Mal12345
Permabanned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 14,532
- MBTI Type
- IxTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
You children can stop laughing at the name in the thread title.
Psychologist Karen Horney wrote a book called "Our Inner Conflicts" in which she outlined and described three basic types of neurotic conflict resulting in personalities that are aggressive, compliant, or withdrawn:
Compliant: "When moving toward people he accepts his own helplessness, and in spite of his estrangement and fears tries to win the affection of others and to lean on them. Only in this way can he feel safe with them. If there are dissenting parties in the family, he will attach himself to the most powerful person or group. By complying with them, he gains a feeling of belonging and support which makes him feel less weak and less isolated."
Aggressive: "When he moves against people he accepts and takes for granted the hostility around him, and determines, consciously or unconsciously, to fight. He implicitly distrusts the feelings and intentions of others toward himself. He rebels in whatever ways are open to him. He wants to be the stronger and defeat them, partly for his own protection, partly for revenge."
Withdrawn: "When he moves away from people he wants neither to belong nor to fight, but keeps apart. He feels he has not much in common with them, they do not understand him anyhow. He builds up a world of his own— with nature, with his dolls, his books, his dreams."
Sometimes Karen's wording can be a bit strange. "His dolls"? I'm the withdrawn type and I can assure you I don't play with dolls. Never did. As a 549 tritype I'm considered a triple withdrawn type. But my personality make up is more complex than that, as I can also demonstrate compliant and aggressive traits depending on circumstances. She is describing the Sp type 5 which is the stereotypical 5, but I'm the Sx type 5 which as you can imagine has an aggressive streak described by the Sx instinct.
---------------------
I shouldn't have to point out that most people are walking contradictions and bundles of inconsistent traits. Some if not most of us adopted typology as a means of resolving or at least explaining the contradictions and finding order amidst the chaos. Typology gives the illusion of consistency by simply eliminating the inconsistencies in determining type. This is especially true of the MBTI which demands that each person be exactly one type, the traits of which are wholly consistent and coherent. Sometimes people become disappointed in the MBTI because it fails to explain everything. But then, it wasn't invented to explain everything.
---------------------
JCF theory possesses the power to explain away some of the defects in the original MBTI by creating a more complex system of dominants, auxiliaries, tertiaries, and inferiors. But we're still left holding the bag when it comes to the trait of ambiversion. There is also a dissatisfying lack of conformity between dualistic (MBTI/JCF) and trialectic (Hornevian) personality systems. Are we talking about two different species of human?
It's easy enough to point out that Karen's three classic types conform well with the extrovert, introvert, and ambivert (and I'm sure this has been pointed out by others):
Aggressive/Extrovert - Compliant/Ambivert - Withdrawn/Introvert.
It also conforms well with the Enneagram's trialectic system of types. Neither of them however conforms with Jungian typology. From the standpoint of pure systematicity, dualistic JCF just doesn't fit with the human personality's three natural tendencies toward aggression, compliance, and withdrawing, or extroversion, ambiversion, and introversion.
I knew about this problem 20 years ago and at the time I was unable to resolve this difficult. Nor am I able to now. Nor can I cope with Jung's weirdness. He explains a lot without explaining anything at all, using obscure terminology that is, perhaps, intended to deceive the reader into believing that it's true simply because it's deep.
Psychologist Karen Horney wrote a book called "Our Inner Conflicts" in which she outlined and described three basic types of neurotic conflict resulting in personalities that are aggressive, compliant, or withdrawn:
Compliant: "When moving toward people he accepts his own helplessness, and in spite of his estrangement and fears tries to win the affection of others and to lean on them. Only in this way can he feel safe with them. If there are dissenting parties in the family, he will attach himself to the most powerful person or group. By complying with them, he gains a feeling of belonging and support which makes him feel less weak and less isolated."
Aggressive: "When he moves against people he accepts and takes for granted the hostility around him, and determines, consciously or unconsciously, to fight. He implicitly distrusts the feelings and intentions of others toward himself. He rebels in whatever ways are open to him. He wants to be the stronger and defeat them, partly for his own protection, partly for revenge."
Withdrawn: "When he moves away from people he wants neither to belong nor to fight, but keeps apart. He feels he has not much in common with them, they do not understand him anyhow. He builds up a world of his own— with nature, with his dolls, his books, his dreams."
Sometimes Karen's wording can be a bit strange. "His dolls"? I'm the withdrawn type and I can assure you I don't play with dolls. Never did. As a 549 tritype I'm considered a triple withdrawn type. But my personality make up is more complex than that, as I can also demonstrate compliant and aggressive traits depending on circumstances. She is describing the Sp type 5 which is the stereotypical 5, but I'm the Sx type 5 which as you can imagine has an aggressive streak described by the Sx instinct.
---------------------
I shouldn't have to point out that most people are walking contradictions and bundles of inconsistent traits. Some if not most of us adopted typology as a means of resolving or at least explaining the contradictions and finding order amidst the chaos. Typology gives the illusion of consistency by simply eliminating the inconsistencies in determining type. This is especially true of the MBTI which demands that each person be exactly one type, the traits of which are wholly consistent and coherent. Sometimes people become disappointed in the MBTI because it fails to explain everything. But then, it wasn't invented to explain everything.
---------------------
JCF theory possesses the power to explain away some of the defects in the original MBTI by creating a more complex system of dominants, auxiliaries, tertiaries, and inferiors. But we're still left holding the bag when it comes to the trait of ambiversion. There is also a dissatisfying lack of conformity between dualistic (MBTI/JCF) and trialectic (Hornevian) personality systems. Are we talking about two different species of human?
It's easy enough to point out that Karen's three classic types conform well with the extrovert, introvert, and ambivert (and I'm sure this has been pointed out by others):
Aggressive/Extrovert - Compliant/Ambivert - Withdrawn/Introvert.
It also conforms well with the Enneagram's trialectic system of types. Neither of them however conforms with Jungian typology. From the standpoint of pure systematicity, dualistic JCF just doesn't fit with the human personality's three natural tendencies toward aggression, compliance, and withdrawing, or extroversion, ambiversion, and introversion.
I knew about this problem 20 years ago and at the time I was unable to resolve this difficult. Nor am I able to now. Nor can I cope with Jung's weirdness. He explains a lot without explaining anything at all, using obscure terminology that is, perhaps, intended to deceive the reader into believing that it's true simply because it's deep.