Freud/Jung's Type

[Athenian200]

because of what is implied underneath. i don't need to tell you more than that.

That all the people who've tried to type him so far are so stupid that they've never considered anything that violated an assumption that they mistakenly attributed to him?

Don't worry, I think it's well known that people tend to do that. Everyone does it sometimes.

 

[Sentura]

That all the people who've tried to type him so far are so stupid that they've never considered anything that violated an assumption that they mistakenly attributed to him?

Don't worry, I think it's well known that people tend to do that. Everyone does it sometimes.

what are you talking about? this has nothing to do with typing, it has something to do with how to present data.

 

[Jaguar]

because of what is implied underneath. i don't need to tell you more than that.

Just because I don't like you, doesn't mean you have to create a paranoid, conspiracy theory.

 

[Sentura]

Just because I don't like you, doesn't mean you have to create a paranoid, conspiracy theory.

your ego must be bigger than i thought if you think i care whether you like me or not.

 

[Athenian200]

your ego must be bigger than i thought if you think i care whether you like me or not.

Ironically, your ego must be pretty big if you're arrogant enough not to care what they think of you.

Interesting case of projection.

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist pointing that out.)

 

[Sentura]

Ironically, your ego must be pretty big if you're arrogant enough not to care what they think of you.

Interesting case of projection.

in contrast to jaguar, i never tried to hide my ego.

 

[Jaguar]

Well, I haven't heard about Singer and Loomis. What do you call a function order that isn't typical? What would you use for notation?

MBTI Atypical. Lol.
Frankly, I'd bet money a lot of people are "atypical."
If you think he's Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni, that clearly implies Dom/Aux.

As to Singer and Loomis, they are two women who decided to test MBTI.
In a nutshell, the MBTI "assigned" function orders did not hold up.
No shocker there.

I'm talking out loud here, but, is there a way we could create a files and links section on this forum?
Our own "library," so to speak.
Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Athenian200]

MBTI Atypical. Lol.
Frankly, I'd bet money a lot of people are "atypical."
If you think he's Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni, that clearly implies Dom/Aux.

As to Singer and Loomis, they are two women who decided to test MBTI.
In a nutshell, the MBTI "assigned" function orders did not hold up.
No shocker there.

I'm talking out loud here, but, is there a way we could create a files and links section on this forum?
Our own "library," so to speak.
Thoughts, anyone?

I went to look some of this up, but all the data on it is proprietary and expensive. The research and testing methodology they came up with looked sound, though. Addresses a few things I always thought were wrong with MBTI.

I have a feeling people still play with MBTI mostly because the material is freely accessible (as are the tests) for the most part. Better systems have probably been made (even from the same source), but they all cost money and can't be discussed or theorized about quite as openly.

 

[the state i am in]

read lenore thomson if you want to understand a good middle ground between jungian functions and the myers briggs code. it clarifies the purpose j/p add to jungian cognitive functions and prescribes a pattern of development/activation that occurs when a dominant function develops an auxilary function to balance it in terms of i/e and perceiving/judging (ie rational).

in other words, the functional development present in myers briggs is prescribed the way it is for a very good reason. that there are many variations and differences in articulation of expression seems like an irrelevant objection to me. i've identified w/ Ni and Ti more than any other functions for the majority of my life. understanding myers briggs and its articulation of the ramifications of such a lifestyle makes so much sense to me now. with all that said, the 4 letter code that best corresponds with mbti (which is AFTER jung's initial work) is infj. he's so much more Ni than Ne. he's way more Fe than Te. he's infj.

also, i've heard both lenore thomson and katherine briggs are infjs. tho i could see lenore thomson (solely based on the book) being an intj too.

 

[Sol_]

have proof?

1) Try to guess, based on my first message.
2) There's no seriously proved method of proving (~100% accuracy) for type. There is no even method with seriously proved high accuracy (> 80% for ex) of type identifing.

 

[Jaguar]

I went to look some of this up, but all the data on it is proprietary and expensive. The research and testing methodology they came up with looked sound, though. Addresses a few things I always thought were wrong with MBTI.

You have to dig deeper for the good stuff.
And it's free.
The page to the .pdfs is not found,
so here are links to the html versions:

SINGER-LOOMIS TDI: THE NEXT GENERATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE INSTRUMENT S. Dugan Haskayne School of Business


Understanding Personality Functioning Without Forced Choice:

I have a feeling people still play with MBTI mostly because the material is freely accessible (as are the tests) for the most part. Better systems have probably been made (even from the same source), but they all cost money and can't be discussed or theorized about quite as openly.

Agreed.

 

[Jaguar]

why do people keep thinking that i don't know my type? i know my type, and it's ENXP. my auxiliary functions do not fit in neither ENTP or ENFP roles, but my dominant function is still Ne, and i use it extensively;

i mean, how hard can it be to understand that not everyone fits the mere 16 types that MBTI offers?

What kind of remarks are you making here, knowing full well you whined
about my not lisiting a type for myself?

And now here you are, suggesting not all people fall into an MBTI type?
Well, no shit. How could someone NOT know this?

 

[Sentura]

What kind of remarks are you making here, knowing full well you whined
about my not lisiting a type for myself?

i didn't whine about you not typing yourself. i "whined" about the way you behave. your complete refusal to use MBTI for any reason or consider it even a partial truth coupled with your general attitude and behavior would fit you into the "pretentious" box.

you can prove me wrong by being less gutless and admitting that while MBTI types have faults, the theory behind it (and especially function theory) can still be used.

 

[Jaguar]

i didn't whine about you not typing yourself. i "whined" about the way you behave. your complete refusal to use MBTI for any reason or consider it even a partial truth coupled with your general attitude and behavior would fit you into the "pretentious" box.

you can prove me wrong by being less gutless and admitting that while MBTI types have faults, the theory behind it (and especially function theory) can still be used.

The theory behind MBTI claims a specific PREDETERMINED function order.
It's that simple.
If you are gullible enough to believe it. Use it.

I do find this MBTI blurb humorous:

Don't like being put into one of 16 boxes?
How about 1,000,000? With the MBTI® Step II report,
there are that many combinations.

That came out after people started claiming MBTI was bullshit.
You think they are going to throw away all that money?
They don't care about validity.
Come on, don't be so naive.

 

[Sentura]

like i said, i don't care about the 16 types. i care about its functions, not the function orders. fuck it, look at my type. do i fit into one of the 16 types? look at my function order. jesus.

 

[Jaguar]

Well then WTF are you bitching about?
I don't give a shit about the 16 types,
or those fake MBTI function orders either.
I do use the Jungian functions.
How can you not GET THAT?
*ucking ay already!

No wonder Synarch said you need your ass pounded.
He's right.

 

[Sentura]

Well then WTF are you bitching about?
I don't give a shit about the 16 types,
or those fake MBTI function orders either.
I do use the Jungian functions.
How can you not GET THAT?
*ucking ay already!

what's your problem with stating your own function order then? i just don't get it, don't you want other people to know it?

 

[Splittet]

Yes, I thought Freud was an S. He's quite the empiricist.

The empirical evidence is so lacking for psychoanalysis, I laugh when I read about it... It's not science, it's pseudoscience.

 

[Jaguar]

Sentura--

You care more about my specific function order,
than Jungian functions as a whole.

I don't care about yours;
I care about the knowledge.

That makes us opposites.

I've stated elsewhere on this board what I've scored as.
I've even talked about some of my preferred functions.
It's no secret.
You just think it is.

 

[Sentura]

I've stated elsewhere on this board what I've scored as.
I've even talked about some of my preferred functions.
It's no secret.

then i have no quarrel with you.