Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I haven't read all of psychological types. But in Chapter 10, Jung clearly states that the extroverted type is conscious and the introverted type is unconscious (he even calls it the unconscious type interchangeably). I'd like to know what people say he means by this; I would've expected him to say that the dominant function is conscious and the rest are repressed and thus unconscious (he does seem to say this but not nearly as clearly and obviously as he claims the introverted type is unconscious). So what does he mean by unconscious, and how can an introverted function be unconscious when it is dominant?

In my experience: I believe I'm a Ti dom, and I think I can see my way of thinking and classify it as Ti without too much trouble. I couldn't stop using Ti- it's my dominant function after all- but it feels like a conscious process that I am aware of. In contrast, I have a friend who is an Si dom (I think) and he perceives the world subjectively- he sees his subjective impressions of things, and doesn't seem to be aware of the process of moving from the external objects to his internal impressions. The actual things and their sensory impact are repressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,271 Posts
So I haven't read all of psychological types. But in Chapter 10, Jung clearly states that the extroverted type is conscious and the introverted type is unconscious (he even calls it the unconscious type interchangeably).
Not that I recall. Can you cite where he stated this?

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 10, relative to Introversion.

C. THE INTROVERTED TYPE
(I) THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
As I have already explained in section A (1) of the present chapter, the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors. In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation. Naturally, this is a special case, mentioned by way of [p. 472] example, and merely intended to serve as a simple illustration. But now we must go in quest of more general formulations.
Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Ah you’re right, I misread, sorry. That association isn’t as clear- he is much more clear about the auxiliary and following functions being unconscious. But he does say these things about ti, si, and ni, respectively, that seem like he is associating their introverted attitude with the unconscious. This doesn’t make sense to me, so I may not be interpreting them right. But here they are:

“The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an [Ti inductive] idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?”

This seems to say the Ti framework is somehow based in the unconscious?

“In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more or less influential co-operation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters [p. 499] the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object... [This subjective perception] does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas.”

So Si is illustrated by the analogy of many painters honestly trying to paint an objective picture, but they paint different things because their subjective impressions are different, and this is an unconscious transition from ‘pure’ objects to subjective impression? Doesn’t this mean Si is, at least somewhat unconscious, even if it is a dominant function?

“Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. ...Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.”

In the same way as Si, Ni makes the transition from unconscious objects to subjective impressions of those objects immediately and without thinking through anything. How can this be considered a conscious process?

Sorry the post is long, had a hard time deciding what of Jung was necessary to include.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,271 Posts
Dragging information from the unconscious does not make the functions unconscious since the introverted functions take the information one step further, presuming the functions aren't in the unconscious in the function stacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
So then introverted functions abstract from unconscious objects and extroverted functions abstract from sensory data? If Jung is saying this, it would seem that no one function is more or less unconscious than any other, except, as you say, based on the order in the function stack. That makes sense to me, except that people say that Ni is "the most unconscious function" and others are less so. Is that view false according to Jung?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,271 Posts
According to Jung, Ni perceives what's pulled from the unconscious as subjective images of things. Whether people interpret that as being more unconscious than other introverted functions, will be their subjective interpretation.

That said, don't forget that functions don't work in a vacuum. The other functions will impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I see what you're saying... Ni is concerned with perceiving images from the unconscious. I guess insofar as a function is introverted, it has been modified in some way by the unconscious (the unconscious has coloured the perception of Si, so now the Si-dom perceives subjective impressions that are unique to themselves), but Ni is aimed at perceiving images from the unconscious, rather than just external data with a impression painted by the unconscious? Hence Jung can say of Si, "It is an unconscious disposition, which alters the sense-perception at its very source" and of Ti, "the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype". Even with this understanding, it seems like Ti is equally trying to aim at the unconscious itself (I know that sounds weird, but these are Jung's words not mine).

What you say makes a lot of sense, and you've convinced me, but I feel like a lot of Ni-doms who believe Ni is objectively more unconscious would disagree. :) Thanks for the help, I'm new to typing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
In case it's helpful, I've put some recycled reckful on Jung's view of the consciousness of the N functions and introverted functions (and their relations with the unconscious) — from this post — in the spoiler.

 
As I've previously acknowledged, there's no question that intuition (as Jung saw it) involves perception of unconscious contents and that Jung viewed N-doms as being more in tune with some aspects of the collective unconscious by virtue of intuition being their dominant function. (He also thought introverts were more in tune, in a somewhat different way, with the contents of the collective unconscious.) But there's also no question that, when it comes to the issue of differentiated vs. differentiated functions — with the latter being located in the unconscious, fused with the other unconscious functions, and tending to be "archaic" and not subject to "direction" by the will, and the former being separated from the other functions (hence "differentiated") and brought up into consciousness and subject to the will — Jung's view was that, for a typical (reasonably well-differentiated) N-dom, their dominant intuition was a predominantly conscious function (notwithstanding that it involved the perception of unconscious contents), just as he thought that, e.g., the sensation of a typical S-dom was a predominantly conscious function.

Read Jung's Ne-dom portrait. The Ne-dom in hot pursuit of the latest trend — which he has a special talent for spotting because of his differentiated Ne — is perfectly conscious of his current "vision" and is in conscious, determined, will-ful (if you will) pursuit of it. It's true that the ultimate root of his vision might theoretically be identifiable (by somebody like Jung, or so Jung thought) as some ancient "archetype" or "primordial image" buried in our evolution-based collective unconscious and providing a somewhat reliable guide to current trends because history repeats and all that, a-a-and that the Ne-dom himself might well not understand all that — i.e., that the Ne-dom himself wouldn't be fully "conscious" of all the underlying psychological bases (in his unconscious) for his conscious "vision" — but, first of all, that wouldn't keep the aspects of his Ne that he's conscious of, and acts upon, etc. from basically being as differentiated/directable/etc. as the dominant function of any other type, and second, it's not like various of the non-N types (especially the introverted ones) weren't also subject (as Jung saw it) to being influenced (as part of their dominant functions) by "archetypes" and "primordial images" from the collective unconscious that they weren't directly "conscious" of.

As an example of that last point, Jung describes Fi as a function whose "aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate it in an unconscious effort to realize the underlying images. It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision. ... If [introverted] thinking can be understood only with difficulty because of its unrelatedness, this is true in even higher degree of [introverted] feeling. In order to communicate with others, it has to find an external form not only acceptable to itself, but capable also of arousing a parallel feeling in them, [and] the form acceptable to feeling is extraordinarily difficult to find so long as it is still mainly oriented to the fathomless store of primordial images." Describing the Fi-dom, Jung notes that "the real object of this feeling is only dimly divined by the normal type herself. ... It gives a woman of this type a mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man. ... This power comes from the deeply felt, unconscious images, but consciously she is apt to relate it to the ego, whereupon her influence becomes debased into a personal tyranny."

Again, Jung is describing Fi in an Fi-dom — so, in other words, the woman's most fully-conscious and differentiated function — but the "primordial images" behind some of her most intense feelings (and hence what Jung refers to as the "real objects" of her feeling) are "unconscious" to her (or "only dimly divined" by her), in much the same way that the Ne-dom chasing his current (relatively worldly) "vision" may be "unconscious" of (or only dimly divine) the ancient archetype/image that is manifesting itself in that vision.

Did Jung think an N-dom's intuition put them, in some ways, more in touch with the collective unconscious than non-N-doms? Yes. Did Jung think an introvert's inward focus put them, in some ways, more in touch with the collective unconscious than extraverts? Yes. Buut... when it came to the "consciousness" of a dominant function for the purposes (and with the consequences) I discussed earlier in the thread — e.g., the tendency of unconscious functions to be "fused together with elements not properly belonging to [them,]" incapable of effective direction by the subject's will, "archaic" in quality, and experienced by the subject as "things that simply 'happen' to one" — did Jung think an N-dom's dominant function was more "unconscious" than a T-dom's, or that an introvert's dominant function was more "unconscious" than an extravert's? No.

Jung referred to the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious functions" and the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions." He referred to them that way in Psychological Types — including in the section on the auxiliary function that I'm sure you're familiar with — and he was still referring to them that way thirty years later (in 1952). His model for a typical representative of all eight of his types was for the dominant function to be mostly conscious (and differentiated) and the inferior function to be mostly unconscious (and undifferentiated), and the two middle functions to be in between — but with the auxiliary function significantly more conscious than unconscious (rendering it a "conscious function" on balance) and the tertiary function more unconscious than conscious (rendering it an "unconscious function" on balance and meaning that it tended to be largely "fused" with the inferior function, rather than differentiated). And Jung didn't make an exception to that model for N-doms. The aspect of N that opened it up to being characterized as "unconscious perception" was an aspect that basically related to perception of the unconscious, and in any case didn't mean that the N of an N-dom wasn't predominantly a "conscious function" in the previously-described sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
Jung on the unconscious:

“Everything of which I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking; everything of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; everything which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do; all the future things that are taking shape in me and will sometime come to consciousness: all this is the content of the unconscious.”

“We spend the greater part of our life in the unconscious, which is neither inert nor inactive. The personal unconscious entails all of the forgotten, suppressed, and repressed thoughts, wishes, emotions, and subliminally perceived and felt materials, and surrounds consciousness on all sides. It would however be a mistake to think of the unconscious as the cesspool of the mind.”
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top