User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 456

  1. #21
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Some have posited that Jung was a "pure type":

    In the MBTI, all types are purposely treated as if the first and second functions of individuals NECESSARILY have opposite directions. This is because those who have designed the instrument believe that pure types will lack a necessary balance between introversion and extraversion, and this will be less healthy. 1

    Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -

    Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: they are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary. To live happily and effectively in both worlds, people need a BALANCING auxiliary that will make it possible to adapt in both directions -to the world around them and to their inner selves.
    This theoretical bias in the MBTI is so strong, and has become so deeply embedded in how the system operates and is understood, that we would venture to guess that most MBTI practitioners never learned about the possibility of 'pure type' in the first place. Or, if they had, they surely no longer give much consideration to how the profiles of pure types may differ from profiles of the others. Even those who once were aware of the distinction come to forget, over time, about the possibility of 'pure' types. As we have shown elsewhere, this accounts for an interesting contemporary confusion about the personality type of Jung himself. Although one camp argues that he was an INTP (ie, Jungian IT) and the other argues that he was INTJ (Jungian IN), both remain unaware - because they are caught up in MBTI assumptions - of the fact that Jung was, ironically, himself a 'pure' type. A person who had introverted thinking and introverted intuition as his first two functions (with the former as dominant at some points in his career, and the latter dominant at other times), Jung was one 'pure' or 'extreme' type who not only lived 'effectively', but also made an extremely significant contribution.
    Which could explain why people see him as an INTP or INTJ. The existence of "pure types" would explain people like my partner, who clearly seems to favor Ti and Si... without much Fe (just a smidgen) or Fi (almost none) to speak of. In my partner's case, this seems to make him extremely introverted and even less practical than I am as an INFP (as hard as that is to believe).

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    I'm surprised and find it ironic that there is no consensus.

    You know with Jung being the forefather of all this... it might seem an important matter to have resolved.

  3. #23
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Lol, pure types. That sounds lame. We already have Jesus and Optimus Prime. Rooms full.

  4. #24
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    I love this thread.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Lol, pure types. That sounds lame. We already have Jesus and Optimus Prime. Rooms full.
    Agreed. What a load of rubbish.

    All this theory is going to people's heads. They need to get out there in the real world and start using MBTI.

    All that matters is typing ability in terms of utility. If you can't type people correctly or have no real world skill, then I'm not interested in debating theory with you that may or may not match reality.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Speaking of matching reality to theory:

    "Neuroscience and Jung’s Model of the Psyche: A Close Fit"
    http://iaap.org/congresses/barcelona...close-fit.html


    Furthermore if anyone believes "Only an individual can type themselves correctly" please let me know so I can add to ignore list because you are clearly deluded then. Myers Briggs, while creating a superb system, were simply dead wrong on this point.

    Our psychology is derived from evolutionary mechanism. Mixture of diverse cognitives within a tribe gives it greater strength than a monoculture tribe. Also specialization lead to neurological differentiation.

    In other words, our personality type is independent of our assessment of our personality type. It is also independent of competing psychological models. (Big 5, Sociionics, MBTI, KTS etc)

    Just as science tries to model reality, the most accurate model wins. Eg Einstein's GR (General Relativity) improved on Newton's models.

    In my view MBTI with a solid understanding of Jungian cognitives is the best (most accurate) system at the moment.

  7. #27
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five View Post
    Agreed. What a load of rubbish.

    All this theory is going to people's heads. They need to get out there in the real world and start using MBTI.

    All that matters is typing ability in terms of utility. If you can't type people correctly or have no real world skill, then I'm not interested in debating theory with you that may or may not match reality.
    I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

    Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  8. #28
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

    Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.
    This I can understand. I'm just knocking the idea of pure types. People already have enough psychological excuses for their messiah complexes. Masterminds, Indigo Children, Idiot Savants, Assburgers. So I'm going to be a hater and deny them the Pure Type.

  9. #29
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    the conflict is between people who insist on immediate judgment, who believe that a theory is a definition of itself and that you "understand" it, when you know the theory, because you have read all about it and other people who check with reality and try to understand reality (like how people's minds work) feel that a theory is just a map of reality and its either wrong or right, based on whether it's in harmony with reality. the former think that the function table of the MBTI defines what P means in the mbti, that would be extroverted perception, either as dominant or as secondary function ... they just believe it. the latter look for example at people who naturally (without prior knowledge about typology) score P and find that these are the irrational types who are actually 'dominated' by a either introverted or extroverted perceptive function (as evident to someone who can SEE functions in people, using theory of mind and reality based understanding of what functions are, as opposed to someone who just looks out for superficial symptoms), which leads to the conclusion that the mbti function table is wrong, meaning the mbti tests/results and its cognitive theory/function table are twisted against each other for the introverted types and in fact the introverted mbti types (meaning the test results) are identical to those of socionics or jung, ie ISFP is ISFp is SEI is SiFe until individuals are "taught" false self images on message boards, then test results will begin to differ in many ways ..

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    MBTI
    ZZZZ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

    Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.
    If Socionics is respected and used a lot around here (typologycentral), then I'm out the door, because Socionics is a load of crap. It's not as well correlated with reality as MBTI is.
    Likes Jayce liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. What MBTI type was Jesus?
    By jixmixfix in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 10:44 AM
  2. [NT] Was Carl Jung an NT?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 11-10-2012, 05:35 PM
  3. What Enneagram Type is Carl Jung?
    By highlander in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 09:19 PM
  4. What MBTI type do you think is the hardest to be?
    By OrangeAppled in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 02:04 AM
  5. What MBTI type do you think is the EASIEST to be?
    By Such Irony in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 09:22 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