[NT] Was Carl Jung an NT?

[Llewellyn]

[last post]

I think you are very tiring to discuss with.

 

[simulatedworld]

People just don't know what to do with those who exhibit large quantities of Ni *and* Ti.

Did Jung ever classify himself as an Introverted Thinker? (I don't recall.)

No, he classified himself as dom Ni/secondary Te (aka INTJ)--interestingly, one of the types that that he himself had termed "irrational."

Types leading with Judging functions (IxxP and ExxJ) are "rational" and those leading with Perceiving ones (IxxJ and ExxP) are "irrational."

I suppose my Ti should be offended?

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I think you are very tiring to discuss with.

I agree

 

[Blank]

Heh, I find it interesting how the discussion of what type Jung is has regressed into arguing what type does what.

I hardly know where to begin, but I'll start with Jung's problems dealing with reality and how it relates to me as an INTP.

More often than I would like to admit, I'll be doing an everyday activity and the novelty of discovering that I am, in fact, alive, or that what I'm experiencing is reality is staggers me. I often feel like such a disembodied head that it shocks me to realize what it is to be human (looking down and discovering I have arms just like everyone else.)

To me, it seems like Jung is an INT* no matter what. I believe he is an INTP over an INTJ because I've never really got the vibe that he was working solely due to an internal drive to produce or be efficient (which I find present in INTJ's.) To me, he seems more like a P, taking an idea and playing with it and refining it for a short while and then moving on to another idea before playing with it and refining it again.

It seems to me that the ideas he gathers are more P-based and Ti-Ne-filtered rather than Ni-based and Te-filtered.

I also think I've seen him listed as an INTP on lists of famous INTPs.

 

[Llewellyn]

It seems to me that the ideas he gathers are more P-based and Ti-Ne-filtered rather than Ni-based and Te-filtered.

Ni-based = P-based

 

[simulatedworld]

Heh, I find it interesting how the discussion of what type Jung is has regressed into arguing what type does what.

I hardly know where to begin, but I'll start with Jung's problems dealing with reality and how it relates to me as an INTP.

More often than I would like to admit, I'll be doing an everyday activity and the novelty of discovering that I am, in fact, alive, or that what I'm experiencing is reality is staggers me. I often feel like such a disembodied head that it shocks me to realize what it is to be human (looking down and discovering I have arms just like everyone else.)

To me, it seems like Jung is an INT* no matter what. I believe he is an INTP over an INTJ because I've never really got the vibe that he was working solely due to an internal drive to produce or be efficient (which I find present in INTJ's.) To me, he seems more like a P, taking an idea and playing with it and refining it for a short while and then moving on to another idea before playing with it and refining it again.

It seems to me that the ideas he gathers are more P-based and Ti-Ne-filtered rather than Ni-based and Te-filtered.

I also think I've seen him listed as an INTP on lists of famous INTPs.

I can follow your reasoning here but I have a feeling you'd abandon it if you did some more research on cognitive functions.

Most of Jung's writing is pure Ni.

(btw, lists of "famous people of this type!" are almost always bullshit because no one knows wtf he's talking about.)

 

[Nonsensical]

For arguments sake, let's say Jung was an ISTJ.

 

[Jaguar]

^ Someone is stirring the pot. Or smoking some.

 

[simulatedworld]

Don't forget smoking some pot while stirring this here delicious pot of stir fry

EDIT: [Ti inner monologue: "Shut the hell up, Ne! NTJs won't think that shit is funny!"]

EDIT EDIT:

btw Jag, nice Jung quotes in your signature there. The first one, especially, seems pretty adamantly not Ti, and the second one is about as Ni as it gets.

I'm hearing NTJ everywhere.

 

[Jaguar]

^
Re: the Jung quotes, if you look closely you'll see MBTI actually conflicts with Jung's comments.


EDIT: I did think your stir-fry comment was funny.
You pot-head!

 

[Llewellyn]

^
Re: the Jung quotes, if you look closely you'll see MBTI actually conflicts with Jung's comments.

I wonder... Are you at all understanding?

btw Jag, nice Jung quotes in your signature there. The first one, especially, seems pretty adamantly not Ti, and the second one is about as Ni as it gets.

I'm hearing NTJ everywhere.

I agree about NTJ, but the second comment is also general (although deep) knowledge. Wonder if it's necessarily Ni...

 

[Jaguar]

I wonder... Are you at all understanding?

The better question is, are you understanding?
Clearly, you are not.

 

[Llewellyn]

The better question is, are you understanding?
Clearly, you are not.

Ok. How do you see MBTI conflicts with Jung's comments?

 

[the state i am in]

i don't think that's a subtle reading of the relationship between jung and mb. read gifts differing and presuppose that the mb you call mb is what isabel myers had in mind when she created mb with her madre. myers sounds much like thomsen, who is very very jungian in her approach. temperament theory is the least influenced by cognitive functions, and therefore the least jungian. altho i find berens, at least, brings something interesting to the table (whereas keirsey, to me, does not- he sounds like half-assed behaviorial descriptions that aren't rooted in cognitive functional patterns).

i was under the impression that jung identified Ni and Ti in himself. this is the argument intps use so adamantly to claim jung was an intp. i find very direct connection with jung's and infj thinking.

 

[Jaguar]

How do you see MBTI conflicts with Jung's comments?

For your perusal:

More Contradictions Between Jung and Myers Briggs Theory

Jung and Briggs Myers' J/P types contradict

Not so much about contradictions, but more interesting info here:
Dichotomies in Jung, Myers Briggs and MTR-i systems

Actually, the whole blog is interesting.
In the same style as Jungian analysts Singer and Loomis,
Steve Myers allows for any function order as well.

MBTI waves a wand over people and claims:
"Poof," here's your instant-oatmeal function order with no evidence,
whatsoever, to back it up.

 

[entropie]

You should read him in the original german text, so god damned whiny bastard

 

[Jaguar]

You should read him in the original german text, so god damned whiny bastard

God-damned whiny bastard?
Lol.

Hey, how many martinis have you had tonight?

 

[entropie]

ya well he talks on the one hand about extreme thinkers and on the other hand about party people. I read the book Archetypus, that could be a different one tho, so I could be wrong too.

@martinis one or twelve

 

[RaptorWizard]

Carl Jung identified as ISTP.

Proof:
The Case for ISTP

However, there is a manuscript prepared in 1926, published in English as Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1925. Here Jung identifies as another type:

As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. [Princeton University Press 1991 edition, p. 69]

source - http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2012/02/jung-identified-himself-as-both-intp-and-istp/

 

[the state i am in]

"It is important to have a secret, a premonition of things unknown. It fills life with something impersonal, a numinosum. A man who has never experienced that has missed something important. He must sense that he lives in a world which in some respects is mysterious; that things happen and can be experienced which remain inexplicable; that not everything which happens can be anticipated. The unexpected and the incredible belong in this world. Only then is life whole. For me the world has from the beginning been infinite and ungraspable."

proof.