reckful
New member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 656
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
Wasn't Carl Jung even in that quote referring more to groups and generalizations than individuals in the first place though ? As you probably know he said.
"Through compensation there arise secondary characters, or types, which present a picture that is extraordinarily hard to decipher, so difficult, indeed that one is even inclined to deny the existence of types in general and to believe only in individual differences".
That is Jung clearly thought characteristics around extroversion and introversion could be seen in a more generalized way, but when it comes to individuals their type is not so easy to tell apart, pretty much exactly what I was saying up there.
I think saying "Jung had a very correct understanding of the psyche" may have been wrong on his part depending exactly what he meant, but it's not on the level your talking about.
Your quote about compensation from the unconscious resulting in complications that might cause someone to be "inclined to deny the existence of types in general and to believe only in individual differences" comes from the Introduction to Psychological Types. But the book itself, of course, constitutes Jung's counterargument to the effect that there are indeed "types in general."
At the start of Chapter X, after describing "those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy" introverts "who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable" extraverts (as quoted in my last post), Jung continued:
Jung said:One is naturally inclined, at first, to regard such differences as mere idiosyncrasies of character peculiar to individuals. But anyone with a thorough knowledge of human nature will soon discover that the contrast is by no means a matter of isolated individual instances but of typical attitudes which are far more common than one with limited psychological experience would assume. Indeed, as the preceding chapters may have shown, it is a fundamental contrast, sometimes quite clear, sometimes obscured, but always apparent when one is dealing with individuals whose personality is in any way pronounced.
There's no question that Jung believed that more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted but, assuming you were dealing with someone "whose personality is in any way pronounced," Jung said that the E/I difference involved "such a striking contrast" that whether such a person was an extravert or an introvert "becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out."
Neither I nor the CT folks are claiming that Morrissey's an ambivert, so it sounds like we can set that possible complication aside. Assuming we agree that he has a sufficiently "pronounced" personality to be typable, the issue is whether, based on Jung's conception of the "striking contrast" between extraverts and introverts, Morrissey's relatively "pronounced" personality is an extraverted one or an introverted one.
And if at least part of the confusion here arises from the fact that Auburn's notion of what Te-doms (and/or extraverts) are like is substantially different from Jung's, where are Auburn's descriptions of the types? And if those descriptions don't exist yet, what good does it do for the CT folks to be identifying people as "Te-Ni types" if nobody else really knows what that means?