User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 57 of 57

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    I read the guy's book, and he took from the Ancients and Jung and MBTI.

    Said to be; Should be; Are = Different things.

  2. #52
    Senior Member cloakofsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFx
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I didn't have time to read through the entire thread (at work on lunch break right now), so my response is to the OP:

    I remember reading that Myers (or maybe her mother) already had her own personality typing system before she came across Jung's. When she read Jung's Psychological Types, she apparently found that it was so similar to her own system and yet so much more superior/complete that she discarded her own partially-completed book and decided to adopt Jung's.

    Well, I have a copy of Jung's Psychological Types and have tried reading it. I found the writing very difficult to decipher, but whatever I did get out of it I found quite different from the Myers-Briggs system. Jung always emphasized the dominant function and its opposition to the unconscious, "inferior" function.

    Jung doesn't seem to say much about the attitude of the auxiliary function (whether it is same or opposite to the dominant), but I almost got the sense that he sees the auxiliary as being in a similar attitude as the dominant. So in the case of an Introverted Thinking type, the auxiliary would also be introverted though maybe not as distinctly introverted as the dominant thinking function.

    Because Jung talks so much about the opposition between conscious and unconscious functions and attitudes, the portraits that he draws of each type shows more psychological complexity. For example, I remember very well the chapter he writes about the Introverted Feeling type. According to MBTI, Fi types are friendly, altruistic, and mostly harmless, angelic people who are quite incapable of being "bad". All light and no darkness. But Jung's Fi type can act out unconscious ("inferior") Te and become cold, suspicious, despotic, scheming and vengeful. He says that many women in history who have been notorious for their mishievious intrigues and ruthless ambitions are often examples of this type. Lady MacBeth?

    Also, Jung makes a clear distinction between the perceiving functions and the judging functions. All of his perceiving functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Si) behave like Myers's P types and all his judging functions (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi) behave like Myers's J types. When I read Jung's description of the Introverted Intuitive type, for example, I can't help seeing how similar it is to the MBTI descriptions of INFP and INTP.

    My opinion is that MBTI and Jung's system is not the same.

    Edit: But I do think they are similar.
    Last edited by cloakofsnow; 10-09-2008 at 03:59 PM. Reason: Add in one last idea.

  3. #53
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    you can come up with a thousand different systems that logically make sense, the original system works just fine.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  4. #54
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloakofsnow View Post
    Well, I have a copy of Jung's Psychological Types and have tried reading it. I found the writing very difficult to decipher, but whatever I did get out of it I found quite different from the Myers-Briggs system. Jung always emphasized the dominant function and its opposition to the unconscious, "inferior" function.

    Jung doesn't seem to say much about the attitude of the auxiliary function (whether it is same or opposite to the dominant), but I almost got the sense that he sees the auxiliary as being in a similar attitude as the dominant. So in the case of an Introverted Thinking type, the auxiliary would also be introverted though maybe not as distinctly introverted as the dominant thinking function.
    Good points and I agree they are different, as much as Keirsey is different than Myers-Briggs, but they all must be respected for their individual accomplishments. What you assert is the reason that I casually proposed the dichotomies as I think that Jung would have seen them since he emphasizes dominant function. But read post number 23, where I pasted his comments on the auxiliary function. Actually to pinpoint his thoughts in the chapter, Jung says
    Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking.....

    Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.

  5. #55
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlittrell View Post
    you can come up with a thousand different systems that logically make sense, the original system works just fine.
    Obviously not too many since there continues to be questions about the most ineffectual dichotomy of the bunch (J/P) and for whatever reasons why many fail to grasp the inverted theory of Myers-Briggs. I am not saying that her system is not okay, but it is not Jung's system and the codes suggested would be for how he may saw them, if he would have used codes because I would bet that he would simply refer to his function codes and call an ISTP Ti-Se.
    Last edited by "?"; 10-10-2008 at 11:07 AM.

  6. #56
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    i was exaggerating
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  7. #57
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Does he go into function use at all? I don't remember, lost the book a long time ago, but I did glean that he values functional analysis little, like myself. Too much extrapolation.
    Nope...., as stated the way I see it is Jung focuses purely on his cognitive functions (specifically the dominant funciton), Myers-Briggs focuses on functions but emphasizes development of the auxiliary function for balance. This is necessary, however I theorize that there is a sense of being unrealistic since Jung, and Myers-Briggs, says that the auxiliary is far subservient to the dominant function. Myers-Briggs, to make her indicator successful had to go a step out of using cogntive functions by introducing dichotomies which is more general than the functions. Keirsey based his theory on Myers-Briggs' work since the descriptions matched so well with his temperament theory. So as I see it from specific to general Jung, Myers-Briggs and then Keirsey. They're only correlative in that they used part of each others theory to create their own, however the distinctions are paramount in that what they do focus on makes the theories uncorrelative.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2017, 11:18 AM
  2. Changes in the brain from adolescence to 20s
    By Robopop in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-12-2010, 01:45 AM
  3. DO NOT BE ALARMED: Change to the rep system
    By proteanmix in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 05-07-2008, 04:43 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