Jung's Function Attitudes Explained - Henry Thompson

[highlander]

Anybody read this? I bought a used copy. It's a cheaply made book and is somewhat falling apart but the content is excellent.

Edit: Changing purpose of thread to discuss Thompson's writings more generally.

 

[Jaguar]

Yes.

 

[highlander]

Yes.

Well, I had guessed that one before you answered

 

[Jaguar]

Who me? I don't know shit. Bushtavenkolienko is the man.
Edit: Okay, now that I'm done toying with you, yes, it's an excellent book that everyone needs to have a copy of. I bought mine used, as well.
I just checked Amazon.com. They have 7 used copies available.

 

[ragashree]

Who me? I don't know shit. Bushtavenkolienko is the man.
Edit: Okay, now that I'm done toying with you, yes, it's an excellent book that everyone needs to have a copy of. I bought mine used, as well.

Did you spell that from memory? I'm impressed!

I haven't come across that one. Do you feel it's necessary in understanding Jung's stuff? *haven't looked at any Jung myself for ages, I think my Jung books are all packed away at the bottom of a box somewhere*

 

[Jaguar]

Did you spell that from memory? I'm impressed!

I haven't come across that one. Do you feel it's necessary in understanding Jung's stuff? *haven't looked at any Jung myself for ages, I think my Jung books are all packed away at the bottom of a box somewhere*

You like that spelling job? Lol.
The book offers alternative models and ways of thinking that are worth exploring.

 

[highlander]

What I have heard is this.

Somewhere along the line, with the popularity of MBTI, the underlying depth of complexity of Jung's theory was lost and people only focused on the four functions vs eight. The words would be there in various MBTI books (extraverted thinking, introverted sensing, etc.) but they were never explained. This Thomson book, written in 1996, was the first book to exclusively focus on the eight functions and how they manifest themselves. It also includes a brief description of the "grip" experiences that Quenk elaborates in great detail on in Beside Ourselves/Was That Really Me?. It is concise, clearly written and straightforward while imparting important principles and examples.

Maybe someone else would have written it if he hadn't but it seems to be a cornerstone work in terms of influencing people to think about Jungian functions vs. MBTI letters.

Edit: Oh and as far as Jung's stuff goes, while insightful, I find it painful to get through. The man didn't know the meaning of the word "concise". This book is simple and pragmatic.

 

[highlander]

And I assume that Jaguar knows everything I just said. What I don't know is why he says things like this.

The book offers alternative models and ways of thinking that are worth exploring.

And doesn't elaborate or communicate more.

 

[Jaguar]

And I assume that Jaguar knows everything I just said. What I don't know is why he says things like this.
And doesn't elaborate or communicate more.

Go get your hero, SolitaryWalker.
He'll write you a 23-page wall of text post, which will leave you thoroughly impressed.

 

[highlander]

Go get your hero, SolitaryWalker.
He'll write you a 23-page wall of text post, which will leave you thoroughly impressed.

There are many on the forum that I respect for a variety of reasons. He's not my hero but SolitaryWalker is one who I do respect. That doesn't mean I always agree with what he has to say.

Having known a number of people who have a certain degree of eminence and those who are not thought of in the same way, I'm not so impressed with such things. I'm more impressed by what they have to say and volume of words is not relevant in the criteria.

 

[InTheFlesh]

Just bought a copy
Thanks for the recommendation

 

[Jaguar]

I'm more impressed by what they have to say and volume of words is not relevant in the criteria.

Which contradicts your post about me not "elaborating or communicating more."
I can hardly wait to see what pedantry is yet to come. Be still my beating heart.

 

[highlander]

Which contradicts your post about me not "elaborating or communicating more."
I can hardly wait to see what pedantry is yet to come. Be still my beating heart.

I apologize. I'm coming across as critical and getting defensive. It's just that I think there is wisdom and knowledge that you have which you could impart better on others. That's all.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Gosh - you were almost acting like a nice person in those first couple of posts Jag. It's a good thing you caught yourself before it was too late.

 

[Zarathustra]

It doesn't take a block of text to explain the alternative models, unless you too lack concision.

 

[highlander]

It doesn't take a block of text to explain the alternative models, unless you too lack concision.

I agree. I was actually thinking about VagrantFarce before he posted. He's one of the most concise communicators on the forum. Sometimes I wonder how much time it takes to be that concise and precise with words.

 

[Jaguar]

I apologize. I'm coming across as critical and getting defensive. It's just that I think there is wisdom and knowledge that you have which you could impart better on others. That's all.

Fair enough. *extends hand to shake, but refuses any tongue action.*

The reason I held back knowledge for the last year has recently been removed from the forum. Food for thought.
This comment of yours is spot on:

Edit: Oh and as far as Jung's stuff goes, while insightful, I find it painful to get through. The man didn't know the meaning of the word "concise". This book is simple and pragmatic.

Frankly, I do not recommend people read Jung's original work. I read it, and I wanted to stab the guy. Those of us who were masochistic enough to read it all, can help others to understand it. But we must not think that Jung was some type of God. He was just a man, a man whom should be questioned like any other man. And that is why I prefer to use his work as nothing more than a springboard. We can't stay back in 1921 and think that nothing new has been learned. What a travesty that would be! Jung's type descriptions are so severe, they actually read like caricatures, rather than real people.

This is 2010, not the 1920's. So I applaud anyone who dares to ask, "Did Jung really know what the hell he was talking about?" It's a crucial question! So while some people in this forum used to think they "knew Jung better than anyone," if they were really smart, they would know that's nothing to brag about. It's merely knowledge, that was the result of what one man saw when he viewed people through his own personal lens. Can you imagine what photographs would look like if we were allowed to use only one type of lens, aperture, and shutter speed? The same applies to people.

Bringing in new models, and new ways of thinking to impart a deeper understanding is where my interests have always been, and always will be.
This is why I cringe when anything new is posted and certain individuals obsessed with MBTI feel compelled to immediately scream out correlations, failing to see that maybe, just maybe, they don't always correlate and more importantly, they don't have to.

 

[highlander]

Frankly, I do not recommend people read Jung's original work. I read it, and I wanted to stab the guy. Those of us who were masochistic enough to read it all, can help others to understand it. But we must not think that Jung was some type of God. He was just a man, a man whom should be questioned like any other man. And that is why I prefer to use his work as nothing more than a springboard. We can't stay back in 1921 and think that nothing new has been learned. What a travesty that would be! Jung's type descriptions are so severe, they actually read like caricatures, rather than real people.

This is 2010, not the 1920's. So I applaud anyone who dares to ask, "Did Jung really know what the hell he was talking about?" It's a crucial question!

I agree with every word of this.

Bringing in new models, and new ways of thinking to impart a deeper understanding is where my interests have always been, and always will be.
This is why I cringe when anything new is posted and certain individuals obsessed with MBTI feel compelled to immediately scream out correlations, failing to see that maybe, just maybe, they don't always correlate and more importantly, they don't have to.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that they don't always correlate and don't need to. However, I think it's natural though to compare the different models and look for connections and that MBTI is a reference point because there is so much written on it. So, to look for correlations between MBTI type, Enneagram, DISC, or whatever - it is natural to do this.

 

[Zarathustra]

Nice to know, Jag.

I've wanted to hear your thoughts a bit more in depth than you've seemed willing to divulge, so hopefully we will get to see that side of you now.

I feel the same way about Jung: that which I have read has been extremely turgid.

Would you mind sharing a bit more about the alternative models and/or ways of thinking that Thompson presents in this book?

 

[Jaguar]

Nice to know, Jag.

I've wanted to hear your thoughts a bit more in depth than you've seemed willing to divulge, so hopefully we will get to see that side of you now.

I feel the same way about Jung: that which I have read has been extremely turgid.

Would you mind sharing a bit more about the alternative models and/or ways of thinking that Thompson presents in this book?

Tell me, when you were in college and the prof gave you assigned reading, did you blow it off and expect everyone to just give you all the answers?
I think you have been sitting poolside in Kaleeeeeforneeeeeyaaaaaaa, eating chocolate bon bons too long.
Yes, I know this is the Internet age, and I have been online for about 13 years, but that doesn't mean books are now obsolete.

Guesseeeee what oooooo can dooooooo.
Oooooo can go to Amazoneeeeeeee dot commer and order them thar bookie.