Quote:
Originally Posted by "?"
I did not realize that any of this had taken. There have been problems with our server at work and last weekend while sanitizing my computer, I deleted my registry resulting in getting an error message that my TLDR is missing. I had writtent a plethora of information on Jung's theory v. MBTI, but don't have the time or inclination to redo it.
I will say that based on Carl Jung's theory certain things have to be considered about how we think about type;
1) Jung alludes to all people having a preference for each function and implies there is no unique function. Based on that, I think he would have argued that intuitive types are no more rare than sensing types.
2) Jung alludes to the dichotomies only to define how they work in unison as functions-attitudes.
3) Finally but not inclusively, Jung's discussion about the auxiliary function has to make one wonder whether Socionics is right that all judging/perceiving functions (regardless of attitude) will be primary and can be readily seen by an onlooker.
In reviewing his information again, I think that I now understand that most likely I had bought into the whole dichotomy theory and had taken the E/I too literal. I most likely use Se as my primary, however as someone stated here the auxiliary function may be the most easily recognized in ourselves. |
ahhhh, computer crap! (I still can't figure out how to stop the flow of junk mail). What is TLDR?
I've always suspected that if they did a world sample of psychological types, they would come back with an equal 6.25% of each type.
And I'm pretty sure biology doesn't respond as fast as culture, and if it did it wouldn't neccesarily go with the grain of a cultural trend.
Jung also claimed that almost all extraverted feeling types he knew were women, that was probably bullshit.
So Jung might not have argued that intuition types were just as common, (or male feeling types), but I would argue that based on his own stuff. The thing about a cultural modal type is that all types perpetuate that culture if they conform to it: for example, freud was probably an introverted feeling type, but his later work (what we know him for) has an oversimplifying extraverted thinking cast (freud himself saying he got bored with interpreting every dream the same way)-well, Freudian stuff made its way easily into mainstream culture.
For the auxiliary/dominant thing, literally ask yourself, 'which is more fun for me'? The dominant would be the answer- using the dominant function can acually be a net energy gain. On the other hand, everyone gets tired of using the auxiliary after a while (and people don't seem to use the auxiliary function for its own sake). When people want your help, which function (sensing or thinking) is better at helping them out, and if they come to you for help, which function do they expect to help them (the auxiliary) (have you already heard this?)