The term essential bias does not have the same meaning as the term value. In this context, the definition of the term value you were referring to is described in statement 11 of the dictionary.com entry.
"Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself." (
Value | Definition of Value at Dictionary.com:)
In other words, a value is a moral principle which guides a person's worldview, which is how you seem to be using the word.
Bias by definition is a certain disposition, or a tendency towards one way of thinking or acting over another. In some contexts biases include values or moral principles, but in many others they do not. It is a mistake to assume that when the term value is used, a reference is made to a moral principle.
I've made no such assumption. You chose one shade of meaning for the word "value" out of many and decided arbitrarily that that's the one I intended. It's not.
A more careful reading of Jung's descriptions of individual types show that he was not referring to moral principles that guide the person's worldview. The 'essential bias' conditioning the person's subjective experience was an unconscious, cognitive bias towards thinking and emoting in a certain fashion rather than towards selecting this or that 'value' or a moral principle.
We observe this in the fact that Jung's type descriptions focus more on unconscious cognitive tendencies that people have rather than values they consciously adhere to. Consider the description of the Extroverted Sensing type for example.
That's not quite the sense in which I meant the world "value." You seem to have assumed that value systems must be conscious--and many values are conscious--but others are not.
Jung certainly was very interested in people's unconscious motivations, and that is precisely what I mean when I describe cognitive functions as "value systems." They are the perspectives and viewpoints, conscious or not, which direct the way in which people perceive and judge the world around them and their own personal selves.
Some value systems include ethics, but they don't necessarily have to. A value system is any part of a person's worldview that causes him to decide that any aspect of life is more or less important than any other. We all have these biases and we all have varying degrees of awareness of them--Jung did a lot of work on identifying the unconscious value systems that influence our behavior in ways we do not realize; I do not see why the term "value system" necessitates reference to conscious ethical decisions.
Here Jung is clearly describing how a person inevitably behaves because of some cognitive imbalance in his mind rather than how he chooses to behave on principle or what the values of his worldview are.
Now, consider a similar description of the Extroverted Intuitive type.
Again, the message is clear: the focus of the discussion is on a person's cognitive tendencies rather than values or consciously selected decisions. Almost nowhere in type descriptions of in other parts of the book does he pay any heed to values as defined above. Jung was interested in understanding how the human mind works, especially the unconscious. The endeavor of describing how people 'work' is relatively new and hasn't been popularized until Briggs and Keirsey. Before the exposition regarding type descriptions, Jung wrote extensively on the type problem in poetry, biography and philosophy. This shows his focus on cognitive tendencies people have in intellectual endeavors, rather than their value-choices or what they do in general. This is the prominent distinction between Jung and modern folk typology theorists , Jung focused on understanding the tendencies of the mind, they focused on understanding people's conscious choices.
Again you've chosen a shade of meaning for the word "value" that I never intended.
What evidence have you that Jung was focused exclusively on cognitive tendencies as they apply to intellectual endeavors? He seems intent on describing the whole of cognitive tendencies and the way these unconscious biases lead to the construction of people's worldviews and value systems. He wanted to know how people see themselves and the world and how this translates into their behaviors and reasons for those behaviors--whether or not those reasons are consciously understood by people themselves. (Again, many value systems are unconscious and do not apply directly to ethics.)
One may protest 'what good is understanding the mind if it does not lead us to understand people, after all it is the human mind we are dealing with!'. Jung merely observed some basic cognitive tendencies people have and tried to focus on them. Doing that is one thing, but seeing how those tendencies fit into the bigger, complex picture of human behavior is something we aren't yet ready to do. That is the business of psychology as such a study would require an empirical investigation to discover how factors external to these tendencies Jung discovered impact the person's mind. Nowhere in his writing did Jung say that his type descriptions actually describe real people. In fact, one of the quotes you cited demonstrate his belief that type description is one thing and a description of a person is another.
Well, I make no claim that anything I'm saying here is empirically verifiable. At the end of the day it's all just speculative and arbitrary interpretation.
With that said, I think you can see through observation that many of Jung's ideas can assist in understanding the way people think, reason and behave--or at least in constructing an arbitrary interpretation of it (which is what we're doing here.)
When you speak of "folk typology", are you referring to anyone who attempts to extrapolate Jung's ideas about cognitive tendencies to explain interpersonal behavior? Is it your contention that none of Jung's ideas can actually be used to describe or understand anything about the belief systems or behaviors of real people?
What this means is that no person is introverted as a type by definition incorporates only its own element. Introversion incorporates no extroversion and Fe incorporates no Fi. To paraphrase another one of Jung's claims, no man is either extroverted or introverted completely, as such a man would be in a lunatic asylum.
Fair enough, but this doesn't really help the case that people routinely use both the introverted and extroverted forms of the same function S/N/T/F. It only shows that people are influenced by both extroverted and introverted functions in general, a proposition I already agree with.
You missed the distinction between type description and person description because you were expecting Jung to do the same kind of work as Keirsey and other heroes of folk typology. You were expecting him to be talking about people when he was describing a type and thought that when he was talking about Fe, he was talking about some person who has personality qualities associated with Fe.
But wait a minute, Jung describes real human behavior in his type expositions, and even uses pronouns such as 'he, she, it'. This was a literary convenience and the use was more figurative than literal. His point was to describe the nature of the type by forcing the reader to imagine how a person dominated by this cognitive tendency would behave. That is why his characters are exaggerated to the extreme.
In other words, open the psychological types to page 354 and look at the section title more carefully and the context it is placed in. It reads as 'Extraverted Feeling type', not Extraverted Feeling person. This was stated in the context of a book the 330 opening pages of which were concerned with analysis of cognitive habits and tendencies rather than human behavior. As a result we get the following truism: Extraverted Feeling by definition does not use Fi, as it is not Fi. The same could be said about any other type or function.
Would you mind quoting wherever it is that he says his work in no way intends to describe the tendencies of actual people? If that is actually the case then I'll have to reread Jung's work and reconsider my interpretations.
Also, it seems a bit redundant to say "Fe is not Fi"...isn't that obvious/unnecessary to state?
No, read the quote again.
"Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."
Simultaneously is the key word. Your interpretation would have been tenable if he left that word out and said that its almost impossible for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions, period. As the quote stands, one may infer that it is difficult, if not impossible to develop them all at the same time, but it may be possible to develop them non-simultaneously, or one at a time. That is why we often notice elderly people excelling at learning behaviors that are associated with their inferior function. Earlier in their lives they could not develop their inferior functions simultaneously as their dominant, but eventually they got around to doing so.
Right, but I don't claim that no one uses the inferior function--only that we don't use the so-called "shadow functions." Everyone has some use of each process N, S, T and F but very rarely in the direction other than the preferred one.
Aha, thank you! Here you stated that he is describing 'individual functions', not people. There is a huge difference.
I only meant that in reference his statement that "one cannot be introverted or extroverted unless in every respect"; when I read this part I took it as a description of each of the four general processes N, S, T and F. Obviously he doesn't mean that anyone is completely introverted or completely extroverted; rather, it seemed to me he was saying that each individual's use of each of the four processes will be introverted or extroverted in every respect.
I guess what you're saying is that he only meant that extroverted functions are extroverted and introverted functions are introverted, but is that really necessary to state?
No, from this we can derive that a type that is a Ti or something that is simply a Ti function cannot at the same time be a Te function. This notion is trivial, if not simplistic: its heuristic value is analogous to an insight about logic positing that two non-overlapping entities cannot share an identity and its analogous to a proposition about anatomy that if something is a toe, it cannot also be a tooth.
Yes, it does seem trivial--why would he bother pointing it out? Once he's described the nature of introversion and extroversion, it hardly seems necessary to further specify that introversion is not extroverted and vice versa. I took these descriptions to mean that those who exhibit a given introverted attitude (such as Ti) cannot simultaneously exhibit its opposite extroverted attitude (Te in this case.)
As a general rule, one function dominates and the other becomes subservient. This does not mean, however, that the subservient function has no influence at all, its merely much less efficacious than the dominant.
I interpreted this as an explanation of the relationship between the chosen attitudes in the four-function model--i.e., Ti may take precedence over Fe, or vice versa.
But if, as you say, Jung had no intention of describing any real human behavior whatsoever, and merely intended to describe each function in total isolation from the others, how can he be commenting here on the relationships between the functions?
Wouldn't discussing the relative emphasis on one function over another require him to describe the value hierarchies/behaviors of real people? If he's doing this, he can't simply be describing each function in hypothetical isolation.
No, these are merely cognitive tendencies that represent no worldview. A person's world depends on more than mere cognitive habits, as much of it is a result of his non-typological personality features and life experiences. His type may cause him to be inclined to accept a certain worldview, but type alone won't compell him to do so.
Before I comment any further on this part, what exactly is a "type", if not a category of cognitive preference? Why can't we translate common cognitive tendencies between people into common value systems regarding which types of information should be derived according to which methods?
This may just be a question of semantics. For instance, if all Ti people show a cognitive tendency to use Thinking in a purely subjective and internal way, can we not reason that Ti represents the value system that Thinking is best done internally? Jung may not have explicitly stated this, but I think it can be reasonably inferred from what he did say.
At best, one could claim that these cognitive processes tempt a person to reason in such a manner. However, there is no reason to conclude that both of them cannot inhabit the same person. There is no reason to reject the thesis that both inhabit the same person, but one is by far more pronounced than the other.
Indeed, I've agreed that the shadow functions may be used very rarely...if Ti is, for instance, "far more pronounced" than Fi, then use of Fi would have to be pretty unusual by comparison. I will concede that perhaps we can occasionally use the shadow functions, but they must necessarily be weaker and of vastly lesser influence than the preferred forms.
So I don't see how one could have both strong Ti and strong Fi. Ti's strength necessitates Fi's relative great weakness and vice versa, does it not?
If you're going to claim that in a mind-state where Ti-Fe dominates, the Te-Fi process does not exist at all because it contradicts the Ti-Fe process, you should also claim that where Intuition dominates, there is no sensing. As a result, you'd arrive at an absurdity that some minds do not rely on senses at all and no part of their cognitive notions has derived from the senses. Similarly, you'd have to concede that where a Feeling type dominates, there is no Thinking at all because it is the opposite process. If you aren't prepared to do that, you can't claim that there is no Te-Fi process in a Ti-Fe dominated mind on that basis.
No, this would not lead to concluding that dominant intuition would lead to no sensing--it would lead to concluding that dominant Ne would lead to no Se, and dominant Ni would lead to no Si, and vice versa for each. I've never made the claim that anyone has
no Sensing or
no intuition, just that the two processes must always be preferred in opposite orientations.
I'm willing to consider that perhaps these processes are used occasionally, but only weakly and certainly not in any capacity comparable to the preferred forms of each process. Use of the shadows seems to require stepping pretty far out of one's normal cognitive comfort zone, and thus seems unlikely to happen often at all.
Thinking alone has nothing to do with logic, nor does feeling have anything to do with ethics. At best the former temperament may lead a person to develop an interest in logic and the latter in morality, however, whether the person actually does develop such interests depends on more than just type.
Can you elaborate on what Thinking alone or Feeling alone actually does? I'm using these terms in reference to the way they seem, through my observations of myself and others, to impact the worldviews of people who prefer them.
No, Fi alone does not do any of that, nor does Fe. An Fi dominated person may be by his nature strongly inclined to favor the former approach over the latter, however, in appropriate circumstances he may choose the latter. Fe, Fi and other types are mere cognitive tendencies, not immutable personality features. The latter interpretation has never even occurred in Jung, its chiefly a folk typological invention, primarily Keirseyan and Neo-Keirseyan. To this day, it trashes forums, typology blogs and conventional type profile descriptions.
Fair enough--what sort of circumstances do you think might lead a person to choose the non-preferred orientation of any function, and how often do you think this might happen? I suggest that it only occurs in times of unusually high stress that forces a person out of his comfort zone.
Really? Even a Ti user who has been abandoned on an unvisted Island at the age of two who as a result never even learned to speak?
Personally, I suspect that cognitive processes are not solidified until somewhere around the teenage years/young adulthood, as very young people have not yet settled into patterns of cognition that will define their identities. Nevertheless, once these patterns have been solidified, introverted functions continue to operate internally and do not bend to changes in external conditions, hence my description of their use as "a priori."
Has it ever crossed your mind that this is a result of more than just type? This forum is an offshoot of INTPc which almost by definition is the arena for young, truculent pseudo-intellectuals to match witts. MBTIc was created as a result of the great 'NF' purge or a systematic attempt to expell people who appear to be maudlin.
As a result, two cultures have formed, one of people who support the INTPc values and the other of those who insist that its crucial to ensure that this forum does not adapt the old INTPc regime. Yes, these attitudes were influenced by type, but not only type. As a result, what you perceive to be a Ti-Fi conflict, which without a doubt exists, has been greatly intensified by the history of our community. No doubt that there is a natural antithesis between Thinking and Feeling, but this is no reason to conclude that in a mind where Thinking dominates, Feeling does not exist at all.
I made no such conclusion; I simply declared that in a Ti-dominated mind, Feeling comes almost exclusively in the form of Fe, rather than Fi. I never made any claim that the Thinking-dominated mind has no capacity for Feeling or vice versa.
You've drawn such a conclusion on the basis of your heedless interpretation of the following Jungian statement. "Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."
You've mistaken the proposition of 'difficult to develop simultaneously' for 'difficult to develop altogether'.
Once again I made no claim that Thinking/Feeling cannot exist simultaneously in the same person, just that the two contradict each other when oriented in the same direction.
You're quite correct to note that one reason why our forum members tend to misunderstand one another frequently and often develop hostile relations is because they can't tap into their inferior functions. Since it is extremely difficult to develop many functions simultaneously and young people tend to focus on developing their primary functions, it is almost impossible for them to attain proficiency with the inferior.
This is a reflection of the Jungian insight that its difficult for people to develop functions simultaneously rather than affirmation for your unfounded view that its not possible to develop all functions period.
I do believe that proficiency with the inferior function is possible, because the inferior function is not oriented in the same direction as the dominant and deals with a different type of cognitive task. The inferior function was not in question here, only the shadow functions.
Circumstances may force us to behave contrary to our type and thus exhibit behaviors associated with other types rather than ours. However, on this forum, we tend not to see this as people here tend to act leisurely.
Furthemore, as a person ages, he becomes more in tune with types or functions that he is less naturally in tune with.
My initial argument was that the tertiary and inferior functions develop into stronger parts of one's personality as he ages, but that the shadow functions are either rarely or never used. I never claimed that the tertiary and inferior are not used.
After reading your arguments, I'm willing to amend my position to "rarely" rather than "never", but again, I suspect that use of the non-preferred orientation of any process requires highly stressful or otherwise unusual circumstances and is not something people can do routinely or without expenditure of a great deal of energy.
Most of my disputes with the eight-function model are with those who define functions according to individual surface actions; e.g., "I looked around and saw what was around me" = "I used Se." I dislike this interpretation as I find it vastly oversimplified and out of sync with the notion that cognitive functions represent cognitive tendencies
or value systems.
I take most issue with the idea that any given action constitutes use of any particular function; rather, I think my use of the term "value systems" is very similar to what you mean when you say the functions represent "cognitive tendencies"--they can be conscious or unconscious and do not necessarily involve ethical decisions.
So when an ENFP shows up and says something like, "Yeah guys I use Ti all the time!", it's usually because he's misinterpreted "using Ti" as "doing something logical", and it's this interpretation that bothers me most. If ENFPs do indeed use Ti, they would only do so in occasional instances of unusually stressful circumstances that force them out of the standard preference for Fi+Te...they are not "using Ti" on a regular basis every time they make a logical judgment.
Wondering if they are actually interested in the real world or just arguing arbitrary things.
