The Problem With JCF (If You Are Scared Of Change, Don't Read This!)

[INTP]

Yup. In this regard, socionics appears to be closer to Jung. I'm considered a judging type because my primary is the judging function of introverted thinking.

the idea of judging type is totally different from jung. jung uses the word rational/irrational when referring to J and P functions and lists types according to their dominant function, therefore INTP is introverted thinking type(as is ISTP) and is considered as rational type, because Ti is a rational function. jung does refer rational functions being functions which are used to make judgments about logic/value with, but the whole J type thing in MBTI is totally different as its referring to whether the person is making judgments about the external world. im by no means an expert on socionics, but from what i know it seems that their idea of J is more closer to that of MBTI J, not so much jungs rationality. what comes to other stuff from socionics, i think MBTI is closer to jung than socionics, tho people on the internets have created some pretty distorted version of MBTI, which isnt that close to jung.

I wonder if the auxiliary function is actually as important for determining personality as the four letter/three letter(socionics) codes seem to indicate. As I understand it, Jung placed a lot of importance on the inferior function, and said very little about the auxiliary and secondary. The inferior function recognizes things that are unconscious. It describes what your struggle is, what your internal conflicts are. The inferior functions will "throw off" your primary. Inferior functions make people complex instead of just tidy archetypes. They seem to play a large role in the personality.

aux is expressed in MBTI type code. the middle two letters are the dom/aux functions, I/E and J/P are just attitudes of those functions and also are traits on their own. also the MBTI letters are called preference pairs, as the N over S is just a preference, so is T over F and so on. i mean INTP has ESFJ inside, but its just not preferred.

what jung did place quite bit of importance is the concept of differentiation and individuation(which goes quite much further than just typology). there is actually really much to be understood about aux and tert(also typology in general) and how they function from jungs work, its just that jung didnt directly write about them much, but they follow the same general concept of how the mind works in jungian perspective. or if you read what little jung said about aux and tert, then read what he wrote about other stuff than typology, you will be able to connect many things to aux/tert aswell.

As for the tertiary, if the "loop theory" is correct, than loops reflect the natural preferences and tendencies of a person. The third function is supposed to be easier to use then second function, if less likely to be used well, according to the "loop theory". Thus, it will be more common for an INTP to use Si, for instance, than to use Ne. Ne often requires conscious effort, while Si is more automatic. It seems odd, then, that the four letter/three letter codes include a description of a primary function and an auxiliary function, instead of a tertiary and inferior function.

i dont think that tert is easier to use than aux. the whole loop thing is an abnormal state where the opposite attitude of introversion/extraversion gets repressed(I types repress E obviously).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

the idea of judging type is totally different from jung. jung uses the word rational/irrational when referring to J and P functions and lists types according to their dominant function, therefore INTP is introverted thinking type(as is ISTP) and is considered as rational type, because Ti is a rational function. jung does refer rational functions being functions which are used to make judgments about logic/value with, but the whole J type thing in MBTI is totally different as its referring to whether the person is making judgments about the external world. im by no means an expert on socionics, but from what i know it seems that their idea of J is more closer to that of MBTI J, not so much jungs rationality. what comes to other stuff from socionics, i think MBTI is closer to jung than socionics, tho people on the internets have created some pretty distorted version of MBTI, which isnt that close to jung.



aux is expressed in MBTI type code. the middle two letters are the dom/aux functions, I/E and J/P are just attitudes of those functions and also are traits on their own. also the MBTI letters are called preference pairs, as the N over S is just a preference, so is T over F and so on. i mean INTP has ESFJ inside, but its just not preferred.

what jung did place quite bit of importance is the concept of differentiation and individuation(which goes quite much further than just typology). there is actually really much to be understood about aux and tert(also typology in general) and how they function from jungs work, its just that jung didnt directly write about them much, but they follow the same general concept of how the mind works in jungian perspective. or if you read what little jung said about aux and tert, then read what he wrote about other stuff than typology, you will be able to connect many things to aux/tert aswell.




i dont think that tert is easier to use than aux. the whole loop thing is an abnormal state where the opposite attitude of introversion/extraversion gets repressed(I types repress E obviously).

Thanks for actually explaining why I'm wrong. If Jung never referred to judging types, only rational types, I may have conflated the two because, from my understanding, they appeared to be referring to the same thing. (Except, MBTI only cares about the extraverted function.)

Socionics does appear to be sticking closer to Jung's definition. A judging type in socionics is a type that uses a judging (or rational) function as a primary function. This includes MBTI INTPs and ENTJs. It may be different terminology, but as far I can tell, it seems to be referring to the s

I'm open to have my views challenged, but I need explanations and not just complaining about going off-topic. Odd, from someone who claims to be open to change.

 

[INTP]

It's not about being “easier to use”; it's just a defense the ego runs to, because it's the next function in the dominant attitude. (It's the Puer complex that orients it this way).

someone with a puer complex means someone who is an eternal child, someone who is still acting like a kid even tho he is at adult age, michael jackson is a great(but also pretty damn extreme) example of this. it is often thought to stem from absence of a father and strong tie to mother(positive or negative), but its not always the case. for example EFPs might often act this way. don juanism is also a pretty common characteristic for people with puer complex. they often fall for women, but when the initial attraction is gone, they feel trapped and need to get out. etc etc

i really dont see what this has to do with tert function :/ but i do sense some beebe bullshit going on

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm not usually one to make rigid demands, but time and time again on this forum I am greeted primarily by thread drift from those who have no interest in reading the OP much less understand it, and who only care to parade forth their own views by parasitizing mine.


My thinking has nothing to do with stereotypes, but what is a judger or perceiver in theory.

Really? You don't appear to have read your OP, either.

So contrary to JCF stereotypes about dominant and auxiliary functions:

Ni and Si people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Fi and Ti people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.
Fe and Te people can have spontaneous and fun-loving personalities.
Ne and Se people can have controlling and work-oriented personalities.

If you're not talking about stereotypes, and this thread has nothing to do with stereotypes, why do you mention them by name in your OP?

Don't accuse me of not paying attention simply because I take issue with your OP and then introduce original ideas into the discussion. Odd, coming from someone who claims to be "not opposed to change."

If the point of this thread was simply a pissing match with Eric, take it to PMs and don't inflict it on the rest of us.

 

[INTP]

Thanks for actually explaining that I'm wrong and Jung never referred to judging types, only rational types. I appear to have conflated the two because, from my understanding, they appeared to be referring to the same thing. (Except, MBTI only cares about the extraverted function.)

I'm open to have my views challenged, but I need explanations and not just complaining about going off-topic. Odd, from someone who claims to be open to change.

MBTI is more about what people are like, while jung focuses more about whats going on in the persons mind and how it can be used for self knowledge and aid for psychotherapy. in MBTI J is a trait, meaning that it describes what someone is like(more exactly his attitude to life, whether he likes is organized or more spontaneous), it just happens to be that people who have their first rational function extraverted are more organized and need disclosure than those with introverted rational function.

"Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection." jung lexicon

"Both intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason." -psychological types

basically when you perceive something, its irrational because there is no reflection process going on, if you see a ball, you just see it, you dont stop and think whether its a ball or not before you perceive a ball.

jungs idea of rational type has to do with this sort of stuff, its that people with dominant rational function do more of this reflection and do it more naturally according to which ever rational function is dominant.

 

[Mal12345]

Really? You don't appear to have read your OP, either.

If you're not talking about stereotypes, and this thread has nothing to do with stereotypes, why do you mention them by name in your OP?

Don't accuse me of not paying attention simply because I take issue with your OP and then introduce original ideas into the discussion. Odd, coming from someone who claims to be "not opposed to change."

If the point of this thread was simply a pissing match with Eric, take it to PMs and don't inflict it on the rest of us.

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]'s posts are for the most part incomprehensibly dense. His method is to take a theory that nobody else has heard of and compress it into a single paragraph, maybe two, and expect people to understand it. I think he has some interesting observations to make, as far as I can tell. It's just largely unapproachable.

Stereotypes aren't my main point, it is the theory behind them I'm tackling here. But if we talk purely about stereotypes, everybody mistakes that for some kind of typism (like racism, only about types). Maybe not you, but a lot of people do.

According to a Google search, a stereotype is "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." Does typology oversimplify human nature and personality? By leaps and bounds. And I've seen these stereotypes used against people on these forums. For example, see my sig: "over-generalizing, socially retarded fool." Over-generalizing speaks to "intuitive" and "socially retarded" speaks to introversion. Then follow the link in my sig and see who said it to me.

Typology is stereotyping condensed into a theory. Derogatory stereotyping is what happens when anybody attempts to engage in any civilized discussion with the person who called me an over-generalizing, socially retarded fool.

The point of my OP, however, was to point to a theoretical weakness in the structure of JCF, not to deal in stereotypes per se.

 

[Eric B]

I'll start out by saying that although I may never know exactly what [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] was talking about, I do know it was only side-related to my OP.

JCF stands for Jungian Cognitive Functions (as you know), and the theory relates both to Jung's original theory as well as to developments in the theory made by others.

The MBTI is a personality survey created by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katherine Cook Briggs. It is a conglomeration of Jung's psychological types and Myers-Briggs' own ideas about personality types.

I'm not usually one to make rigid demands, but time and time again on this forum I am greeted primarily by thread drift from those who have no interest in reading the OP much less understand it, and who only care to parade forth their own views by parasitizing mine.

I didn't use the phrase "stubborn anal-retentive people"; and I don't know that Jung actually referred to judging types.

But if I were to use [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]'s standard of what should constitute a decent OP, I should have listed about 2 dozen characteristics for both perceivers and judgers, thus rendering my OP completely unreadable.

My thinking has nothing to do with stereotypes, but what is a judger or perceiver in theory.

I don't understand why you don't understand what I wrote. You're the one who mentioned behavioral traits like "fun-loving", and I simply acknowledged that no, those are not necessarily tied to J/P as the stereotypes assume, but can come from other factors. Then, I directly addressed the different definitions of "judgment" or "perceiving" types.
I didn't know that would be considering "parasitizing" your ideas. And what's with going after what you consider "my standard" of writing an OP? What does that have to do with anything?
Just because the thread might not have gone the way you wanted (apparently), it's not my fault. Several others had more critical comments and didn't answer your question. This is generally the way threads go, here.

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]'s posts are for the most part incomprehensibly dense. His method is to take a theory that nobody else has heard of and compress it into a single paragraph, maybe two, and expect people to understand it. I think he has some interesting observations to make, as far as I can tell. It's just largely unapproachable.

Well, I tried not condensing it, and then, it was "tldr" (And still just as "dense" and "unapproachable"). I translate it into stuff people have heard of (like Interaction styles), which should make it easier to understand in type terms, and if it still isn't, then I hope condensing it will at least familiarize it, so eventually, more people may get it.
Sorry, but I don't know how else to convey the info, and I do believe it answers a lot of these questions people have. (Like others have basically fused Enneagram onto type, or they weave back and forth between MBTI and Socionics).

 

[Eric B]

someone with a puer complex means someone who is an eternal child, someone who is still acting like a kid even tho he is at adult age, michael jackson is a great(but also pretty damn extreme) example of this. it is often thought to stem from absence of a father and strong tie to mother(positive or negative), but its not always the case. for example EFPs might often act this way. don juanism is also a pretty common characteristic for people with puer complex. they often fall for women, but when the initial attraction is gone, they feel trapped and need to get out. etc etc

i really dont see what this has to do with tert function :/ but i do sense some beebe bullshit going on

Puer is an archetype, which is an imaginal feature of the collective unconscious. When personalized, the archetype becomes a complex. But it can be personalized in different ways. So yes, your description (Where the whole person fits the archetype) is one way, and Beebe's observation (where it's a complex everyone has, which connects with the tertiary) is another way.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't understand why you don't understand what I wrote. You're the one who mentioned behavioral traits like "fun-loving", and I simply acknowledged that no, those are not necessarily tied to J/P as the stereotypes assume, but can come from other factors. Then, I directly addressed the different definitions of "judgment" or "perceiving" types.
I didn't know that would be considering "parasitizing" your ideas. And what's with going after what you consider "my standard" of writing an OP? What does that have to do with anything?
Just because the thread might not have gone the way you wanted (apparently), it's not my fault. Several others had more critical comments and didn't answer your question. This is generally the way threads go, here.

Well, I tried not condensing it, and then, it was "tldr" (And still just as "dense" and "unapproachable"). I translate it into stuff people have heard of (like Interaction styles), which should make it easier to understand in type terms, and if it still isn't, then I hope condensing it will at least familiarize it, so eventually, more people may get it.
Sorry, but I don't know how else to convey the info, and I do believe it answers a lot of these questions people have. (Like others have basically fused Enneagram onto type, or they weave back and forth between MBTI and Socionics).

Someone here asked me if I have a virus - like a cold virus, not a computer virus - and yes I have one, several million I'm sure. And I'm somewhat doped up but it's nothing really powerful. (If I took the stronger meds I would be unbearable.) And I have a really loud and annoying ringing in my right ear, and a lesser ringing in my left ear, which are very distracting. These sounds get louder when I'm on these meds.

What I mean by "parasitizing" is ignoring the OP's thesis and then using some idea in it to cause thread drift. Yes this almost always happens. But it shouldn't be happening, on average, before the fifth page or so of the thread. And certainly not on the first page. After that first page, it was all downhill.

My OP didn't concern all the various notions of what a P or J person is like, or how those characteristics could be caused by something else. I'm not talking about causes anyway. Theories don't rely on causes, they are just logical constructs.

The point of the OP is to take JCF to task. I think it did so very effectively, and nobody has really agreed or disagreed with it. And when I asked someone what she agreed with about it, I got no response (because she didn't read it).

 

[Mal12345]

Puer is an archetype, which is an imaginal feature of the collective unconscious. When personalized, the archetype becomes a complex. But it can be personalized in different ways. So yes, your description (Where the whole person fits the archetype) is one way, and Beebe's observation (where it's a complex everyone has, which connects with the tertiary) is another way.

"Tree" is also an archetype.

 

[Eric B]

Someone here asked me if I have a virus - like a cold virus, not a computer virus - and yes I have one, several million I'm sure. And I'm somewhat doped up but it's nothing really powerful. (If I took the stronger meds I would be unbearable.) And I have a really loud and annoying ringing in my right ear, and a lesser ringing in my left ear, which are very distracting. These sounds get louder when I'm on these meds.

What I mean by "parasitizing" is ignoring the OP's thesis and then using some idea in it to cause thread drift. Yes this almost always happens. But it shouldn't be happening, on average, before the fifth page or so of the thread. And certainly not on the first page. After that first page, it was all downhill.

My OP didn't concern all the various notions of what a P or J person is like, or how those characteristics could be caused by something else. I'm not talking about causes anyway. Theories don't rely on causes, they are just logical constructs.

The point of the OP is to take JCF to task. I think it did so very effectively, and nobody has really agreed or disagreed with it. And when I asked someone what she agreed with about it, I got no response (because she didn't read it).

Well, sorry, but I thought that would help shed light on your critique of JCF. I do tend to express things in terms of "cause", but point was that yes, these are theories, and they can't be turned into hard stereotypes.

"Tree" is also an archetype.

There are many archetypes. It's just a matter of determining which ones fit which situations, and the way the tertiary is used does seem to fit the notion of a "puer".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Stereotypes aren't my main point, it is the theory behind them I'm tackling here. But if we talk purely about stereotypes, everybody mistakes that for some kind of typism (like racism, only about types). Maybe not you, but a lot of people do.

I think the functions are useful for understanding thought processes, and maybe behaviors, and not so useful for understanding what someone's hobbies are or something.

I may be mistundertanding, but it seems to me that, in your OP, you are saying that MBTI and JCF are different systems, and don't correspond to each other.


What do you consider to be more accurate MBTI, or JCF? I'm not clear enough on your positions with this things, so I need more information. My guess is that you don't think highly of JCF, and think more highly of MBTI.

I am inclined to reject the J = organized, P = spontaneous dichotomy. I think most people exemplify both traits in different situations, and I'm not sure that people even have a clear preference for one over the other. I have a clear preference for thinking over feeling, to be sure, but if you ask me whether I'm an "organized" person or not, I would say "yes", if it's in reference to my understanding of the world. I would say "no" if it's regarding my apartment. Sometimes I benefit from having things scheduled out and an object of focus. Other times, I like to just do things in the moment.

I think looking at someone's room, and determining whether that person is P or J is too unreliable. Maybe through a lot of effort, they trained themselves to organize their stuff. I don't think you "change" your type, you just change your understanding of it. Type is nature. So what does that mean if someone starts organizing their room? I doubt it means that their "natural" thinking styles have changed.

Where does JCF say that, for instance, Ni and Si, people cannot have fun loving and spontaneous personalities? Did Jung ever say that? I apologize if my understanding of these topics is too rudimentary to participate in this discussion. I do wish to learn more, and that's one of the reasons I'm here.

 

[INTP]

Puer is an archetype, which is an imaginal feature of the collective unconscious. When personalized, the archetype becomes a complex. But it can be personalized in different ways. So yes, your description (Where the whole person fits the archetype) is one way, and Beebe's observation (where it's a complex everyone has, which connects with the tertiary) is another way.

archetypes are structures of the collective unconscious. yes when archetype is personalized, it comes trough personal complexes(structures of the personal unconscious), but the thing is that not everyone has puer complex, those who have a puer complex it grips a really big part of the person. i mean without those descriptions i mentioned, its not personalized into a complex and the person doesent have a puer complex(but beebean view claims that he does, which contradicts jungian view of archetypal complex). the whole idea on archetypal complexes and archetypes is that they are extremely energetic. the whole idea of introversion and extraversion is that there are two directions of energy flowing in, one trough eyes, skin and what ever external sources which transfer energy from external world via mechanical force(on skin), photons(eye sight) etc or from the inner world; archetypes. many jungians go as far in saying that even parts of our bodies are archetypes, as they are evolutionary inherited structures within the psyche(the whole body is counted as part of the psyche by some). but now im just rambling cuz just a tiny bit drunk , but anyways i could accept beebean model better if it didnt copy jungs terms and misuse them so violently.

 

[INTP]

"Tree" is also an archetype.

no

 

[Eric B]

archetypes are structures of the collective unconscious. yes when archetype is personalized, it comes trough personal complexes(structures of the personal unconscious), but the thing is that not everyone has puer complex, those who have a puer complex it grips a really big part of the person. i mean without those descriptions i mentioned, its not personalized into a complex and the person doesent have a puer complex(but beebean view claims that he does, which contradicts jungian view of archetypal complex). the whole idea on archetypal complexes and archetypes is that they are extremely energetic. the whole idea of introversion and extraversion is that there are two directions of energy flowing in, one trough eyes, skin and what ever external sources which transfer energy from external world via mechanical force(on skin), photons(eye sight) etc or from the inner world; archetypes. many jungians go as far in saying that even parts of our bodies are archetypes, as they are evolutionary inherited structures within the psyche(the whole body is counted as part of the psyche by some). but now im just rambling cuz just a tiny bit drunk , but anyways i could accept beebean model better if it didnt copy jungs terms and misuse them so violently.

Beebe extended Jung's idea. I don't think Jung created an exhaustive (or even complete) theory on these things. An archetype can be manfested more than one way.

 

[INTP]

Beebe extended Jung's idea. I don't think Jung created an exhaustive (or even complete) theory on these things. An archetype can be manfested more than one way.

but you see, if it were an extension, it would follow the original idea and add to it, beebes idea just changes the whole concept, but uses same words.

its like game and expansion pack for it vs rip off of a game

 

[Eric B]

I don't think it changes the whole concept; it just applies it to something within the ego of every type connected to the functions; rather than ONLY being a role a single ego can fall into.

 

[Mal12345]

I think the functions are useful for understanding thought processes, and maybe behaviors, and not so useful for understanding what someone's hobbies are or something.

I may be mistundertanding, but it seems to me that, in your OP, you are saying that MBTI and JCF are different systems, and don't correspond to each other.

E/I don’t mean the same thing in the two systems, therefore they don’t theoretically correspond. J and P are externally recognized in the MBTI, but not internally, therefore the two systems don’t theoretically correspond.

But I agree with you that “rational” corresponds with “judging,” etc.

What do you consider to be more accurate MBTI, or JCF? I'm not clear enough on your positions with this things, so I need more information. My guess is that you don't think highly of JCF, and think more highly of MBTI.

I don’t think highly of the way JCF has taken over the MBTI; to me it's somewhat analogous to the way the Mormon church took over the Boy Scouts of America.

I am inclined to reject the J = organized, P = spontaneous dichotomy. I think most people exemplify both traits in different situations, and I'm not sure that people even have a clear preference for one over the other. I have a clear preference for thinking over feeling, to be sure, but if you ask me whether I'm an "organized" person or not, I would say "yes", if it's in reference to my understanding of the world. I would say "no" if it's regarding my apartment. Sometimes I benefit from having things scheduled out and an object of focus. Other times, I like to just do things in the moment.

Do you agree with Jung’s “Rational” versus “Irrational” dichotomy?

J and P are not situational. They speak to lifestyle. Based on Jung’s descriptions of the rational and irrational types, perhaps the best way to sum up the difference in their respective lifestyles would be “traditional” versus “non-traditional.” (Of course that tradition depends on cultural milieu.)

So when the MBTI asks about “organized” versus “spontaneous,” it’s asking whether you like to plan ahead in most things (it doesn’t have to be everything), and stick to the plan; or do you prefer (most of the time) to “play it by ear” and “go with the flow” as you go through life.

I think looking at someone's room, and determining whether that person is P or J is too unreliable.

I’ve been fighting against that kind of typology almost from day one here. I distinctly recall a thread in which someone was trying to type her (female) boss. She went with Perceiver because of her boss’s messy desk. I fought against this notion for pages and got nowhere. I wasn’t calling her a J or P, I was just arguing that this isn’t the way to go about doing typology.

Maybe through a lot of effort, they trained themselves to organize their stuff. I don't think you "change" your type, you just change your understanding of it. Type is nature. So what does that mean if someone starts organizing their room? I doubt it means that their "natural" thinking styles have changed.

I’ve also argued against the notion that “type is nature,” but have gotten nowhere.

Where does JCF say that, for instance, Ni and Si, people cannot have fun loving and spontaneous personalities? Did Jung ever say that? I apologize if my understanding of these topics is too rudimentary to participate in this discussion. I do wish to learn more, and that's one of the reasons I'm here.

Rational types are not, by definition, fun-loving or spontaneous. But that’s not to say they don’t have their moments, in reality, when they express their fun sides. P and J are designed to be rules, not to point to the exceptions and say “to hell with typology because it’s not an absolute.” A P personality is, as a rule, fun-loving and spontaneous; theoretically, they are so by definition.

Never mind me, I’m just a lone voice crying in the desiccated wilderness of what typology has become over the last 20 years or so.

 

[Mal12345]

no

Yes.

 

[Mal12345]

archetypes are structures of the collective unconscious.

Archetypes aren't, strictly speaking, structures. Or am I being too nit-picky?