 family members.

Well I guess you did, as you made it clear to me that although Jung was very reluctant to take on any firm
seperation of the flow of states between the inner and outer he did get taken in by the idea of functions.
There seems to me that he lost his reluctance in the thrill of balancing functions.

So thanks even though I find it sometimes hard to accept what you bring to the table.
This is more a reflection of me than you though.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top