User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,775

    Default

    But if type is genetic then it really wouldnt matter if they were born blind or went blind later in life, their type would remain constant.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Probably not. I would think that one of their greatest senses being taken away would cause them to rely on intuition more if anything. They have to connect the puzzle pieces that everyone else takes for granted and reshape them to fit into a picture that is unlike how the majority of others 'see' things.

    Aside: I knew a girl who was blind and she was very interested in obscure things. I didnt know her well enough to attempt to type her, but I suppose if I had to go out on a limb I would say INFP.
    Except that our senses are not just comprised to eyesight. Kinetic energy is for example linked to Se in socionics, and that has nothing to do with eyesight.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    The process of experiencing things through the senses (which all human beings do) is not the same as a definition for patterns in cognition.
    Sensation is built off of it though, and Jung would actually say they are equal, hence, intuitives tend to not pay attention to information provided by the senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadOctopus View Post
    Well, yeah. I mean, you can always develop your inferior traits, so a person who went blind might eventually get better at Sensing, but would he actually change his type? I doubt it.
    If you can't use your body to move (being paralyzed), would you still get better at sensation? No, of course not. You would still be as physically oblivious and take in sense-information on mostly autopilot without thinking about it.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  3. #13
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    Except that our senses are not just comprised to eyesight.

    Right but according to, Your Senses Are Your Raw Information Learning Portals

    We take in about 80% of our external envirnment through our sense of sight.

    So if someone were deprived of sight, would they compensate with their other senses, or would they be more likely to develop their intuitive side?

    Everyone takes in some information from their external environment, if they didn't they wouldnt be able to funtion in the world at all. If you had no senses you would pretty much be a vacuum with zero point of reference on anything. Different people rely of sensory infromation in different amounts, but everyone relates to the real world in some way. Well maybe not if you are severly autistic... IDK about that.

  4. #14
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    Sensation is built off of it though, and Jung would actually say they are equal, hence, intuitives tend to not pay attention to information provided by the senses.
    That's a fair point, in which case a more apt question might be: "Do blind people who are sensing types develop more into their intuitive functions by way of compensation and vice versa for intuitive types?"
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    Right but according to, Your Senses Are Your Raw Information Learning Portals

    We take in about 80% of our external envirnment through our sense of sight.
    You are right that humans do, but my point is that it is not the totality of our sense experience and blind people, as you know, compensate by developing other senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    That's a fair point, in which case a more apt question might be: "Do blind people who are sensing types develop more into their intuitive functions by way of compensation and vice versa for intuitive types?"
    I don't think disability in general affects our cognition. If I touch something, I may not pay attention to that feeling, if I eat something, I may not pay attention to the taste and so on. Removing one or several abilities to sense does not equal lack of conscious awareness of such information and vice versa.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  6. #16
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    I don't think disability in general affects our cognition. If I touch something, I may not pay attention to that feeling, if I eat something, I may not pay attention to the taste and so on. Removing one or several abilities to sense does not equal lack of conscious awareness of such information and vice versa.
    What about disabilities in the brain itself? I know Jung kept things in the psychic and wasn't into a mentality that was either entirely 'magical' or entirely pragmatic and scientific. But I think that its all linked and should be considered.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    What about disabilities in the brain itself? I know Jung kept things in the psychic and wasn't into a mentality that was either entirely 'magical' or entirely pragmatic and scientific. But I think that its all linked and should be considered.
    That I can't answer, since there is no science on how cognitive functions work from a neurological perspective. Jung did try to link it to biological mechanisms as you point out, but we don't know the link between the two and there is no science to explain that link or trying to understand that link, so it's a dead-end. Nardi tries, but it's a very incomplete science. I mean, are we intuitives when we sleep? We are sensory-deprived. Jung thought dreams were products of the unconsciousness, but not necessarily related to the functions except that archetypes, that can be linked to the functions, could manifest in our dreams e.g. an inferior Se type may dream a lot about violence as an expression of their inferior sensing or that their Se may even manifest as say, an extremely powerful and violent archaic external force or perhaps in the form of a child connecting to the idea that Jung thought that the inferior function holds a very primal or what he calls, primitive and archaic quality that feels very "other" to the rest of the psyche, alternatively, can be experienced as extremely child-like in nature though I'd attribute this a bit more to the tertiary. It would therefore take upon such direct forms in our dreams where we ourselves would be the adult hero either overcoming this extremely violent force (Beebe links the dominant function with the hero archetype) or the adult scolding the child (an attempt to control the inferior and its outbursts by replacing its desires or containing it within the boundaries of the dominant). Take a movie such as The Omen for example, I'd say that it's a good example of how inferior intuition can archetypically manifest, where especially bad things just seem to happen without there being a directly observable explanation as to why. Not only is the evil force that causes this represented as a child, but this child is also a manifestation of some kind of dangerous other, an outside or external force, yet so familiar to us (our child).

    I also want to add that the thing about Jungian cognition is that it's borderline supernatural in that he derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric and Jung thought of himself as an alchemist; there is no way one can for example pragmatically prove the existence of the collective unconsciousness and his idea of archetypes because they are purely ideological in the philosophical sense. This is why his theory of the functions become tricky because to Jung, psychic phenomena such as the functions were not just the result of our biological drives but are also caused by our connection to the collective unconsciousness. The development of ego and the manifestation of the functions is a direct result of shared human experience, not just through time but also through space. The functions would, to Jung, be another example of collective archetypes that he based off the Greek elements and the four humors and I would say therein lies the problem with Jungian cognition, because the functions are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness which affects our minds and while the former can be studied, the latter not so much.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!
    Likes Cellmold liked this post

  8. #18
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    I also want to add that the thing about Jungian cognition is that it's borderline supernatural in that he derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric and Jung thought of himself as an alchemist; there is no way one can for example pragmatically prove the existence of the collective unconsciousness and his idea of archetypes because they are purely ideological in the philosophical sense. This is why his theory of the functions become tricky because to Jung, psychic phenomena such as the functions were not just the result of our biological drives but are also caused by our connection to the collective unconsciousness. The development of ego and the manifestation of the functions is a direct result of shared human experience, not just through time but also through space. The functions would, to Jung, be another example of collective archetypes that he based off the Greek elements and the four humors and I would say therein lies the problem with Jungian cognition, because the functions are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness which affects our minds and while the former can be studied, the latter not so much.
    Another week, another steaming heap of donkey dookie from Entropic.

    And I know, I know... if you're true to form, you may well reply to this post by telling me I "misunderstood" what you said — maybe at least partly because my own thinking is "so fucking literal it HURTS" (as you once said).

    Well, just in case any other reader might be misled, either because they made the mistake of taking your words "literally" or because they made the mistake of thinking you knew what you were talking about, pardon me while I "clarify" a few things for them.

    First off, Jung wrote about our "collective unconscious," rather than our "collective unconsciousness."

    And Jung didn't think there was anything "supernatural" (or "borderline supernatural") about the collective unconscious. You say that "Jungian cognition" involves a view that the functions "are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness, which affects our minds" — as if the "collective unconsciousness" was some kind of "borderline supernatural" thing outside of us whose cosmic influences we were somehow "connected to."

    Well, FYI... or rather, for the information of anybody else who might have been misled by your post... Jung thought the collective unconscious was very much a part of our minds, and that it was part of our minds for the same reason fingernails were part of our fingers — namely, because of evolution. As he explained in Psychological Types:

    The unconscious, considered as the historical background of the human psyche, contains in concentrated form the entire succession of engrams (imprints) which from time immemorial have determined the psychic structure as it now exists. These engrams are nothing other than function-traces that typify, on average, the most frequently and intensively used functions of the human psyche. They present themselves in the form of mythological motifs and images, appearing often in identical form and always with striking similarity among all races. ...

    In so far as the subjective factor has, from the earliest times and among all peoples, remained in large measure constant, elementary perceptions and cognitions being almost universally the same, it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the external object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially unchanging reality would be simply inconceivable, and any understanding of the past would be impossible. In this sense, therefore, the subjective factor is as ineluctable a datum as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. By the same token, the subjective factor has all the value of a co-determinant of the world we live in, a factor that can on no account be left out of our calculations. It is another universal law, and whoever bases himself on it has a foundation as secure, as permanent, and as valid as the man who relies on the object. ...

    The introverted attitude is normally oriented by the psychic structure, which is in principle hereditary and is inborn in the subject. ... The psychic structure is the same as what Semon calls "mneme" and what I call the "collective unconscious." The individual self is a portion or segment or representative of something present in all living creatures, an exponent of the specific mode of psychological behaviour, which varies from species to species and is inborn in each of its members. The inborn mode of acting has long been known as instinct, and for the inborn mode of psychic apprehension I have proposed the term archetype.

    Fifteen years later, in The Concept of the Collective Unconscious (1936), Jung explained:

    The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. ...

    The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them "motifs"; ... and in the field of religion they have been defined ... as "categories of the imagination." ... From these references it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype — literally a pre-existent form — does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowledge.

    My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature, ... there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.

    Medical psychology ... insists on the personal nature of the psyche. ... Nonetheless, even this psychology is based on certain general biological factors, for instance on the sexual instinct or on the urge for self-assertion, which are by no means merely personal peculiarities. ... Neither of these views would deny the existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals alike. ... Moreover, the instincts are not vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed motive forces which, long before there is any consciousness, ... pursue their inherent goals. Consequently they form very close analogies to the archetypes, so close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behavior.

    The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring than to assume there are instincts. ... So ... it seems to me that a normally functioning intelligence can discover in this idea just as much or just as little mysticism as in the theory of instincts. Although this reproach of mysticism has frequently been levelled at my concept, I must emphasize yet again that the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter.

    So... wheras your post said that "there is no way one can for example pragmatically prove the existence of the collective unconsciousness and his idea of archetypes because they are purely ideological in the philosophical sense"; and that "the functions are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness which affects our minds and while the former can be studied, the latter not so much" — Jung in fact explicitly rejected that "reproach of mysticism," and insisted that "the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter," and that the archetypes, like an animal's instincts, were hereditary products of evolution that could be "empirically" studied.

    You also said that Jung "derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric and Jung thought of himself as an alchemist," but that's highly misleading, to say the least. Jung made extensive studies of historical belief systems of various kinds — from myths and religions to alchemy and astrology, and it was his view that there were lots of characters, structures and other elements that tended to be common to many of these belief systems. He studied alchemy extensively at one point, not because he thought it was literally going to teach him how to convert other metals to gold — or because, as you goofily asserted, he "thought of himself as an alchemist" — but because he thought the elaborate alchemical "mythology" was a rich source of material reflecting aspects of our collective unconscious.

    He studied astrology largely for the same reason, and referred to it as "a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations." He explained that "the starry vault of heaven is in truth the open book of cosmic projection, in which are reflected the mythologems, i.e., the archetypes. In this vision astrology and alchemy, the two classical functionaries of the psychology of the collective unconscious, join hands." And also: "Astrology has actually nothing to do with the stars but is the 5000-year-old psychology of antiquity and the Middle Ages."

    It's true that Jung had a pretty strong mystical streak, and I'd agree that, over the course of his long career, he also made some statements that indicate that he was open to the idea that astrological forces might exert some kind of influence over human affairs — but he clearly didn't subscribe to any kind of established astrological personality typology, and the typology he presented in Psychological Types was very much not based on the idea of supernatural astrological (or alchemical) forces shaping our personalities.

    You say that Jung "derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric" and that Jung's functions were "based off the Greek elements and the four humors." But in a 1931 article included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, Jung discussed those "age-old" typologies — and dismissed them as unacceptable as tools for modern psychological analysis. As Jung explained:

    From earliest times attempts have been made to classify individuals according to types. ... The oldest attempts known to us were made by oriental astrologers who devised the so-called trigons of the four elements — air, water, earth, and fire. ... Closely connected with this ancient cosmological scheme is the physiological typology of antiquity, the division into four temperaments corresponding to the four humours. ... As is well known, this typology lasted at least seventeen hundred years. As for the astrological type theory, to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue.

    This historical retrospect may serve to assure us that our modern attempts to formulate a theory of types are by no means new and unprecedented, even though our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the need of science.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    Another week, another steaming heap of donkey dookie from Entropic.

    And I know, I know... if you're true to form, you may well reply to this post by telling me I "misunderstood" what you said — maybe at least partly because my own thinking is "so fucking literal it HURTS" (as you once said).

    Well, just in case any other reader might be misled, either because they made the mistake of taking your words "literally" or because they made the mistake of thinking you knew what you were talking about, pardon me while I "clarify" a few things for them.

    First off, Jung wrote about our "collective unconscious," rather than our "collective unconsciousness."

    And Jung didn't think there was anything "supernatural" (or "borderline supernatural") about the collective unconscious. You say that "Jungian cognition" involves a view that the functions "are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness, which affects our minds" — as if the "collective unconsciousness" was some kind of "borderline supernatural" thing outside of us whose cosmic influences we were somehow "connected to."

    Well, FYI... or rather, for the information of anybody else who might have been misled by your post... Jung thought the collective unconscious was very much a part of our minds, and that it was part of our minds for the same reason fingernails were part of our fingers — namely, because of evolution. As he explained in Psychological Types:

    The unconscious, considered as the historical background of the human psyche, contains in concentrated form the entire succession of engrams (imprints) which from time immemorial have determined the psychic structure as it now exists. These engrams are nothing other than function-traces that typify, on average, the most frequently and intensively used functions of the human psyche. They present themselves in the form of mythological motifs and images, appearing often in identical form and always with striking similarity among all races. ...

    In so far as the subjective factor has, from the earliest times and among all peoples, remained in large measure constant, elementary perceptions and cognitions being almost universally the same, it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the external object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially unchanging reality would be simply inconceivable, and any understanding of the past would be impossible. In this sense, therefore, the subjective factor is as ineluctable a datum as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. By the same token, the subjective factor has all the value of a co-determinant of the world we live in, a factor that can on no account be left out of our calculations. It is another universal law, and whoever bases himself on it has a foundation as secure, as permanent, and as valid as the man who relies on the object. ...

    The introverted attitude is normally oriented by the psychic structure, which is in principle hereditary and is inborn in the subject. ... The psychic structure is the same as what Semon calls "mneme" and what I call the "collective unconscious." The individual self is a portion or segment or representative of something present in all living creatures, an exponent of the specific mode of psychological behaviour, which varies from species to species and is inborn in each of its members. The inborn mode of acting has long been known as instinct, and for the inborn mode of psychic apprehension I have proposed the term archetype.

    Fifteen years later, in The Concept of the Collective Unconscious (1936), Jung explained:

    The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. ...

    The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them "motifs"; ... and in the field of religion they have been defined ... as "categories of the imagination." ... From these references it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype — literally a pre-existent form — does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowledge.

    My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature, ... there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.

    Medical psychology ... insists on the personal nature of the psyche. ... Nonetheless, even this psychology is based on certain general biological factors, for instance on the sexual instinct or on the urge for self-assertion, which are by no means merely personal peculiarities. ... Neither of these views would deny the existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals alike. ... Moreover, the instincts are not vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed motive forces which, long before there is any consciousness, ... pursue their inherent goals. Consequently they form very close analogies to the archetypes, so close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behavior.

    The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring than to assume there are instincts. ... So ... it seems to me that a normally functioning intelligence can discover in this idea just as much or just as little mysticism as in the theory of instincts. Although this reproach of mysticism has frequently been levelled at my concept, I must emphasize yet again that the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter.

    So... wheras your post said that "there is no way one can for example pragmatically prove the existence of the collective unconsciousness and his idea of archetypes because they are purely ideological in the philosophical sense"; and that "the functions are at their root, not generated by our minds as they are generated by our connection to the collective unconsciousness which affects our minds and while the former can be studied, the latter not so much" — Jung in fact explicitly rejected that "reproach of mysticism," and insisted that "the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter," and that the archetypes, like an animal's instincts, were hereditary products of evolution that could be "empirically" studied.

    You also said that Jung "derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric and Jung thought of himself as an alchemist," but that's highly misleading, to say the least. Jung made extensive studies of historical belief systems of various kinds — from myths and religions to alchemy and astrology, and it was his view that there were lots of characters, structures and other elements that tended to be common to many of these belief systems. He studied alchemy extensively at one point, not because he thought it was literally going to teach him how to convert other metals to gold — or because, as you goofily asserted, he "thought of himself as an alchemist" — but because he thought the elaborate alchemical "mythology" was a rich source of material reflecting aspects of our collective unconscious.

    He studied astrology largely for the same reason, and referred to it as "a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations." He explained that "the starry vault of heaven is in truth the open book of cosmic projection, in which are reflected the mythologems, i.e., the archetypes. In this vision astrology and alchemy, the two classical functionaries of the psychology of the collective unconscious, join hands." And also: "Astrology has actually nothing to do with the stars but is the 5000-year-old psychology of antiquity and the Middle Ages."

    It's true that Jung had a pretty strong mystical streak, and I'd agree that, over the course of his long career, he also made some statements that indicate that he was open to the idea that astrological forces might exert some kind of influence over human affairs — but he clearly didn't subscribe to any kind of established astrological personality typology, and the typology he presented in Psychological Types was very much not based on the idea of supernatural astrological (or alchemical) forces shaping our personalities.

    You say that Jung "derived a lot of his thinking based off alchemy and the esoteric" and that Jung's functions were "based off the Greek elements and the four humors." But in a 1931 article included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types, Jung discussed those "age-old" typologies — and dismissed them as unacceptable as tools for modern psychological analysis. As Jung explained:

    From earliest times attempts have been made to classify individuals according to types. ... The oldest attempts known to us were made by oriental astrologers who devised the so-called trigons of the four elements — air, water, earth, and fire. ... Closely connected with this ancient cosmological scheme is the physiological typology of antiquity, the division into four temperaments corresponding to the four humours. ... As is well known, this typology lasted at least seventeen hundred years. As for the astrological type theory, to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue.

    This historical retrospect may serve to assure us that our modern attempts to formulate a theory of types are by no means new and unprecedented, even though our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the need of science.
    And of course Jung would openly dismiss it but it doesn't mean that his system was in fact inspired by them. Whether you are willing or not to admit this is an entirely different matter. Isn't quite funny also, that you come here solely to mock my person? The quotes that you provided do in fact not at all prove me wrong; it remains quite clear, to quote Jung himself, that he is trying to find our [his] answer to this problem". Did you ever stop to consider why four functions? Did you stop to consider that the definitions of the functions largely correlate to or in ways overlap with the definitions of the four elements? Of course not, because of how you are so dimissive of seeing such connections. So intuitive of you.

    Also, fyi, I wrote that the collective unconsciousness is not a part of our minds as much as our minds are affected by the collective unconsciousness. We are connected to it. From this vantage point, you can argue it is a part of us, but the collective unconsciousness is also its very own strict definite entity separate from the human mind and it also has to be, since it is a property all humans share. Indeed, you are twisting semantics to mean something I did not intend. When I write that the collective unconsciousness and the archetypes are ideological I very much mean that; if you want to refute something, argue this point instead strawmanning what I wrote. You can argue that Jung thought they are hereditary and biological but then dear reckful, how are you going to go prove this? How are you going to prove that an idea, which an archetype ultimately is, is hereditary? How are you going to infer that there is something in our brains, a matter of neurological wiring, that makes humans attuned to recreate the same ideas across times and contexts?

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  10. #20
    Senior Member great_bay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    541
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Are intuitives more likely to be telepathy?

Similar Threads

  1. Are good people more likely to be depressed ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 08:09 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2013, 10:40 PM
  3. Wealthy People More Likely to Be Unethical
    By CzeCze in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-18-2012, 10:48 AM
  4. If you're sexay, are you more likely to be an extrovert?
    By teslashock in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 06:24 PM
  5. Are you more likely to be politically left or right if you scare easily?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 05:02 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