User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 38

  1. #11
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    Eric B, you know this Lenore Thomson? How? I've heard the name around here several times...
    Author of a popular type book (Personality Type, an Owner's Manual) and a Jungian theorist in her own right, who is trying to bring the theory back to its Jungian moorings. Some people like her version of the theory best, and recommend her book for those trying to understand type. One guy even did whole wiki on her book. The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

    I was struggling to understand Fi's role in an INTP type, and having trouble finding enough resources on the Beebe archetypes, and after seeing the wiki and another of her articles, decided to ask her (Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz), so she began explaining it.

    It's a great perspective to see all this from, and once you understand the Jungian language, really clarifies all the stuff people stumble on in type. Functions are perspectives, not skills we "use", for instance.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #12
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's a great perspective to see all this from, and once you understand the Jungian language, really clarifies all the stuff people stumble on in type. Functions are perspectives, not skills we "use", for instance.
    i have a reading of this statement, or my own way to somewhat salvage it. but i'm wondering how you approach it? so many people on the forum throw around this italicized perspectives and i don't know what they mean, i can only surmise what i would mean and it doesn't seem to intersect with others at all.

  3. #13
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Author of a popular type book (Personality Type, an Owner's Manual) and a Jungian theorist in her own right, who is trying to bring the theory back to its Jungian moorings. Some people like her version of the theory best, and recommend her book for those trying to understand type. One guy even did whole wiki on her book. The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki

    I was struggling to understand Fi's role in an INTP type, and having trouble finding enough resources on the Beebe archetypes, and after seeing the wiki and another of her articles, decided to ask her (Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz), so she began explaining it.

    It's a great perspective to see all this from, and once you understand the Jungian language, really clarifies all the stuff people stumble on in type. Functions are perspectives, not skills we "use", for instance.
    Thanks for the link. I'm much more impressed by her response to you here than I am by her book. Part of her response:

    A quick overview

    As I see it, a differentiated function is not a cognitive process. It's the means by which emotion is integrated with the operations of the executive brain in the conscious decision to take action.

    Undifferentiated functions remain allied with the unconscious emotional subsystem, and they're always operating to bring their products to consciousness. But their products may not reach awareness unless they're consonant in some way with the interpretive principles the dominant function has set up.

    This is why developing behavioral skills associated with a function is, in general, a positive thing. It broadens the sphere of options that we recognize within the context of our type preference. New solutions to old problems become available to us.

    Doing this, however, bears no immediate relationship to "individuation." Rather, it results in ego maturation, an expansion of conscious potential.

    Individuation, by contrast, builds a bridge to unconscious aspects of the psyche, by way of art or religion or dreams, aligning ourselves with sources of guidance that the cognitive system can't co-opt on its own terms. This *reduces* our identification with the dominant standpoint's interpretive selectivity, rendering the ego and our functional preferences less important.The Four Functions: Psychological Orientation vs Determinism

    To put this somewhat differently, the functions represent four different ways that our unconscious emotional subsystems are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations, moving them into the stream of consciousness. As such, the functions aren't cognitive processes. Rather, they make our emotional energies available to the operations of the executive brain.

    By operations of the executive brain, I mean the capacities that make us fully human: the ability to pick out relevant information from what is perceived through the senses; the ability to apply old information to new situations; the ability to initiate behaviors that haven't been learned; the ability to inhibit behaviors to which we are immediately inclined; the ability to form new ideas by linking signs in novel ways; the ability to infer others' intentions; the ability to envision a goal that is not locally apparent.

    These aren't "skills" that match up with different functions; they're the cognitive basis on which all functions operate.

    When we differentiate a function, we turn it into a consistent cognitive channel for our emotional energies, so that we feel an emotional investment in the discriminations we're making. And we feel in control of our emotional life on that basis, as we inhibit some immediate reactions for the sake of personal or cultural advantage. This is how an accustomed orientation becomes habituated.

    My contention, therefore, is that type preference liberates us from instinctual determinism by way of conscious discrimination, whereas Temperament Theory understands preference to confirm an underlying archetypal determinant.

    With respect to the latter understanding, it seems to me that most of the monographs in Jung's "Psychological Types" serve to distinguish type theory from the credible temperament theories existing at the time. In each chapter, Jung explores the common ground a popular temperament theory shares with his type theory, then proceeds to show that the apparent kinship is superficial, and that the temperament theory being described is concerned more with affective determinism than with psychological orientation.

    Jung points out, in fact, that when temperament moves us to react immediately, without discrimination, we don't congratulate ourselves on being natural and authentic. We're more likely to say that we "weren't ourselves," or momentarily "lost" it. What is it that got lost? Our distinctly human ability to channel or inhibit a natural reaction for the sake of a conscious purpose. This is what we mean when we say we make free-will choices -- we commandeer or block natural tendencies for the sake of an aspiration or a goal.

    Jung explicitly says that this is what he wanted to capture with his type theory -- not a way to characterize people by way of innate qualities that can't be controlled, but a way to classify how people make choices they feel free to make, believing that one thing is better than another -- even when it *doesn't* meet their immediate affective needs. The consistency of such free-will choices over time becomes a pattern -- not because it's inborn, but because we become accustomed to interpreting and responding to life in a way that we find satisfying and comfortable.

    Jung didn't deny the influence of temperament altogether. He accounted for it, in classic neurobiological terms, by way of the attitudes. Some people, he said, have strong biological constraints with respect to approach and withdrawal, and they can be psychologically harmed if they're forced into choices in conflict with their natural tendencies. On the other hand, he also said that most people are adaptable enough to meet prevailing social expectations, pointing to the general Extraverted attitude of Americans as a good illustration.
    So, Type Theory (Jung) says that what our dominant preference is results from conditioning and free will, and not so much biological factors or instincts. (Although it could be argued that a particular conditioning could arise because we innately choose it because we naturally have some sort of biological proclivity for it.) And Temperament Theory holds more that how we behave is a result of our unconscious processes springing forth unbidden, so to speak. And she defines it thus:
    Temperament Theory, however, isn't concerned with temperament in its biological sense. Rather, Temperament Theory is specifying the collective roles that serve to create culture -- and have been doing so, wherever humans gather, since our ancestors roamed the ancient savannah.
    NF, SP, NT, SJ.

    So, if I'm understanding this (and I might still be a bit fuzzy), Type Theory is 'nurture,' and Temperament Theory is 'nature.' Nurture being chosen by us as a comfortable and preferable way of being, becoming fully human at the cost of suppressing our innate desires; and nature being represented in a sort of economics outlook of social roles being manifested for our collective society.

    Interesting take. I'd say it's both. Early conditioning can be very influential on our human development, as can genes. Perhaps when there is a large discrepancy between the two (as in a harmful or non conducive environment or subject) is when you are more likely to get neuroses and pathological processes or deviances in behaviors, ego disruptions, and lack of individuation.

    And, as much as I hate to side with Keirsey, there is some truth to temperament theory as well.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  4. #14
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    i have a reading of this statement, or my own way to somewhat salvage it. but i'm wondering how you approach it? so many people on the forum throw around this italicized perspectives and i don't know what they mean, i can only surmise what i would mean and it doesn't seem to intersect with others at all.
    This was based on something Simulated said, that I also saw in light of what Lenore had been telling me.

    He used the example that one does not "use Te" to organize one's desk, as it is often phrased. A better way to describe it is that he sees a disorganized desk through the lens of Te, and then makes a decision to organize it. I add that this would be a logical order. Fe, by contrast, would more likely only arrange it in consideration for another person, like if the desk is in their house, and they like to have their house look nice for others, or if someone asks them to organize the desk for them. Both are arranging it according to an external model; manifesting a common "J" attitude.
    A Ti perspective might organize it according to some internal model that makes sense to him personally, rather than just for it to be neat or otherwise efficient (and the result may even even still seem messy to extraverted judgers, as I have experienced).

    So "perspective" is a much better way of understanding them, over treating them as things such as skills sets or behaviors that people "use". That's what trips people up in typing themselves or others. Behaviors can be engaged in for different reasons according to the different perspectives, and there is also the concept of an "undfferentiated" function, anyone can engage in (seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc) without it being a type-related preference.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #15
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Thanks for the link. I'm much more impressed by her response to you here than I am by her book.
    Yeah; she's changed some things a bit since writing the book. I think she says somewhere that the publisher also influenced the content that could be included, and Beebe's model was not really out yet at that time; hence she came up with her own order. So she has expanded since the publication.
    So, Type Theory (Jung) says that what our dominant preference is results from conditioning and free will, and not so much biological factors or instincts. (Although it could be argued that a particular conditioning could arise because we innately choose it because we naturally have some sort of biological proclivity for it.) And Temperament Theory holds more that how we behave is a result of our unconscious processes springing forth unbidden, so to speak. And she defines it thus: NF, SP, NT, SJ.
    No; actually, when she speaks of temperament (and this was in her discussion with me; it's not in the book), she means in a very general sense, as is used in more mainstream psychcology. Basically; there is only ONE temperament, and that is our natural, limbic reactions.

    Here is more, from the original version of the section you posted, but edited when she posted it in that article:

    Temperament, by contrast, is a matter of the innate -- reactivity, adaptability, mood, distractibility, persistence, attention span, sensory sensitivity, and the like. These are bona fide aspects of the personality, but Jung talks about none of them when he outlines his theory of type.

    In fact, most of the monographs in "Psychological Types"...
    [cont'd in your quote]

    So, if I'm understanding this (and I might still be a bit fuzzy), Type Theory is 'nurture,' and Temperament Theory is 'nature.' Nurture being chosen by us as a comfortable and preferable way of being, becoming fully human at the cost of suppressing our innate desires; and nature being represented in a sort of economics outlook of social roles being manifested for our collective society.
    I asked her about that, and I think she said she didn't believe in nature vs nurture.
    Then, again, it was taking time for it to sink in what she was saying about temperament. Temperament is not nurture, but she clearly says there it was nature. However, it is not the four (or five) divisions we speak of. She believes "the four temperaments" are largely stereotypical roles expected in society.
    She did say "Jung's own concerns, however, were of a different order. He maintained that a person is most likely to differentiate the function that best equips him to accomplish the biological tasks of youth (job, house, marriage, family)." That makes it sould like even the cognitive, and all of type altogether is nurture. But I still don't fully understand it, so maybe I'm missing something.

    I still think there must something hardwired in us, because what determines what equips one person to accomplish his tasks, while another does it for another person? Like if they are siblings, and growing up in the exact same environment? They can still become different types. So there has to be something in each of us besides just this single limbic "temperament".

    Interesting take. I'd say it's both. Early conditioning can be very influential on our human development, as can genes. Perhaps when there is a large discrepancy between the two (as in a harmful or non conducive environment or subject) is when you are more likely to get neuroses and pathological processes or deviances in behaviors, ego disruptions, and lack of individuation.

    And, as much as I hate to side with Keirsey, there is some truth to temperament theory as well.
    What I believe, is since she holds temperament as limbic (which also is in common with animals as well; while cognitive development; unique to humans, is from the frontal cortex), and Pavlov identified the same four temperaments in dogs; then that is evidence that the division of temperaments is as innate and limbic along with it.

    I always wondered which was more elemental, and perhaps thus which caused which. It looks like the functions are more elemental, but then I, taking from the particular temperament system hail from, take it to be the temperament factors as outlined in FIRO. (expressed vs wanted, in Inclusion, Control and Affection, totalling six: eI, wI, eC, wC, eA, wA). These stem from needs which motivate one to either express and/or want from others, or not express or want.
    The first four of them translate (in type) into I/E, directive/informative, pragmatic/cooperative, and structure/motive. The last two are a variation of the first two.
    So introversion/extroversion is one of these factors (eI), and Personality Page (Brenda Mullins) suggests I/E and J/P are the first type preferences to develop. J/P can be either wI or wC, depending on the S or N that develops. When the middle two letters develop, then, at least three of the other factors become evident and the type is complete.

    So if a person has high eC and high wC hardwired into them, they will have a tendency to be pragmatic (quick acting) and also at the same time abdicratic (drop what they are doing suddenly). This will come out as the behaviors associated with an extraverted Sensing preference. If e/wC are low, they will instead be cooperative and yet independent, which will lead them to depend a lot on memory and find security in concrete structures (introverted Sensing perspective).

    So the question, is Se or Si hardwired into the person, and leads them to manifest high or low e/wC, or are neither Se/Si nor e/wC hardwired, or are the high or low e/wC "needs" hardwired into them, leading Se or Si to be that function he differentiates, "which best equips him to accomplish the biological tasks of youth"?

    The latter makes sense to me, but I'm really not sure at this point. FIRO itself holds these things to be not inborn, but the APS temperament system says it is inborn temperament. If temperament division is really limbic, that is what would seem to make that more elemental, and cognitive development something that springs forth from it in addition, for humans.

    When I suggested these "needs" (based on "fears" of rejection leading us to not express or want, and such) to Lenore, she said it sounded like a pathological basis of personality (or something like that).
    And then, it got into the whole thing of the Christian doctrine of man being "fallen". APS is from a Christian ministry, so it would fit perfectly, though others will have problems with this, of course. Since Jung did call differentiation a "wound on the psyche", then that does sound like something out of whack. So perhaps "patholigical" explanations are not that far off after all.

    When I mentioned Pavlov, the discussion was winding down, because she's been having problems with a hard drive; so I don't know her answer on that yet.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #16
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    How can she not believe in nature vs nurture?

    I am eager to understand everything you wrote here, but since I am a slow learner give me some time to process and assimilate it. That abdication stuff sounds interesting.

    There's the mammalian side of us that harbors our animal instincts, then there is the advanced side of us that perhaps lies in the parietal lobe (I'm not very learned on the brain yet, but I know there is an older brain in the back and a newer brain up front). When I read Jung's PT about nursing a baby, and siblings being different yet cared for by the same mother, he definitely made it sound like he was a believer in biology and innate behavior for people developing their preferences.........More so than the environment. So I was a bit confused that Thompson arrived at more of an opinion that Jung was interested in how our conditioning promoted our preferences, unless that interest of his happened after PT was written, because my feeling was he was more of a nature over nurture kind of guy. But I'm no Jungian scholar by any means.

    What we're looking for is the prime personality factors. Like primary colors, or prime numbers; those facets of personality that are basic and cannot be broken down or described by any other means other than themselves. Some of these words flung around could be described by the I/E/N/S/T/F/J/P descriptions, imo, like reactivity (j/p), adaptability (j/p), mood(t/f), sensory sensitivity(s/n), (and to draw from your FIRO model), Inclusion(?), Control(?) and Affection(f/t), etc.

    I don't think we need worry about the chicken/egg scenario because I think both Type theory and Temperament Theory are trying to say the same thing, or at least I see them being the same thing; that some basic personality traits are inherent in us as humans. Where they convolute and travel in the brain is another story. Animals, for example, would be basically be all S's. We've evolved the N ability. Depending on our environment, some preferences might be turned off or turned on, based upon internal and external conditioning. Humans are much more susceptible to conditioning than animals in this regard, and have many more choices. So, I might have been meant to be an Ni dom from birth, but if my environment resulted in being raised by wolves, then I might have very well become Se dom in that process.

    Even the Big 5 basically say the same thing Jung already pointed out/discovered. And even if we find other prime personality factors, they are all basically arguably important, and would be on the same level as the others already discovered.

    What is interesting are those which remain undifferentiated or unconscious, that which causes them to remain so, and how our environment plays a roll in this. I disagree with Thompson (if I understood her correctly) that to individuate you must bridge the gap into the unconscious functions via dreams and subconscious work. I've heard that Jung, and I believe, that it is through healthy living that we can begin to, over our lifetime, encounter those scenarios such that we will become more intimate with our less-preferred functions and in that process eventually individuate, with ego being key for this process to occur. If the ego is unhealthy, and one remains stagnatically (haha made that up sorry) attached to his dominant preferences, then it is unlikely, no matter how much he dreams or ponders his dreams, to individuate.

    What do you think?

    Oh!! Also, why do we always just say NF, NT, SJ, and SP? I think the archetypes of NJ (logicians), NP (mediators), ST (fixers), and SF (homemakers) are equally valid and valuable.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #17
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I disagree with Thompson (if I understood her correctly) that to individuate you must bridge the gap into the unconscious functions via dreams and subconscious work. I've heard that Jung, and I believe, that it is through healthy living that we can begin to, over our lifetime, encounter those scenarios such that we will become more intimate with our less-preferred functions and in that process eventually individuate, with ego being key for this process to occur. If the ego is unhealthy, and one remains stagnatically (haha made that up sorry) attached to his dominant preferences, then it is unlikely, no matter how much he dreams or ponders his dreams, to individuate.
    Jung was an INTJ-thus through Ni he would be able to access this internal symbolic collective more easily than most. I do wonder if much of his theory developed to tap into the unconscious via dreams is only partially applicable on a practical level...as it is specific to how an Ni dom might need to grow. Other types may need different paths and tools to round out those unconscious aspects of their personality.

    Eric-the Lenorre text was exceptional. Thanks!

  8. #18
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Jung was an INTJ-thus through Ni he would be able to access this internal symbolic collective more easily than most. I do wonder if much of his theory developed to tap into the unconscious via dreams is only partially applicable on a practical level...as it is specific to how an Ni dom might need to grow. Other types may need different paths and tools to round out those unconscious aspects of their personality.

    Eric-the Lenorre text was exceptional. Thanks!
    I'm not convinced he's an INTJ. I feel no Ni connection when I read him. I think he is INTP all the way, and he describes himself as such as well; a dominant thinker. I think the dream thing is cool, and that it can tap in to the unconscious, but unpreferred functions will eventually ripen and be available to us over time anyway, I believe. Using dream interpretation and the other stuff Jung was into is a way to peek beneath the unripened fruit to see what is there, a sneak preview. I don't see that, beyond being interesting at times, or helping us solve an occasional or particular problem, or perhaps be useful if we are seriously suppressing something (i.e. unhealthy or stuck), that it's that necessary for a full rounded life. But he might have been interested in it because he wanted to explain the unexplainable or invisible about what makes us do the things we do. If he became interested in this later in life (and it is very Ni) it might be a testament to him developing his Ni........and make him appear to be more INTJ in his later years perhaps.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  9. #19
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I'm not convinced he's an INTJ. I feel no Ni connection when I read him. I think he is INTP all the way, and he describes himself as such as well; a dominant thinker. I think the dream thing is cool, and that it can tap in to the unconscious, but unpreferred functions will eventually ripen and be available to us over time anyway, I believe. Using dream interpretation and the other stuff Jung was into is a way to peek beneath the unripened fruit to see what is there, a sneak preview. I don't see that, beyond being interesting at times, or helping us solve an occasional or particular problem, or perhaps be useful if we are seriously suppressing something (i.e. unhealthy or stuck), that it's that necessary for a full rounded life. But he might have been interested in it because he wanted to explain the unexplainable or invisible about what makes us do the things we do. If he became interested in this later in life (and it is very Ni) it might be a testament to him developing his Ni........and make him appear to be more INTJ in his later years perhaps.
    hmmm, I bet this topic has been beaten into the ground in a whole bunch of threads somewhere. I dunno...I feel Te for sure. I can sync into what he says and understand what he meant. I dont sense any Ti at all. The text reads as very "concentrated" thus my Ni thought. Jung reads a bit like State and Provoker shoved in a blender and made into an MBTI slushy But I dont have any strong attachment to the notion, honestly, other than the thought of how it might contaminate the tools he used to help others.

    INTJs-and perhaps INFJs- do have a neat trick. They ask the "right" question. Ni seems to allow INTJs to identify the "hole" when studying a system, thus knowing what they dont know. If the system is a patient and the question is asked of a patient-it would prompt the patient to look into that "hole" in themselves that they didnt realize they had. The INTJ cant provide the answer-but they can help the patient identify there is actually a question to be asked of themselves. I could see this making them good shrinks for this reason.

  10. #20
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    hmmm, I bet this topic has been beaten into the ground in a whole bunch of threads somewhere. I dunno...I feel Te for sure. I can sync into what he says and understand what he meant. I dont sense any Ti at all. The text reads as very "concentrated" thus my Ni thought. Jung reads a bit like State and Provoker shoved in a blender and made into an MBTI slushy But I dont have any strong attachment to the notion, honestly, other than the thought of how it might contaminate the tools he used to help others.

    INTJs-and perhaps INFJs- do have a neat trick. They ask the "right" question. Ni seems to allow INTJs to identify the "hole" when studying a system, thus knowing what they dont know. If the system is a patient and the question is asked of a patient-it would prompt the patient to look into that "hole" in themselves that they didnt realize they had. The INTJ cant provide the answer-but they can help the patient identify there is actually a question to be asked of themselves. I could see this making them good shrinks for this reason.

    Really? I see Ti throughout PT very heavily. He points out Te dom thinking and goes into much detail about Te versus Ti, and how Te was considered the 'real way to think' and he said there was a whole 'nuther way to think, in an introverted fashion, and is indeed a bit biased toward Ti, imo, throughout his entire book. In fact, he defines Ti better than any other function in his book. His whole way of defining things exactly, to a 'T,' and taking paragraphs to explain his thought process, without ever dumbing anything down (in fact I have a hard time reading the whole first half) is very Ti. INTJs want and need people to understand them, to follow them, so they tend to lose some of their insight in just trying to make the subject matter comprehensible. (solitarywalker speaks to this in depth in his INTJ profile on here). Not so with Jung. There is no doubt in my mind he's INTP, although I wouldn't be surprised if he came into his Ni in later years, and sought answers or reasons out more, instead of just making his theory.

    haha. It's not that we set out to ask the right question, it's that we're always asking why, and wanting the right answer and nothing less will do. It's our drive, just as I suppose it's Ne's drive to find lots of answers, not just settling for one.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


Similar Threads

  1. Why did Jesus have to die?
    By antireconciler in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 08:36 PM
  2. [NT] NTs why did you embrace religion?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Why did Dick Dastardly never win Wacky Races?
    By Mort Belfry in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 01:51 PM
  4. Why did you choose your user name?
    By Natrushka in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:52 AM
  5. Why did you choose your current (or past) avatar(s)?
    By Totenkindly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 11:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO