What MBTI type was Carl Jung

[GavinElster]

there's no doubt that Jung ended up concluding that he was an N, and it sounds to me like by 1959 he'd probably concluded that he'd pretty much always been an N — and therefore that whatever period of his life he'd referred to in 1925 as his "natural scientist" period was quite likely a period that, later on, he essentially reclassified as an NT period.

Absolutely, I think he probably thought of himself as intuitive+thinking even in the earlier periods -- his Freeman quote had the flavor of "I'd always been that way..." so I can't even say if there was ever a period the amended-Jung-position would argue that Jung was much of a sensation type.

Basically, my whole argument was that it's very plausible, given his very harsh/blunt statement that people who call him a mystic are idiots+his tendency to view his work as empirical science that he'd have been sensitive about not being a traditional good ol' scientist.
So my point was more that he was misperceiving himself+amended it than that we should have an easy time actually imagining he's a thinking+sensation type in any reasonable sense -- including his own typology.

 

[GavinElster]

Maybe on this part:

what I have the most trouble with is imagining Jung feeling like he related pretty well to those Si descriptions at the time he was composing them

I understand the Si-type portrait is out there, but I honestly think Jung's actual view was closer to introverted intuition being the craziest of all (for example, the NiT woman with the snake in the abdomen in the Freeman interview). Even if you surmise the Psychological Types Ch. X introverted sensation type portrait seems the wildest of all, I don't think that's necessarily the picture I'd take away.

Like, imagine a normal introvert, with feeling and sensation predominating. My guess is Jung probably would say plenty of people fit this without looking totally crazy.

In the case of introverted sensation, I have a feeling Jung's exercise of excessively emphasizing the features that distinguish it from other types (including sensation in the extraverted attitude) really accentuated how odd it looks (particularly if you consider that Jung basically says introversion of sensation starts to move sensation away from its own nature, of course he'd have to de-emphasize sensation as the realism-function in order to make this type portrait as vivid and illustrative of introversion of sensation in particular). I think in the normal case, Jung just thought of sensation as a single function, did see it as oriented to reality overall even if deployed by an introvert, and a thinking-sensation attitude as just a natural scientist attitude. Since introverted sensation is a weird idea of its own right, you had to really come up with the strangest/most peculiar features that distinguished it from other types to illustrate the idea, but it's possible the average sensation-oriented introvert had a lot of the all-sensation-types-have-it features than the ones merely specific to introverted sensation.

It's hard for me to imagine that every introverted natural scientist would have to identify with the more esoteric aspects of the Si-dom portrait for Jung to really consider him an introverted thinking-and-sensation type.

And I'd also guess that on balance, usually an intuitive type (introverted or not) was more at variance with reality, to Jung, than an introverted sensation type -- notwithstanding his Si-dom portrait. Just my best guess given he commonly refers to sensation just in general as oriented to reality, and he doesn't say that's true just for extraverted sensation.


So still formally/abstractly we can just deduce if Jung thought himself a thinking-sensation type (at the period of writing Psychological Types), he'd have said TiSi over TiSe....but that may not be so important....I think given he usually viewed sensation as a realism-function, he'd have probably not emphasized the aspects of sensation that are especially peculiar to the introverted attitude, as he probably did in the Ch. X portrait.

 

[GavinElster]

Meh, I think the TL;DR version is just this:

The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject,

Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude.

This is just radically hard to reconcile with sensation as the reality function, and honestly, I have a feeling on balance, Jung would say the average introvert who also happens to prefer sensation to intuition was still oriented by observing reality closely.

I mean, for heavens' sake, he thought thinking-sensation is the scientist orientation. Where you need to observe reality closely. I prefer currently to think that Jung was just emphasizing what can happen when you really take introversion of sensation to the extreme, so as to illustrate the concept, not how most people who just happen to be introverts and sensation types look like.

And in his "natural scientist" quote, he was definitely just going for "OK, I was working with thinking and sensation" -- not something like "I'm a crowning example of the features most peculiar to introverted sensation."


At best I'd conclude Jung's views of sensation (as a function of its own right) and introverted sensation are somewhat inconsistent, and that in his "natural scientist" quote, he was going for the sensation-independent-of-attitude characterization -- i.e. orientation to reality.

 

[reckful]

At best I'd conclude Jung's views of sensation (as a function of its own right) and introverted sensation are somewhat inconsistent, and that in his "natural scientist" quote, he was going for the sensation-independent-of-attitude characterization -- i.e. orientation to reality.

I'd say we're pretty much on the same page, although I'd say "somewhat inconsistent" is a bit of an understatement. In any case, I'd certainly agree that in the "natural scientist" quote, he was putting the emphasis on the orientation-to-the-physical aspect of S.

But my overall take/emphasis continues to be to not want to put very much weight on a single passage from a 1925 Q&A exchange — plus I continue to want to put some significant weight on (1) my sense, based on what Jung was like (from his autobiography and etc.), that when he was spending lots of focused time on those Psychological Types descriptions around 1921, he wouldn't have been all that likely to characterize those Si and Ni functions the way he did if he'd considered himself more of an S than an N (at that time), and (2) the "were" (past tense) reference to "natural scientist," combined with the fact that "natural scientist" seems like a somewhat unlikely characterization for Jung to be using to describe the work he was doing in the years around 1921 (and continuing into 1925).

 

[GavinElster]

I'd say we're pretty much on the same page, although I'd say "somewhat inconsistent" is a bit of an understatement

Let's say very inconsistent, sure. This is one of the places where I really don't think one can avoid moving in the direction of the modern shifts, namely just putting a lot of the things under "introversion" under N.

he wouldn't have been all that likely to characterize those Si and Ni functions the way he did if he'd considered himself more of an S than an N (at that time)

Well here's the thing: let's accept Jung wasn't consistent. Now, the question is what he most likely meant given this inconsistency -- now IF he were consistent, and we took the elaborate thoughts of you, me, or anyone else who is thoroughly convinced that the logical consequence of Jung's way of thinking that
a) the top two functions may be referred to as the conscious functions
b) the attitude is attached to consciousness

is that the top two are probably in the same attitude (with proof that he's at least willing to make such a typing in Nietzsche), we'd have to place a lot of emphasis on the Si vs Ni portraits.


But the fact seems to be that Jung probably meant that thinking+sensation uppermost just means he's some kind of introverted scientist -- he was probably endorsing the view of sensation that has to do with observing reality closely, not the peculiar aspects of introverted sensation that lead to an illusory concept of reality/disobey the very nature of sensation, if ya know what I mean.

Given this, I'm less inclined to worry just how much he'd identify with the Si portrait, given he's a rational dom (self-proclaimed in the Psychological Types period, as far as I understand), and in the 1925 quote I doubt he's emphasizing the features of sensation most peculiar to his Si type.

If you keep coming to the Si type portrait, I encourage considering if you're not missing what Jung meant himself, vs what he should have meant by his "natural scientist" quote, because you're expecting more consistency from him than is deserving.

But my overall take/emphasis continues to be to not want to put very much weight on a single passage from a 1925 Q&A exchange

I get the impression, though, that you're possibly focusing at least somewhat more on what Jung's type really, actually is, not just what the 1925 quote probably meant. For me, there's zero doubt that Jung amended to thinking+intuition, and von Franz also characterized him as thinking-intuitive, so we don't have to worry about what his type really is when it comes to intuition vs sensation. In this sense, I place very little weight on the 1925 quote. However, we can remember Jung seems to have held shifting views on Freud/Adler, sometimes thinking Freud's an extravert, sometimes thinking just his work is extraverted. I'd say this exercise is mainly to chronicle his development of his thoughts on his type -- not to pin it down, for which we have better sources.

I would have to surmise that, given the 1925 "natural scientist" quote responds to a question about a time period when he brought up his inferior, which he clarifies to be feeling, as you yourself noted, the period he is talking of would likely be not all that far from Psychological Types' conception. And various phases in the seminar seem to discuss his reckoning with the unconscious, the tension of the superior/inferior, etc, in a way that directly suggests they were very relevant to forming Psychological Types -- indeed, Jung claims he just wrote down in abstract form the content of those struggles to compose his book.

Personally I do not feel Jung would've identified much with EITHER introverted irrational ch. X portrait directly as they are, given his portrayal of them as basically useless from the rational standpoint. And he pretty clearly considered himself a rational at the time of writing Psychological Types. And, given his "Everyone who calls me a mystic is just an idiot" quote (which I think isn't BS/made up, though I'm not sure where originally from), I think Jung the rational would want to distance himself from the introverted intuitive's mystical tendencies.

Honestly, I find it easy to see Jung thinking of himself as a scientist, just doing regular scientific work, observing his patients, collecting empirical data (in his eyes), and theorizing about the collective unconscious. I probably place less emphasis on the word "natural" science than you. I mean, he plausibly just meant scientist -- that is, someone who observes nature.

I'm neither aware of a period when he functioned as a traditional hard scientist or something much more fitting to the name 'natural scientist' (I mean, as a truly independent one -- not just for school), nor would I expect that Jung would've believed, in his 1925 seminar, that this distantly past Jung would've identified more with the Si portrait!

 

[GavinElster]

As a note, I've read your points that Ch. X portraits are emphasizing the common/typical, which is a well taken point, but at the very end of the day, I think a lot of aspects of those portraits just can't port over directly to someone with the given function as auxiliary! I mean, how can we read aspects of the extraverted rationals emphasizing repression of sensation+intuition if we're presuming the portrait applies to someone who is a sensation or intuitive dominant with extraverted thinking auxiliary?
How can we read aspects of the introverted sensation type portrait emphasizing relatively undifferentiated feeling and thought, if it's just auxiliary in a thinking dominant?

 

[reckful]

As a note, I've read your points that Ch. X portraits are emphasizing the common/typical, which is a well taken point, but at the very end of the day, I think a lot of aspects of those portraits just can't port over directly to someone with the given function as auxiliary! I mean, how can we read aspects of the extraverted rationals emphasizing repression of sensation+intuition if we're presuming the portrait applies to someone who is a sensation or intuitive dominant with extraverted thinking auxiliary?
How can we read aspects of the introverted sensation type portrait emphasizing relatively undifferentiated feeling and thought, if it's just auxiliary in a thinking dominant?

It sounds like maybe you misunderstood me. I was saying that Jung was saying that the stuff in those eight portraits was stuff that tended to be "the common and therefore typical features" (as Jung put it) of the types who had those functions as their dominant functions.

As a separate issue, tho, and as we've discussed, Jung pointed to Nietzsche as an excellent example of what introverted thinking looked like, even though he viewed Nietzsche as a Ti-aux, rather than a Ti-dom.

So it seems fair to assume that Jung believed that, to the extent that someone has significantly differentiated their second function and put it to use as the auxiliary — and Jung said that that was the typical case for one of his types — then even though the portrait that would correspond to the most predominant aspects of their personality would be the corresponding dom portrait (Ni in Nietzsche's case), that person's use of their auxiliary function would tend to correspond to the form of it (Ti in Nietzsche's case) that matched the conscious attitude.

And that is decidedly not to say that you'd look to find anything like everything that was in the corresponding dom portrait in the person who was using that function as the auxiliary. But I would have expected Jung to feel like he related well to a fair amount of his Si description if he thought Si was his aux — just as he would presumably have expected Nietzsche to relate well to a fair amount of his Ti description.

And as I said, I have an easier time — and just based on the other stuff in Psychological Types — imagining Jung relating pretty well to the prophet-ahead-of-his-time Ni description than to his Si description. There's a lot of discussion in the Schiller chapter, as I recall (not going to look it up now), about Jung seeing eye to eye with Schiller about the horrors resulting from Western culture's over-emphasis on extraversion, and his frustration with the fact that neither the French revolution (in Schiller's time) or World War I (in Jung's time) had woken up the powers that be to the problems with their unenlightened views.

 

[GavinElster]

It sounds like maybe you misunderstood me. I was saying that Jung was saying that the stuff in those eight portraits was stuff that tended to be "the common and therefore typical features" (as Jung put it) of the types who had those functions as their dominant functions.

Well OK, that's fine; you're on the same page as I am, then, it appears, namely you do agree they're the features of the dominant types mainly, but it seems Jung would think the auxiliary types should relate pretty well, too (e.g. Nietzsche being used as an introverted thinking type in Ch. X). So maybe this subtle difference between relating to the portraits as a dominant type vs relating as an auxiliary type is not enough to satisfy you (and, to be honest, I agree that's not enough).

But at the end of the day, we're forced to face two inconsistent views of an introvert who puts sensation over intuition. On the one hand, Jung, when just stating someone is a thinking and sensation type with unqualified attitude, would probably mean they observe reality closely/are of a scientist orientation.
On the other hand, if you really take the attitude of the auxiliary issue very seriously, and jump through all the hoops, and note there's at least one example where Jung directly says the auxiliary introverted thinking type is still a pronounced example of an introverted thinking type, then yeah you run into the approach of squaring the introverted intuitive description versus introverted sensation.

But I guess my impression is that, when deciding between these two interpretations, we can consider that Jung would many times just type people by individual functions+individual attitudes -- not by listing their function-attitudes. E.g. in his Freeman interview, and many times in pre-Ch. X Psychological Types.
I'd just lay a lot more weight on the thinking+sensation~natural scientist interpretation, and relax on the esoteric details of the introverted sensation type portrait, at least in terms of understanding how Jung was probably typing himself.

It's particularly important to emphasize this difference in approaches -- direct examination of function-attitudes vs examination of separate functions+separate attitudes -- when confronted with a case where a function-attitude (introverted sensation) portrait shows inconsistency with the sensation-as-the-realism-function view.



Couple this with the points that Jung seemed in his "natural scientist" quote to be referring to a time where he brought up his inferior function, feeling, and that all the parts of the seminar seemingly relevant to this bringing up inferior period not only seem to be neighboring Psychological Types, but are declared by Jung to be directly formative experiences which he abstractly characterized in the book's theory, and I feel that's pretty suggestive.

Not to mention that I think to Jung, "natural" might have just meant observing nature as it is (sensation), not that he wasn't a psychologist or that he wasn't observing nature in the collective unconscious revealing itself in patients, but in some more traditional sense. I don't even know of a career Jung held that would really fit the bill anyway. As far as I understand, he was working with Freud, then split, and basically for much of even pre-Psychological Types life, he was into something in the realm of psychology, psychiatry etc -- nothing that would radically fit "natural scientist" better.



But really, the ultimate decider here ought to be the time period Jung was bringing up the inferior. Knowing that is the only truly certain way to decide all this. Beyond that, I'm just explaining how, while JUNG is inconsistent in his thoughts, WE would not be inconsistent in interpreting him to have been talking of the Psychological Types period, despite the funniness of his Si portrait.


(Although I suspect I find it much less obviously absurd that he'd have related at all to that portrait than you seem to. To me, it actually makes sense on some level that someone would have stretched how far you can veer away from a "truly" reality-oriented consciousness, while still remaining a sensation type, if the someone was a closet intuitive telling himself he is a sensation type, and over-stuffing a lot of stuff belonging in N in introversion. And yes, I'm saying this even though Jung probably wanted to be viewed as a scientist, not a mystic, maybe even he realized there's something funny about how he sees science, as compared to how extraverts see science)


I guess I wonder, tangentially, what specifically you find so impossible to believe about Jung relating to some of the Si-dom portraits. Surely someone who interprets his dreams constantly, and believes they're foretelling events about his life and so on wouldn't find it so weird if he would see monsters and demons and so on in "reality"

Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons.

 

[Eric B]

In all this, I forgot to mention, that in Beebe's new book he discusses the discovery of his dominant intuition, and how the Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Sorter had both his dominant, along with auxiliary Thinking as extraverted.
In chapter 3, he sorts out the whole issue of which attitude the auxiliary and tertiary would take and points out that Jung’s assumption was that “only the superior is likely to be particularly differentiated. Therefore, the other functions all take on the unconscious character of the inferior function and operate in a crudely compensatory way”. (p.34)
(Again, we can say that it is the Puer complex that orients the tertiary into the dominant attitude.)

 

[reckful]

As I mentioned a bit before, Psychological Types is a collection of Jung's writing spanning a length of time. So he may have changed his view on some things between the different chapters.

I remember being surprised to read a post of yours, a while back, where you indicated you didn't actually have a copy of Psychological Types. Is that still true? Your latest posts in this thread certainly make it sound that way.

I don't understand how somebody could do as much writing as you have about Jung's type-related views (on internet forums and elsewhere) without having read Psychological Types — not to mention owning a copy to refer to.

In any case, FYI, Psychological Types was published in its entirety (Chapters 1 through 11) in 1921. When the Collected Works edition was published in 1960 (with Jung's input), four short articles (from 1913, 1925, 1928 and 1936) were added as an Appendix at the end.

So your assertion that "Psychological Types is a collection of Jung's writing spanning a length of time. So he may have changed his view on some things between the different chapters" is a major-league mischaracterization.

And more significantly, your suggestion that Grant and Beebe's writings are appropriately characterized as "filling in the loose ends of Jung's theory" is a grotesque mischaracterization. The Harold Grant function stack — especially as carried forward with the "tandems" focus beloved by so many bamboozled MBTI forumites — is unquestionably inconsistent with Jung's conceptions of the types. And Beebe's fifth through eighth functions have no significant basis in Jung's model.

But most importantly, on the main issue you've been discussing with GavinElster — the consciousness and attitude of the auxiliary — there really isn't any respectable argument to be made that Jung didn't believe that, in the typical case (and he thought it was very much the typical case for one of his types to have an auxiliary function), the auxiliary function was both predominantly conscious, and had the same attitude as the dominant function.

And you can read a long explanation of that (with multiple Jung quotes) in this two-part post.

Not only did Jung refer to the dom and aux as the "conscious functions" (and the tert and inf as the "unconscious ones") in Psychological Types, but 30 years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:

If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.​

So... by 1952 (if not sooner), he'd decided that it was possible (albeit not the usual case) for the tertiary function to be "raised to consciousness and thus made masculine" — although in contrast to the auxiliary, it would retain significant "traces" that would cause it to "act as a kind of link with ... the unconscious."

But in both 1921 and 1952, he took the view that it was the typical case for the auxiliary to be a predominantly conscious function.

And speaking of follow-up writings, and moving now to the attitude issue...

In 1923 (two years after Psychological Types was published), as also noted in that two-part linked post, Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in that Collected Works appendix I mentioned. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

f we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."​

He characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both.

How can you possibly reconcile that with the notion that Jung's model called for an extravert to either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa?

And again, that two-part linked post has a lot more reasons why the notion that Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the opposite attitude to the dominant is essentially unsupportable.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And moving to Nietzsche specifically...

Here again (this time in the Hull translation) is the paragraph that points to Nietzsche from Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. It's the opening paragraph of Jung's section on The Introverted Thinking Type.

Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant. The one speaks with facts, the other relies on the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide field of objective reality. Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge. Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast.​

So no, Eric, there's really no "ambiguity" there. And not only is Jung pointing to Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type — he's pointing to him as a particularly "sharp" example, in terms of exemplifying the differences between Te and Ti.

And no, there's really no chance that Jung was reversing the Te/Ti order for Nietzsche and Cuvier. As Wikipedia notes, Cuvier was "a French naturalist and zoologist" who is "sometimes referred to as the 'father of paleontology.'" He was "instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils," and was clearly the Darwinian empiricist in the Cuvier/Nietzsche pairing.

But meanwhile, back in Chapter 3, Jung uses Nietzsche as his poster boy for P-doms (and Ni-doms in particular). So when Jung points to Nietzsche as a noteworthy Ti type in Chapter 10, he can't be saying Nietzsche was a Ti-dom. He's saying Nietzsche was a Ti-aux.

And again, Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, so that all adds up.

And GavinElster is also correct on the "intellect" issue. Jung uses the terms "intellect" and "intellectual" repeatedly, throughout Psychological Types, to refer to the thinking function and thinking types.

 

[GavinElster]

I think the really easy way to see that Nietzsche should be thought of as having introverted thinking is just to note that in Psychological Types, at the very least, Jung was thinking of attitude as belonging mainly to the consciousness/the unconscious -- NOT to the function (even though he did speak of things like introverted sensation -- that is, he did use the language of attributing the attitude to the function too).

Basically, using that both Jung and von Franz seem to exhibit the habit of referring to an auxiliary thinking person as a "thinking type," it's reasonable to say, if this person is also introverted, that the person is an "introverted thinking type" -- because they're both a thinking type and an introvert, and these two things pair together in consciousness.

Now, as a technical point, because they tended to refer to an auxiliary thinking person as a "thinking type," we're well within reason to say that, between the two senses in which Jung called a function "conscious" -- (1) only the dominant is conscious, and (2) both the dom/aux are the "conscious functions" -- he'd generally go with (2).
Von Franz obviously thinks similarly if she thinks it can be hard to tell the dom from the aux independent of looking at the inferior.

 

[GavinElster]

Where "should be" means "from Jung's perspective" -- of course.

 

[Eric B]

I remember being surprised to read a post of yours, a while back, where you indicated you didn't actually have a copy of Psychological Types. Is that still true? Your latest posts in this thread certainly make it sound that way.

I don't understand how somebody could do as much writing as you have about Jung's type-related views (on internet forums and elsewhere) without having read Psychological Types — not to mention owning a copy to refer to.

In any case, FYI, Psychological Types was published in its entirety (Chapters 1 through 11) in 1921. When the Collected Works edition was published in 1960 (with Jung's input), four short articles (from 1913, 1925, 1928 and 1936) were added as an Appendix at the end.

So your assertion that "Psychological Types is a collection of Jung's writing spanning a length of time. So he may have changed his view on some things between the different chapters" is a major-league mischaracterization.


But most importantly, on the main issue you've been discussing with GavinElster — the consciousness and attitude of the auxiliary — there really isn't any respectable argument to be made that Jung didn't believe that, in the typical case (and he thought it was very much the typical case for one of his types to have an auxiliary function), the auxiliary function was both predominantly conscious, and had the same attitude as the dominant function.

And you can read a long explanation of that (with multiple Jung quotes) in this two-part post.

Not only did Jung refer to the dom and aux as the "conscious functions" (and the tert and inf as the "unconscious ones") in Psychological Types, but 30 years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:

If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.​

So... by 1952 (if not sooner), he'd decided that it was possible (albeit not the usual case) for the tertiary function to be "raised to consciousness and thus made masculine" — although in contrast to the auxiliary, it would retain significant "traces" that would cause it to "act as a kind of link with ... the unconscious."

But in both 1921 and 1952, he took the view that it was the typical case for the auxiliary to be a predominantly conscious function.

And speaking of follow-up writings, and moving now to the attitude issue...

In 1923 (two years after Psychological Types was published), as also noted in that two-part linked post, Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in that Collected Works appendix I mentioned. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

If we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."​

He characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both.

How can you possibly reconcile that with the notion that Jung's model called for an extravert to either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa?

And again, that two-part linked post has a lot more reasons why the notion that Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the opposite attitude to the dominant is essentially unsupportable.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And moving to Nietzsche specifically...

Here again (this time in the Hull translation) is the paragraph that points to Nietzsche from Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. It's the opening paragraph of Jung's section on The Introverted Thinking Type.

Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant. The one speaks with facts, the other relies on the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide field of objective reality. Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge. Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast.​

So no, Eric, there's really no "ambiguity" there. And not only is Jung pointing to Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type — he's pointing to him as a particularly "sharp" example, in terms of exemplifying the differences between Te and Ti.

And no, there's really no chance that Jung was reversing the Te/Ti order for Nietzsche and Cuvier. As Wikipedia notes, Cuvier was "a French naturalist and zoologist" who is "sometimes referred to as the 'father of paleontology.'" He was "instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils," and was clearly the Darwinian empiricist in the Cuvier/Nietzsche pairing.

But meanwhile, back in Chapter 3, Jung uses Nietzsche as his poster boy for P-doms (and Ni-doms in particular). So when Jung points to Nietzsche as a noteworthy Ti type in Chapter 10, he can't be saying Nietzsche was a Ti-dom. He's saying Nietzsche was a Ti-aux.

And again, Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, so that all adds up.

And GavinElster is also correct on the "intellect" issue. Jung uses the terms "intellect" and "intellectual" repeatedly, throughout Psychological Types, to refer to the thinking function and thinking types.

I've read chapter X, and simply didn't get the chance to get a copy of the whole book yet. One reason, is what I did read I found to be very dense and hard to digest. (I can see a good example right in the quote you gave, where he talks about “the peculiarity of a man”, then starts talking about “the object”, and I immediately think of his other more familiar use of "object"; i.e. vs "subject", in a more generalistic use, then you have to read it several times and realize this is just a reference to the hypothetical “man” (a specific "object"), but the term “object” throws you off, because it sound's like he's referring to the [hypothetical] man's perspective [general], but he's really switched to our perspective, where “the man” is the external “object”, TO US).
I had wanted to of course go to the source to understand the whole thing through, but for the time being found it better to put together my own understanding of the theory from what I did read there, plus the other theorists, and discussions.
(BTW, I see I made a mistake, by confusing the title “Collected Works”, which is the compilation PT had been incorporated into, and not what PT was itself).

And more significantly, your suggestion that Grant and Beebe's writings are appropriately characterized as "filling in the loose ends of Jung's theory" is a grotesque mischaracterization. The Harold Grant function stack — especially as carried forward with the "tandems" focus beloved by so many bamboozled MBTI forumites — is unquestionably inconsistent with Jung's conceptions of the types. And Beebe's fifth through eighth functions have no significant basis in Jung's model.

But that's precisely the point. None of them are claiming to be completely “consistent” with Jung; hence 'filling in', to make a more complete theory of type. So I don't limit myself to what Jung said (else, I wouldn't be correlating type to classic temperament, which has always been my starting premise).

Wheelwright, Myers, Grant, Beebe, Lenore, Socionics, etc. have all arisen with their different takes on Jung for a reason.
For one thing, Myers based her position on the aux. on Jung's statement "For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function." Now I've seen the counter argument that "every respect" didn't include attitude, because it was separate from the function. But then that's not clear. Just like to use your evidence that an introvert or extravert is someone "who in ALL their judgments, perceptions..." feel the associated [internal/external] factors to be the predominant motivating force, then that would include their tertiary and inferior as well (and it sounds like it wouldn't even take into account how developed in consciousness they are).
See how easily things can be interpreted differently with him?

But if you insist that the dominant and aux. are the same attitude, remember, the function stack isn't stationary; it changes as development or differentiation occurs (as the above quote shows).
The unconscious attitude is opposite, and we don't start off with two developed functions; that's why the dominant is dominant. So at least at some point, you'll have one differentiated dominant function and attitude, and the others will be undifferentiated and in the opposite attitude, which was the basis of what I was arguing regarding the complexes setting the remaining attitudes.
So if the aux at least in that fashion starts off in the opposite attitude and then moves to the dom. attitude, then we can still say the Parent complex is what orients it back to the opposite.

And the theories are also based on experience. I know my aux is not Ni. (Unless we get into the claims of those who try to harmonize MBTI J/P with Socionics "j/p" and start redefining Ni into Ne and vice versa).
I would ask what you think your stack is, being you wear a Myers-defined INTJ (NiTe) type; but then wait, you're the one who doesn't even believe in functions to begin with; you argue for dichotomies only. If I remember correctly, weren't you bringing up some of this stuff before in your arguments against functions? Weren't you also the one who mentioned that Jung believed in ambiversion, as further proof? (And this was another of my examples of how Jung either changed, or was at least ambiguous. If not just the dominant, but also the aux. were a solid i or e, then wouldn't people be more solidly introvert or extravert and not ambiverted?) So is this simply the way to play the theory of functions against itself? Like the way Jung taught the functions was different from the way we understand them, so the whole thing is nonsense?

This is why we are free to draw from him as a foundation and yet can go against some parts of his original teaching. This is what I was saying to Gavin about making a “doctrine” out of Jung. He is not totally clear, and is too prone to differing interpretations. This discussion also highlights the Ti/Te and Ne/Ni differences, as Te wants more of an objective "order" in the way we learn, reference and apply info, and sees the Ti subjective and Ne "open" approach as sloppy, but then we realize that you sometimes have to make your own determination as to how things best fit together.
The Myers typology with the Grant stack has fit people's experiences well, and Beebe seems like a natural extension of it. (It's just a matter of putting it out there in a way that more people can understand).

 

[Mole]

I remember being surprised to read a post of yours, a while back, where you indicated you didn't actually have a copy of Psychological Types. Is that still true? Your latest posts in this thread certainly make it sound that way.

I don't understand how somebody could do as much writing as you have about Jung's type-related views (on internet forums and elsewhere) without having read Psychological Types — not to mention owning a copy to refer to.

In any case, FYI, Psychological Types was published in its entirety (Chapters 1 through 11) in 1921. When the Collected Works edition was published in 1960 (with Jung's input), four short articles (from 1913, 1925, 1928 and 1936) were added as an Appendix at the end.

So your assertion that "Psychological Types is a collection of Jung's writing spanning a length of time. So he may have changed his view on some things between the different chapters" is a major-league mischaracterization.

And more significantly, your suggestion that Grant and Beebe's writings are appropriately characterized as "filling in the loose ends of Jung's theory" is a grotesque mischaracterization. The Harold Grant function stack — especially as carried forward with the "tandems" focus beloved by so many bamboozled MBTI forumites — is unquestionably inconsistent with Jung's conceptions of the types. And Beebe's fifth through eighth functions have no significant basis in Jung's model.

But most importantly, on the main issue you've been discussing with GavinElster — the consciousness and attitude of the auxiliary — there really isn't any respectable argument to be made that Jung didn't believe that, in the typical case (and he thought it was very much the typical case for one of his types to have an auxiliary function), the auxiliary function was both predominantly conscious, and had the same attitude as the dominant function.

And you can read a long explanation of that (with multiple Jung quotes) in this two-part post.

Not only did Jung refer to the dom and aux as the "conscious functions" (and the tert and inf as the "unconscious ones") in Psychological Types, but 30 years later, in Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy, Jung's model hadn't changed. As he explained:

If we think of the psychological function [sic] as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and, equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it. The "inferior" function, on the other hand, is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function. ...

In the psychology of the functions there are two conscious and therefore masculine functions, the differentiated function and its auxiliary, which are represented in dreams by, say, father and son, whereas the unconscious functions appear as mother and daughter. Since the conflict between the two auxiliary functions is not nearly as great as that between the differentiated and the inferior function, it is possible for the third function — that is, the unconscious auxiliary one — to be raised to consciousness and thus made masculine. It will, however, bring with it traces of its contamination with the inferior function, thus acting as a kind of link with the darkness of the unconscious.​

So... by 1952 (if not sooner), he'd decided that it was possible (albeit not the usual case) for the tertiary function to be "raised to consciousness and thus made masculine" — although in contrast to the auxiliary, it would retain significant "traces" that would cause it to "act as a kind of link with ... the unconscious."

But in both 1921 and 1952, he took the view that it was the typical case for the auxiliary to be a predominantly conscious function.

And speaking of follow-up writings, and moving now to the attitude issue...

In 1923 (two years after Psychological Types was published), as also noted in that two-part linked post, Jung gave a lecture (separately published in 1925) that's included in that Collected Works appendix I mentioned. After some opening remarks on the shortcomings of past approaches to typology, here's how he began his discussion of extraverts and introverts:

f we wish to define the psychological peculiarity of a man in terms that will satisfy not only our own subjective judgment but also the object judged, we must take as our criterion that state or attitude which is felt by the object to be the conscious, normal condition. Accordingly, we shall make his conscious motives our first concern, while eliminating as far as possible our own arbitrary interpretations.

Proceeding thus we shall discover, after a time, that in spite of the great variety of conscious motives and tendencies, certain groups of individuals can be distinguished who are characterized by a striking conformity of motivation. For example, we shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."​

He characterizes extraverts as people "who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force." Judgments and perceptions both.

How can you possibly reconcile that with the notion that Jung's model called for an extravert to either be extraverted in their judgments and introverted in their perceptions or vice versa?

And again, that two-part linked post has a lot more reasons why the notion that Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the opposite attitude to the dominant is essentially unsupportable.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And moving to Nietzsche specifically...

Here again (this time in the Hull translation) is the paragraph that points to Nietzsche from Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. It's the opening paragraph of Jung's section on The Introverted Thinking Type.

Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant. The one speaks with facts, the other relies on the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide field of objective reality. Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge. Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast.​

So no, Eric, there's really no "ambiguity" there. And not only is Jung pointing to Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type — he's pointing to him as a particularly "sharp" example, in terms of exemplifying the differences between Te and Ti.

And no, there's really no chance that Jung was reversing the Te/Ti order for Nietzsche and Cuvier. As Wikipedia notes, Cuvier was "a French naturalist and zoologist" who is "sometimes referred to as the 'father of paleontology.'" He was "instrumental in establishing the fields of comparative anatomy and paleontology through his work in comparing living animals with fossils," and was clearly the Darwinian empiricist in the Cuvier/Nietzsche pairing.

But meanwhile, back in Chapter 3, Jung uses Nietzsche as his poster boy for P-doms (and Ni-doms in particular). So when Jung points to Nietzsche as a noteworthy Ti type in Chapter 10, he can't be saying Nietzsche was a Ti-dom. He's saying Nietzsche was a Ti-aux.

And again, Jung's function stack for a typical Ni-dom with a T-aux was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, so that all adds up.

And GavinElster is also correct on the "intellect" issue. Jung uses the terms "intellect" and "intellectual" repeatedly, throughout Psychological Types, to refer to the thinking function and thinking types.

For "Psychological Types" by Jung click on http://www.cyjack.com/cognition/(ebook pdf) jung, carl - the psychological types.pdf

And when reading it we do well to remember these are the psychotic thoughts of a florid psychotic. And Jung was rejected by Dr Freud as a psychoanalyst in training because of his psychotic disorder.

And to make matters worse Jung's followers hid his personal diary in a locked safe for more than 70 years in order to hid his psychosis from us.

 

[entropie]

psychosis? I never met a german with psychosis !

 

[GavinElster]

This is why we are free to draw from him as a foundation and yet can go against some parts of his original teaching. This is what I was saying to Gavin about making a “doctrine” out of Jung. He is not totally clear, and is too prone to differing interpretations.

From my perspective, one shouldn't make a doctrine of Beebe either -- neither is a great idea; and that's basically independent of how clearly defined their theories are--it's more to do with whether there's an inherent reason to suppose their theory is correct over all the others.

So I guess I'm totally with you on the conclusion, just my justification is different, because at least the Jung who wrote Psychological Types seems more consistent with same-attitude auxiliaries.

 

[noombie]

Hei all, I would like to re-apply an argument for Jung to be INFJ

[I lurk TC a lot, but I decided to make a stab at this forum as the indecisiveness bothers me]

Specifically, I believe Jung is a certain type of INFJ- that has abnormally powerful Ti.

As some of you may already know, our cognitive functions serves as natural predilections for cognitive archetypes. Like muscles, if we don't use them they weaken.

I'm alluding to the point that Jung belongs to a brand of INFJ (usually male) that has transactionally sacrificed Fe growth for more Ti. As mentioned towards the end of this tread, Jung experienced personal mental unhealthiness. This is because an INFJ should use Ni-Fe-Ti in order to be healthy. This Ti overgrowth is largely responsible for writings that mimic INTP's and understandably rivets many into believing he is one.

However, Jung's INFJ nature is still apparent in his interactions. He is often criticized for employing metaphysical ideations among his colleges, and even attempted to make spiritual symbols (ironically called "universal") a unifying a framework to expound collective unconscious archetypes ("The Great Mother", "The Shadow", etc.).

Also consider that his entire work serves to distill the vast information captured by Ni-Ti (in that order), for public utility (Fe). My argument for Ni is simply in effect that his work converges insight (an Ni vision) of deeper human psyche that is not so unrightfully pulled from his intellectual ass . [For the brave hearted intellects- read: Typologycentral's famed BlueWing/SolitaryWalker's INTJ & INFJ profiles to get further philosophical understanding beneath Ni & Fe vs Te]


Here is where I insert anecdotal additions:

I believe I myself, and some MBTI writers like Blake Space (See: Stellar Maze- Website) belongs to this brand of INFJ. I have dabbled in Jung's works, lectures, MBTI, etc. for 100+ hrs easy. I also consider myself pretty darn good at typing in real life. From everything Jung that I've consumed- for me it's pretty clear he is INFJ. The simple give away is the usage of spiritual metaphysical symbols to categorize Ni-Ti workings. Blake Space is a respectable MBTI writer- who happens to borrow a lot of astrological terms. I too, love metaphysical things, contrary to INTx types I know, in addition to MBTI and psychology in general. Further, I grew up with an INTJ brother and ISTJ dad- needless to say my Fe took the backseat growing up, so I know what it's like to express using Ni-Ti (and the mental unhealthiness of it).

If it weren't for MBTI and spiritual knowledge- I would've easily analyzed myself an intuitive thinker as Jung did (My friends also often type me an NT type). But remember that the Myers duo began their work after- so Jung couldn't use their frame of reference to type himself. Fortunately for typing sake- Fe has funny ways of creeping into the background in all our expressions. Jung employs dreams, and many new age symbols, in his explanations. I have never met an NT-type that would publish proud work using metaphysical maxims, nor an INTJ that would go round-n-round rambling about his theories (more Ti activity). While INTJ's have the capability to write similar books, Te would make the writings terse in wording, and read more like an instruction manual rather than explanations. Jung's writing, and lectures (in youtube), often uses subjective references of his patients or some "typical" person to build stories to make his points (like another INFJ we may know- Jesus Christ!) (Pun intended- sry couldn't resist hehe)


To reiterate- it is my humble opinion to type Jung as INFJ

 

[FGI]

Holy cow. Sorry to resurrect, I had to chip in. It is hard to believe that Jung did all this work on personality types but then was never able to type himself, or never disclosed his own type. No one can claim to be an expert in personalities if they can't be honest and open about their own personality bias. Also if they can't type themselves properly. Just my opinion. SO many people mistype themselves and then claim to be personality experts. Hilarious.

Everyone seems so confused. Has anyone ever looked at a picture of Carl Jung?

I can tell his type just by looking at his face. I know several men of his type. Reading some of his writing and life story confirms it without doubt: ISTp.

He is indeed logical. Obviously. Not emotional. Look at how static his face is and how dry his writing. Everyone is getting confused about his S/N. What you are seeing is Ne (external intuition) in the entertainment position, desperate seeking out and collection of new ideas and big picture concepts. Long winded discussion of potential connections without much substance. Typical of the ISTp or Master Craftsman.

His intense interest in the subject could actually be seen as dual-seeking. His dual, the ENFp, is a master of social manipulation using natural knowledge of personality types.

 

[reckful]

Holy cow. Sorry to resurrect, I had to chip in. It is hard to believe that Jung did all this work on personality types but then was never able to type himself, or never disclosed his own type. No one can claim to be an expert in personalities if they can't be honest and open about their own personality bias. Also if they can't type themselves properly. Just my opinion. SO many people mistype themselves and then claim to be personality experts. Hilarious.

Everyone seems so confused. Has anyone ever looked at a picture of Carl Jung?

I can tell his type just by looking at his face. I know several men of his type. Reading some of his writing and life story confirms it without doubt: ISTp.

He is indeed logical. Obviously. Not emotional. Look at how static his face is and how dry his writing. Everyone is getting confused about his S/N. What you are seeing is Ne (external intuition) in the entertainment position, desperate seeking out and collection of new ideas and big picture concepts. Long winded discussion of potential connections without much substance. Typical of the ISTp or Master Craftsman.

His intense interest in the subject could actually be seen as dual-seeking. His dual, the ENFp, is a master of social manipulation using natural knowledge of personality types.

You say, "It is hard to believe that Jung ... was never able to type himself" after he "did all this work on personality types," and then you go on to say you're sure he's an "ISTP," and also an "Ne" type.

But Jung pretty clearly ended up typing himself as an intuitive. (Whether he thought he'd effectively been an S type during some early period is a possibility, based on something he reportedly once said at a seminar.)

What's more, if by "ISTP," you're meaning to refer to a Ti-dom with an S-aux, the MBTI type that Jung would have matched to that is really ISTJ, not ISTP. But in any case, Jung clearly told a BBC interviewer late in life that he was an N, and whether you consider him an INTJ or an INTP, no introvert with an intuitive preference would be an "Ne" type under Jung's model.

I suggest that you read the two-part post starting here.

 

[Eric B]

He's apparently using Socionics notation (lowercase "p" is dominant function=Si dom. with Te aux. or an ISTJ) That's supposed to be truer to Jung, ans what you alluded to in saying Jung would have matched Ti+S to ISTJ, but when that method i used, we lowercase the j/p so it doesn't get confused with MBTI notation. I'm sure "entertainment position" is supposedly another term for the inferior function. (I too would say his intuition doesn't seem inferior).