User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 144

  1. #31
    Senior Member Valuable_Money's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Personally I'm more likely to go with INFJ due to stereotypes >.>

    It's harder for me to imagine auxillary Te users adopting non-empirical positions, granted he did keep ranting on about how he was an empirical scientist. Belief that there are links between two totally independant events for example: His theory about synchronicity. But eh it could still be possible that he's just an INTP or INTJ with a spiritual background.
    Spirituality/Religous beliefs =/= NF
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh? wgah'nagl fhtagn

  2. #32
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valuable_Money View Post
    Spirituality/Religous beliefs =/= NF
    Yep I realise that hence the stereotype comment. Another stereotype I'm throwing forward is that Te is more likely to be focused on empiricalism only and thus reject such thing. I'd understand however a Ti user adapting that sort of thing more freely however.

    Fair enough we'll assume his religious background has influenced him a fair amount.

  3. #33
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Looking at the video clips, and considering his theories, Jung seems to be very comfortable with using inductive reasoning to draw abstract conclusions.

    INTPs seem rather uncomfortable with inductive leaps. INTPs seem to often get stuck on the details of the deductive process, and when the deductive process stalls (for lack of proof), have a hard time making an inductive leap to push beyond the reach of deduction.
    It depends on the INTP. You're talking about N-heavy INTPs versus T-heavy INTPs. I know I've flipped back and forth lots of times in my life between those modes of approach.

    Once you get a framework and baseline established with Ti+Ne, that framework suggests all the other elements of the model. (Basically, "if this, this, and this are true, then this must be true as well.")

    So Jung can basically be operating from a Ti+Ne perspective IF he has firmly tested and established the basics of his model to his logic's satisfaction. If his assumptions are true, then his speculations can also be deemed trustworthy because they follow rationally -- thus he uses Ti to speak with conviction.

    You can also intuit backwards, through the N sense rather than the T. Basically, if you nail enough points onto the board in the proper relationship to each other, you can go by 'relational logic' to nail in other points... very much like an FBI database scanning millions of faces can use certain pivotal points on a face to hone in on the target visage. it's not needing to logic-crunch everything, it's just comparing relational distances and "big picture recognition" against other images on file, and you can "fill in the gaps" so to speak and conclude what must be there.... an N approach. The difference between Ne+Ti (ENTP) vs Ti+Ne (INTP) in this regard is that the INTP operating via Ne+Ti is still working to create and conform to a model, while ENTP even if using a Ti+Ne process is less about the model and more about exploring possibilities.

    Why do people feel his thinking function is Ti rather than Te?
    See above.

    You should debate religious and/or philosophical theory with a Te person and then a Ti person, and you'll see a difference between who focuses on constructive a conceptual argument that can operate purely in conceptual terms (sort of like the logical arguments constructed in the Mathematics Logic course in collegiate settings) versus an argument that depends on particular data points from which broad conclusions are drawn. Arguments with Te tend to be proactive tools to help accomplish the person's goal, Ti arguments tend to be diffuse, not applied easily in a practical way, they exist for their own merit.

    ... sorry, lots of "sketching" mentally here, i'm not sure if I painted a clear picture even to myself.

    EDIT: Was thinking more about IxTJ versus IxTP. I think to say it more clearly, IxTJ is about using Te to support and implement the perception. The perception is not in doubt; the INTJ chooses the perception that is useful/appealing/sensible to them, the ISTJ sees the core perception (what the object is "supposed" to be), but they both use Te to then implement and support it. The perception is already there, an image and thus an ideal to be realized.

    The IxTP uses Pe to support the Ti judgment. Judging functions take in and "crunch" data. Thus the quality of Ti is based on the data being crunched, and the conclusion (or ideal image) is not an Ni/Si image that just exists, it's a natural conclusion of the Ti process fueled by Pe.

    So logic is being used in two different ways here. Logic naturally creates the conclusion for Ti people, logic is used to buttress the perception in Te people.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #34
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Personally I'm more likely to go with INFJ due to stereotypes >.>

    It's harder for me to imagine auxillary Te users adopting non-empirical positions, granted he did keep ranting on about how he was an empirical scientist. Belief that there are links between two totally independant events for example: His theory about synchronicity. But eh it could still be possible that he's just an INTP or INTJ with a spiritual background.
    now synchronicity is where the story got REALLY strange! I read about something he did with Freud and my jaw dropped. I won't mention it though because it seems a little crazy.

  5. #35
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    I think I found my answer, and I think he's an INTJ (most of the time, as he mentions type is not static, it's dynamic)

    However he does state 4 things that he says is sufficient to type him.

    1. Hardcore thinker
    2. Very intuitive
    3. Trouble with feelings
    4. Trouble with reality

    The first 3 tell me he was an NT, the 4th however is what really convinces me he's an intj.

    YouTube - Face to face with Carl Jung - Part 3 of 4

    It's all at the end of this clip.
    He said it himself, this data is sufficient to type him, why the hell would you guys go looking at others people work, who probably never met the man in RL. The ethics of MBTI say the individual must type himself, and the closest thing we have to that is what he said in this interview. It's hard to make out because he's bumbling but he said, "Now that gives you all the necessary data fordurforuduuuhhdduuhhuhuh diagnosis"


    I'm sure he's an NT, but just which of the NT's would openly admit that "my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant" "I was often at variance with the reality of things" ?

  6. #36
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    which of the NT's would openly admit that "my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant" "I was often at variance with the reality of things" ?
    What exactly did he mean by "the reality of things"?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #37
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Almost, but not quite.

    He was Ni-Ti. Incidentally, those are two of my stronger functions as well. So he's either an INFJ with lower emphasis on Fe, or an ISTP with lousy Se, depending on whether he was Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni.

    INFJ makes sense to me (though I might be biased), because his theory IS focused mostly on people and observations of people. Also, he seems reasonably expressive, aware of people and such from the videos. I'm inclinded to think a Te user would be more interested in categorizing things and measuring them, than people according to things that can't be measured (notice that Isabel Myers added the Te component to the system and tried to make it measurable).

    His strongest functions were probably N and T based, but the experience of being NT in terms of temperament involves having Te or Ne as an extroverted function. That's why I can't relate to NTs... I share their Introverted functions, but I have no idea what it's like to be N or T in an Extraverted fashion.

    So, sorry NTs. Jung was an INFJ, Isabel was an INFP. Hehe.

    But Aushra Augusta (the founder of Socionics) was probably an NT. As was Keirsey. Hopefully that's a consolation.

  8. #38
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Almost, but not quite.

    He was Ni-Ti. Incidentally, those are two of my stronger functions as well. So he's either an INFJ with lower emphasis on Fe, or an ISTP with lousy Se, depending on whether he was Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni.

    INFJ makes sense to me (though I might be biased), because his theory IS focused mostly on people and observations of people. Also, he seems reasonably expressive, aware of people and such from the videos. I'm inclinded to think a Te user would be more interested in categorizing things and measuring them, than people according to things that can't be measured (notice that Isabel Myers added the Te component to the system and tried to make it measurable).

    His strongest functions were probably N and T based, but the experience of being NT in terms of temperament involves having Te or Ne as an extroverted function. That's why I can't relate to NTs... I share their Introverted functions, but I have no idea what it's like to be N or T in an Extraverted fashion.

    So, sorry NTs. Jung was an INFJ, Isabel was an INFP. Hehe.
    His theory is focused on people because that's the field he worked in, what else does psychology do?

    I don't think that's a very good reason to label him as an INFJ.

  9. #39
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    His theory is focused on people because that's the field he worked in, what else does psychology do?

    I don't think that's a very good reason to label him as an INFJ.
    And why did he choose to work in that field?

    It depends on whether it was to help people achieve self-development or a greater awareness of themselves, or if it was to create a coherent system of ideas that only incidentally involved people.

    If the former, he was an INFJ. If the latter, INTx.

    Does anyone know why Jung chose to work in psychology? The fact that it was his field of work isn't meaningful unless we know why. There are T and F reasons for pursuing that field, and which one it was is important.

  10. #40
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    And why did he choose to work in that field?

    It depends on whether it was to achieve a greater understanding of people, or if it was to create a coherent system that only incidentally involved people.

    If the former, he was an INFJ. If the latter, INTx.

    Does anyone know why Jung chose to work in psychology? The fact that it was his field of work isn't meaningful unless we know why.
    I just saw it yesterday and I don't remember exactly what he said(it's hard to make out all his words because of his swiss accent), something about reading something that clicked with him,, I do remember that psychology wasn't his first or second choice as a profession though.

    Just watch the entire interview it's in there and I don't feel like finding it right now.

Similar Threads

  1. What MBTI type was Carl Jung
    By five in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 455
    Last Post: 04-13-2017, 12:51 AM
  2. Carl Jung 'Proves' Existence Of An Auxiliary Function
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-07-2013, 12:08 PM
  3. CARL JUNG, NEO-GNOSTICISM, & THE MBTI
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:22 AM
  4. [NT] Defining Moments in the making of an NT.
    By ladypinkington in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 07-15-2012, 06:42 PM
  5. [NT] What Compels An NT to Cheat?
    By LadyJaye in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 01:13 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