User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 28

  1. #11
    jump sleuthiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    54 so/sp
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poimandres View Post
    That's a very complex way of saying:
    ie "verbose".

    "ponderous"

    thinking of you

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    "But in so far as we apply perception and judgment in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted, so that we cannot at once decide to which attitude the superior function belongs. In such cases only a thorough analysis of the function qualities can help us to a sound opinion. During the analysis we must observe which function is placed under the control and motivation of consciousness, and which functions have an accidental and spontaneous character. The former is always more highly differentiated than the latter, which also possess many infantile and primitive qualities."

    (Psychological Types, 427-8.)
    If someone appears ambiverted we need to focus on differentiating most and best used functions.

  3. #13
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    When someone uses dom and aux to nearly same extend, he might seem like an ambivert and it will be hard to determine whether the person is I or E type(whether his dominant function is extraverted or introverted). But looking at which function is most guided by intention and consciousness, you can spot the dom, since aux is less guided by consciousness.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    When someone uses dom and aux to nearly same extend, he might seem like an ambivert and it will be hard to determine whether the person is I or E type(whether his dominant function is extraverted or introverted). But looking at which function is most guided by intention and consciousness, you can spot the dom, since aux is less guided by consciousness.
    Exactly. But according to Jung, this is easier for Rational types.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #15
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Here's a fuller version of that quote:



    Contrary to Myers (who acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars disagreed with her), Jung would not have expected the second function — to the extent that it was differentiated, brought into consciousness and put to use as the auxiliary — to have the opposite attitude to the dominant function. To Jung, introversion was the conscious attitude of introverts, while their unconscious functions — to the extent that they remained unconscious — would all have the opposite attitude (i.e., be extraverted).

    In the passage you're asking about, Jung starts out making the point (further discussed here) that J-doms tend to type people in terms of their conscious sides, while P-doms tend to type people in terms of their unconscious sides. But, Jung continues, "in so far as we apply judgment and perception in equal measure, it may easily happen that a personality appears to us as both introverted and extraverted" — because we're focusing on both the subject's conscious and unconscious sides — with the result that "we cannot decide at first" which function is the dominant one. And Jung goes on to explain that a good way to figure out which of the functions is dominant is to take note of which function seems to be "completely under conscious control" and "more highly differentiated" (that would be the dom) and which functions display "infantile and primitive traits" (those would be the other three, because they're more unconscious).
    But it seems that in Jung's view (as can be seen here), only the dominant is completely "differentiated". The aux. was never as "type"-defining as MBTI made it out to be. (Hence, he only had eight types).
    So then, that would be the basis of having the aux. remain in the opposite attitude.
    The tertiary remained uncertain and ambiguous in official MBTI usage, and this can be explained by it defaulting to the opposite attitude like the others, yet a complex that associates with it tending to orient it toward the dominant attitude. And basically (as was once explained to me; I hope this full theory is published some day), it's really the complexes (which are apart of the ego-structure) that bring the undifferentiated functions into consciousness, where they then assign the attitudes (both the primary four, plus the opposite ones we often call the "shadows" in the eight process theories).

    I would agree with the notion that someone with a strong auxiliary (which would likely be from a strong "parental" complex) might then seem to be an ambivert. I also believe that while introversion/extraversion is either/or; forom a classic temperament (affective) position, the preference can vary from slight, to "compulsive". The ego will still place the dominant function in either the internal or external realm, but his speed of approach to the preferred world (or how under- or overstimulatable to the outer world he actually is) can still be more moderate.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

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

  6. #16
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    But it seems that in Jung's view (as can be seen here), only the dominant is completely "differentiated". The aux. was never as "type"-defining as MBTI made it out to be. (Hence, he only had eight types).
    So then, that would be the basis of having the aux. remain in the opposite attitude.
    The tertiary remained uncertain and ambiguous in official MBTI usage, and this can be explained by it defaulting to the opposite attitude like the others, yet a complex that associates with it tending to orient it toward the dominant attitude. And basically (as was once explained to me; I hope this full theory is published some day), it's really the complexes (which are apart of the ego-structure) that bring the undifferentiated functions into consciousness, where they then assign the attitudes (both the primary four, plus the opposite ones we often call the "shadows" in the eight process theories).

    I would agree with the notion that someone with a strong auxiliary (which would likely be from a strong "parental" complex) might then seem to be an ambivert. I also believe that while introversion/extraversion is either/or; forom a classic temperament (affective) position, the preference can vary from slight, to "compulsive". The ego will still place the dominant function in either the internal or external realm, but his speed of approach to the preferred world (or how under- or overstimulatable to the outer world he actually is) can still be more moderate.
    I definitely agree that Jung expected the dominant function to be significantly more differentiated than the auxiliary but it's also clear that, to the extent that the second function played the auxiliary role that he described, that second function played it by virtue of also being differentiated — i.e., brought up into consciousness (albeit to a lesser degree than the dominant).

    And Jung viewed an introvert's "conscious attitude" as introverted. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.

    I agree that the second function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant to the extent that it remained undifferentiated — and accordingly "fused together" (as Jung put it) with the other unconscious functions. But, to the extent that a person had a reasonably well-developed auxiliary, I think envisioning the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant (which Myers acknowledged was contrary to the view of most Jung scholars) is inconsistent with way too much of the rest of Psychological Types.

  7. #17
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    So, I meant to ask, he believed that everyone was TiNi, FiNi, FeNe, NeTe, etc? Or at least everyone who is mature? I know there was the debate (here and especially on PerC) that he himself "used" both Ti and Ni (hence his type so uncertain, with INTJ, ISTP, INFJ and INTP tossed around), and that seemed to be evidence for this. (It would also go along with what some claim regarding MBTI vs Socionics, where what we call Ne is really Ni, etc).
    How would this notion explain all the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary? If it's about maturity, wouldn't the theorists, who are mostly up in age, then testify to switching the attitude of the auxiliary?
    I would say maturity would lead us to pay more attention to the opposite attitudes (in addition to the unpreferred functions; all of this being erroneously termed "developing all the functions", or even "integrating the shadows"), but still not to the extent that the opposite attitude of the auxiliary would now appear to be the true preference after all.

    (I still maintain that it's the complexes within the ego that orient the functions. So the function does remain undifferentiated in regard to the ego directly, as only the dominant is properly differentiated within the main complex called the ego).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

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

  8. #18
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    So, I meant to ask, he believed that everyone was TiNi, FiNi, FeNe, NeTe, etc? Or at least everyone who is mature? I know there was the debate (here and especially on PerC) that he himself "used" both Ti and Ni (hence his type so uncertain, with INTJ, ISTP, INFJ and INTP tossed around), and that seemed to be evidence for this. (It would also go along with what some claim regarding MBTI vs Socionics, where what we call Ne is really Ni, etc).
    How would this notion explain all the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary? If it's about maturity, wouldn't the theorists, who are mostly up in age, then testify to switching the attitude of the auxiliary?
    I would say maturity would lead us to pay more attention to the opposite attitudes (in addition to the unpreferred functions; all of this being erroneously termed "developing all the functions", or even "integrating the shadows"), but still not to the extent that the opposite attitude of the auxiliary would now appear to be the true preference after all.

    (I still maintain that it's the complexes within the ego that orient the functions. So the function does remain undifferentiated in regard to the ego directly, as only the dominant is properly differentiated within the main complex called the ego).
    I'd say Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N aux is best viewed as either Ti-Ni-Se-Fe or Ti-N-Se-Fe. And the best argument for leaving out the attitude for the auxiliary is that Jung thought the auxiliary, because it "served" the dominant function, wasn't "autonomous" or "true to its own principle" to the same extent as when it was the dominant function.

    The only two things I want to add at this point are:

    1. To maybe clarify, when I talk about what I think Jung's view of the functions was, I'm not saying that's my view. I don't really view MBTI type from a functions perspective at all.

    2. As for "the people whose types seem to fit a dominant with an opposite attitude auxiliary," I'd say it's important to keep in mind that the cognitive functions descriptions you find in modern theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi are different — sometimes in substantial respects — from Jung's descriptions, and in most cases the revised versions of the functions are substantially jerry-rigged to match the MBTI types to which (under Myers' model) they purportedly correspond. If what you're talking about is Jung's function descriptions, they very often don't fit. For example, Jung's Fe description emphasizes that Fe tends to adopt the community values of the person's time and place, and it's emphatically non-Jungian to expect that to apply to any introvert — including an I_FJ who purportedly has Fe as their auxiliary function — since Jung said it was characteristic of all the extraverted types to adopt majority values and characteristic of all introverted types to tend to shun majority values. As Jung explained (describing extraverts and introverts generally):

    [W]e 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."

    [The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    I definitely agree that Jung expected the dominant function to be significantly more differentiated than the auxiliary but it's also clear that, to the extent that the second function played the auxiliary role that he described, that second function played it by virtue of also being differentiated — i.e., brought up into consciousness (albeit to a lesser degree than the dominant).

    And Jung viewed an introvert's "conscious attitude" as introverted. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.

    I agree that the second function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant to the extent that it remained undifferentiated — and accordingly "fused together" (as Jung put it) with the other unconscious functions. But, to the extent that a person had a reasonably well-developed auxiliary, I think envisioning the auxiliary function as having the opposite attitude to the dominant (which Myers acknowledged was contrary to the view of most Jung scholars) is inconsistent with way too much of the rest of Psychological Types.
    One correction: Jung stated that an unconscious function is fused together in its parts, while also merged with the other unconscious functions.

    Also, Jung states that the auxiliary function is complementary to the dominant function. In Psychological Types this always indicates an opposite attitude.

    The soul is in a complementary relationship with the "outer character."
    Introverted thinking has a complementary relationship to extraverted thinking.
    "The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character."
    (422.)
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #20
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    One correction: Jung stated that an unconscious function is fused together in its parts, while also merged with the other unconscious functions.

    Also, Jung states that the auxiliary function is complementary to the dominant function. In Psychological Types this always indicates an opposite attitude.

    The soul is in a complementary relationship with the "outer character."
    Introverted thinking has a complementary relationship to extraverted thinking.
    "The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character."
    (422.)
    I don't understand your first point but, in his Differentiation definition, Jung says: "So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions—thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.—that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated." So I don't think my reference to "fused" unconscious functions was in need of a "correction."

    Jung says the auxiliary needs to be complementary to the dominant as far as judging/perceiving goes. He doesn't address the extraverted/introverted issue.

    Where does Jung say that Ti has a "complementary relationship" to Te? Marie Louise von Franz (one of his pupils) certainly didn't understand that to be his view. As she explained:

    "Jung has said that the hardest thing to understand is not your opposite type — if you have introverted feeling it is very difficult to understand an extraverted thinking type — but the same functional type with the other attitude! It would be most difficult for an introverted feeling type to understand an extraverted feeling type. There one feels that one does not know how the wheels go round in that person's head."

Similar Threads

  1. Agree? Disagree? Or how do you interpret this?
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 03:25 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 05:03 AM
  3. Type this sportsperson from his quotes
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 07:26 AM
  4. Explain This Interpretation Please
    By "?" in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2008, 06:21 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