You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Hey, Id be interested in learning what personality type you think I am, based on my cognitive functions
Here's some info about me to help you out.
1. I often think about what career I may pursue in the future. Considering I'm doing a bachelor of psychological science, my career options are quite open. With further training, I could get into plenty of different fields (e.g teaching, looking at animal psych in zoos, forensics or move on to postgraduate psych degree). I'm worried that I may lose direction/purpose from not knowing what I want to do in the future. I kinda been like that since maybe 13 (maybe earlier).
2. Growing up I used to be the weird kid who didn't have a group of friends who actually liked me until I was 13. I didn't look after myself because I had low self esteem. I was very shy too and my crippling social anxiety definitely made me appear more introverted than I actually was. Though I still had a lot of friends/acquaintances in high school.
A couple years later, I'm a lot better now. Have a chill job that doesn't stress me out (like my last job). My uni degree is going well (though still unsure of what I'm going to do in the future). I've still got a wide circle of friends/acquaintances that I hang out with, usually for drinking, sleepovers, parties etc.
3. Hobbies include shopping, drinking with friends, badminton ( when I can be bothered haha) but mostly staying in and watching Netflix or videogaming.
4. I can "slide up and down the scale" of introversion and extroversion. I'm pretty bubbly and outgoing with my closer friends, I'm more reserved with new people but I warm up easily.
5. I've tried swimming, badminton, taekwondo and gym in the past. Surfed once and loved it. Tennis isn't too bad either. But yeah I have struggled to stay committed to do these things as a routine. And just I've listed all these things doesn't mean I'm good at them im ok at swimming and badminton, the rest im really bad at Also, though I like these things, I'm kinda lazy and don't do these things.. like ever
6. My ENFP mum I get along with pretty well. Though I do get annoyed when she asks questions like, "what's the meaning of life? why are we here?", like nobody ever knows the answer to this. I don't like pondering these things without having the facts, otherwise it just feels like a useless waste of time. I only like to ponder and think about issues that have practical application to it, otherwise yeah I see this time as useless. If someone were to reply, "to follow your passions in life", this kind of language just makes me really uncomfortable.
7. I am in tune with other's feelings/ I can pick up the vibe from a room. But I do not feel comfortable talking about feelings. I hate crying in front of people. I definitely use humour to joke about my life/ insecurities.
8. I like to consider issues from different perspectives before I form an opinion on it. There's this website called procon, where theres a bunch of controversial topics and it lists pros and cons for each topic. I like the idea of debating and it's something I'd like to try and get into.
9.I have a very vivid imagination, can daydream alone on occasion (but not too often).
10. Im not very observant. I can miss details/ things going on around me. I believe I look more at the big-picture .
11. My ISTJ dad is very practical and stubborn. He's alright when you want to have a logical conversation, but he does lack intelligence and does not like going out of his comfort zone. The conversations we have are pretty much the same everyday, he buys the same food, does the same thing, so he can be a little boring at times. I struggle with routine and prefer to have some variety.
12. In the past, I've been bad at conflict, but I'm working on being more direct and standing up for myself more often.
13. Sometimes I like to think about 'improving" personality tests (like myer briggs) and if there was a more accurate
way of measuring someone's cognitive functions and their order of functioning. or I could see myself helping zoo animals find sources of enrichment to help them utilise their physical, mental and problem solving capabilities. And another idea being improving the standards people in prison receive (I got this from watching Orange is the new Black ) --- but yeah this one kinda ties in with #1 as ideas for career aspirations.
14. Im not a strong believer in faith and religion, I lean more towards science.
15.When I'm stressed, ill try and make sure I'm super prepared (e.g for a presentation) or I feel crap about the past the mistakes ive made or how I didn't look after myself etc (#2) or I may feel pressured to conform to society's expectations (e.g getting married and having kids during your 20s) . Im only 20 but I really don't want kids. To be frank, I don't understand why people want kids... why can't people just live with their partners without having kids? All I see in a kid is a huge responsibility and getting sleepless nights and not going out anymore. And people say, "yeah but they're family though" , but you've still got your partner as your family. I also bottle emotions, overeat and self loathe when stressed, then the next couple days later, I feel chill.
16. Im very messy and disorganised
17. Friends would describe me as friendly, bubbly, fun, silly, bit dumb at times, usually chill, prone to anxious outbursts
I only show friends that nice, bubbly side to me. I don't usually discuss my career aspirations or my desire for self development/ improvement (these are more internal).
18. I consider myself more theoretical than practical. I can write a paper on social conformity or capitalism or Sigmund Freud and do pretty well... but if you were to tell me to build something and give me specific detailed instructions on how to do it, I probably couldn't do it
19. I don't like following orders. Im quite stubborn I guess. I don't like following if I can find an easier way to do something, so ill probably question people about this.
20. I am a ravenclaw/ slytherin (though I do idolise slytherin a little more) . I value the love of learning ravenclaw has. I also like the ambitious slytherin side too. I know slytherin get a bad rep for being manipulative, but I like to think of manipulation as a neutral term, it can be good and bad, depending on how its used..
Anyway, that's enough. Would someone be able to give a detailed explanation of what cognitive functions are at play here? And what type I am .
Ask any questions if you have any but please don't direct me to a personality quiz (im quite distrusting of these tests).
It is usually a XXXP behavior who doesn't plan and go with the flow. My ISTP sister often change her mind after saying something. She often open a discussion topic without prior preface, she often broadcasted a news that she just read/heard to me, assuming I am interested in listening to it without inquiring in advance whether I want to hear that. They will face a problem with XXXJ because of that tendency to change their mind rather easily after confirming something that they are going to do only to cancel it near the deadline. My mother says that what she craves is other listen to her opinion.
Their word are hard to be held. They can easily make up their mind.
An ESFP.
Extroverted sensation-introverted feeler usually have some psychological aptitude in sports like what you are. Some of them may be a professional sportsman also.
The introverted judging will be helpful with a reflex movement, a movement of the body without prior plan.
A suitable career will be an artist, television journalist, a teacher/lecturer, if you have a degree in psychology and want to apply the knowledge into practice, consider a head hunter, a real estate broker also a good career.
You are also interested in psychology that you decided to take a degree in that field. If you like to study psychology in psychological sense like Freud, Jung, it will be good to develop the Te-Ni.
It is hard to type sensors based on their writing, since they frequently do not naturally express themselves in writing. Extroverted sensors though writing will be best if they tell others about their own stories.
Your OP says you want to be typed based on your cognitive functions, so I've waited a couple days to make a post in this thread.
Just so you know, the forum-famous type model that says that INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se, and INTPs are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe — and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common! — is the Harold Grant function stack, and besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And for good reason, since unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.
More generally, above and beyond the specific stack issues, the faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" themselves represent what James Reynierse — in a series of articles in the journal published by the official MBTI folks — has rightly called a "category mistake."
Believe it or not, it's the dichotomies, and not the "cognitive functions," that are, and always have been, what's real about the MBTI — and if you're open to some deprogramming in that department, I'd recommend that you take a look at these three posts:
(The third post replaces the old INTJforum link at the end of the first post.)
Just based on your OP, I've got a pretty strong IN lean, and a weaker INTP lean. In case you'd be interested — and only if you're interested — in a boatload of type-me-related input from me, you'll find it in a 10-post series that starts here. Those posts include a separate section on each of the four MBTI dimensions, roundups of online profiles for each of the 16 types, and a brief intro to Neuroticism — not to mention a provocative discussion of that perennial puzzler, "can I haz INTx?"
I'll say again what I've said already. I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors).
For anyone not aware of the myriad times I've mentioned it, that means that my writing and thought processes tend to shift into different modes, in the order (usually) of Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
I'll say again what I've said already. I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors).
For anyone not aware of the myriad times I've mentioned it, that means that my writing and thought processes tend to shift into different modes, in the order (usually) of Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common.
Are you comfortable in their company, Legion?
And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun — internal and external both, and including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments — the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools.
Believe it or not, nobody's ever found a single blessed Si-vs.-Se thing where the SJs and NPs favored Si and the SPs and NJs favored Se.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ni-vs.-Ne thing where the NJs and SPs favored Ni and the NPs and SJs favored Ne.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Fi-vs.-Fe thing where the FPs and TJs favored Fi and the FJs and TPs favored Fe.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ti-vs.-Te thing where the TPs and FJs favored Ti and the TJs and FPs favored Te.
And at this point, I think we can be pretty confident that nobody ever will find any of those things, because those "tandem"-based groupings are natives of the same mythical realm as the unicorns and the munchkins — and the Capricorns.
And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common.
Are you comfortable in their company, Legion?
And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun — internal and external both, and including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments — the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools.
Believe it or not, nobody's ever found a single blessed Si-vs.-Se thing where the SJs and NPs favored Si and the SPs and NJs favored Se.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ni-vs.-Ne thing where the NJs and SPs favored Ni and the NPs and SJs favored Ne.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Fi-vs.-Fe thing where the FPs and TJs favored Fi and the FJs and TPs favored Fe.
And nobody's ever found a single blessed Ti-vs.-Te thing where the TPs and FJs favored Ti and the TJs and FPs favored Te.
And at this point, I think we can be pretty confident that nobody ever will find any of those things, because those "tandem"-based groupings are natives of the same mythical realm as the unicorns and the munchkins — and the Capricorns.
Those studies base things on test scores. Test scores are not that good and no where near all there is to type.
You don't know everything about typology. You can call me delusional all you want, and refuse to believe it until there's "proof in the data!!!" but you're wrong, and when it is shown in the data that you were wrong, you'll know that you could have been right if you had just listened and not thought your own personal survey of the data was somehow a proof of what was (or in your opinion, was not) there.
Seriously, your approach is highly limited, and you would do well to acknowledge that what you're saying is just one way of looking at things, and that others can look at things and see something totally different than what you're seeing. But so far you're just repeating the same limited perspective over and over, without acknowledging other approaches.
--
There is such a thing as perception, and yes the conclusions drawn from perception can be erroneous, but if you're going to point to error as a conclusive demonstration that perception cannot be trusted, then nothing you say about the data can be trusted either, because that's your take on it. But your demonstration was not at all conclusive, and if I'm being honest about the insight I believe I've drawn, I can in fact make conclusive statements about the nature - at least in part - of type.
If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. But I'm not demanding that you do that, you're welcome to camp out in your little corner of the typology world. What I would like is for you to have more insight in recognising that the arguments you've come up with are not actually foolproof, and do not demonstrate what you're saying they do. Just... be more open-minded, be more... accepting of truths that you don't understand.
Oh, and for the record, I suspect that astrology actually does have a fair degree of truth to it, though I haven't investigated the topic much. Other people forming opinions on a shaky basis doesn't mean that I've done so as well.
You're undermining the very venture of truth-seeking by suggesting that it's not something that can be comprehended directly. I suppose mathematical proofs are meaningless too, because even though many mathematicians thought the logic was solid, other people believe in astrology, so the proof is irrelevant, and we just can't know. Unless there's a study showing it, though of course we'll forget that interpreting a study to determine what it is saying also requires being able to "see" what it is suggesting.
--
And in case I get called out for hypocrisy, here's a little scenario:
Say two people are looking for something to see if it's real.
Person A searches in area 1 and doesn't find it. Person B searches in area 2 and finds it.
If one person didn't find it, and another found it, is it real?
--
A: "I searched and didn't find it, it's not real."
B: "I searched and found it, so it is real."
A: "But other people said they found something and it turned out that they didn't."
B: "But other people still said they found something and really did. You can come to area 2 and see it if you want."
A: "No, I've already looked in area 1 and it wasn't there, and area 2 is going to take too much effort to get to. I doubt it's even there."
B: "Well, you can't know that unless you look where it is, but just wait, when others come, they'll tell you all about it..."
If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. But I'm not demanding that you do that, you're welcome to camp out in your little corner of the typology world.
Yikes. Talk about white is black and black is white.
I'm not the one basing my assertions on a "little corner of the typology world." That would be you, Legion, telling us that you believe in the tertiary Ti of INFJs because you've "quite clearly been able to see [it] in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven."
And on the other hand, I'm basing my assertions not on any perception of mine, but on the fact that not a single HaroldGrantian anywhere has ever come up with any respectable body of correlational data that shows that TJs and FPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in TPs and FJs (or vice versa), or that SJs and NPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in SPs and NJs (or vice versa).
You suggest that "test scores" may be to blame for the lack of HaroldGrantian correlations, because they're "not that good" — but scores on the MBTI have been good enough to not only provide the basis for countless (often dramatic) correlations with all four dichotomies, but also provide the basis for significant correlations with virtually every two-dichotomy combination.
SJs have things in common, and so do NPs. But they're different things. And in fact, if the SJs are the foursome with the strongest tendency of any particular kind (resistance to change, say), you can reliably expect that flipping both preferences will get you to the foursome with the opposite tendency (in this example, hunger for change).
If we all sense and intuit, and if, when they're in sensing mode, SJs and NPs both favor introverted sensing —as distinguished from the Se-favoring types (SPs and NJs) — then where oh where are the data pools where which kind of sensing you favor is the primary influence on the correlations, and the SJs and NPs are on one side of the spectrum, and the SPs and NJs are on the other?
They're nowhere, Legion. And they're always going to be nowhere.
If there was any significant validity to the HaroldGrantian function axes, its followers would have a lot more solid supporting evidence to point to at this point than the testimony of forum posters who say you just have to trust me, man, I can see those patterns in my writing.
Poor OP just wanted to know her type and got the full load of functions vs dichotomies instead On that topic, cognitive functions and especially the idea of a fixed function stack seems to have little to no evidence to support that model. The only way to still support the function model is to question the testing method, which does happen quite frequently here. The alternative is to "study the functions", which may result in installing a perception filter into your brain, which scans all thoughts and behavior for compatibility with a specific function.
However, from a different perspective, the functions seem to work quite well for a lot of MBTI enthusiasts. WHile test results are typically still off, the overall pattern fits quite well into the dichotomous result, and for them the conclusion that functions=type is indeed correct. A part of the reason why I'm sceptical is that function tests don't seem to get any pattern that is similar to a Grant or Beebe stack, and things generally don't make much sense. However dichotomies don't do a great job either, as I'm close to the middle in 3 of the scales.
Back to OP: My impression is quite different from both of reckful and typologyenthusiast. I mostly see balanced introversion/extroversion, a small preference for concrete results over abstraction, a slight preferene for thinking over feeling, you really don't talk about people, relationships or emotions at all, beside of the stuff you do with your friends. J/P is also at a good balance, you're spontaneous but you also have plans for the future and you don't really seem disorganized. My guess is ESTj, but I recommend to also look at ESTP, ISTJ and ISTP, and overall you seem to have a well balanced personality without strong tendencies towards either side. Functions wise, there may be some Te, Si influence and a strong tertiary Ne
DISCLAIMER: This is going to be a long post about theorical Jung, but its a worthy one. It will get way less audience than it deserves sadly...
Im going to be off topic here, but I promise Ill make a compensation for the OP by typing into another post. Please MODs, dont move my post or either move my post with all [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] posts altogether.
I was reading Chapter X, I believe, from CG Jung book, from this online source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
I slept and this thread come in my mind and I couldnt help but hunt it. I was thinking about this discussion of [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION], but its not about the discussion itself, but how this discussion is done. I am going to talk about it, although it doesnt seem that I do talk about that from a beggining.
From where I start?
Jung I-E and J-P.
As I covered in this post: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...tive-functions-preferences-5.html#post3172492
(post #50 in case the link doesnt go right to my post)
Jung I-E, the I-E used in cognitive functions, doesnt correlate with MBTI I-E.
Jung I-E is quite complicated and widely discussed in whole Jung's work, its really impossible to resume it without losing it traits. However, as a brief resume of my own, Jung switches between using the word extraverted with objective and introverted with subjective. The E in Jung is greater understood, considering its disconnection with MBTI E, as an objective attitude, while the I in Jung is greater understood as subjective attitude. Its better understood and resume as wikipedia meaning for objective and subjectivity:
- Objectivity (philosophy), the property of being independent from perception.
- Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view.
Jung resuming himself from other chapters are on the spoiler, in case you reader (or could I say the reader? When I say you reader, Im being subjective with you reading me, while when I say the reader Im objective towards you) needs to get this more deeply.
Jung Objective (extraverted) Type description towards the consciousness
B. The Extraverted Type
In our descriptions of this and the following type it will be necessary, in the interest of lucid and comprehensive presentation, to discriminate between the conscious and unconscious psychology. Let us first lend our minds to a description of the phenomena of consciousness.
(1)THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him ; yet we see that this may be the case in a way that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become hardened finds this unnecessary; one man admires the new tenor because all the world admires him, another withholds his approbation not because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable; one submits to [p. 417] a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact. Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions. Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity, not of course without a struggle; which, however, always ends in favour of the objective determinant. His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. But it comes to him from without, only because that is where he expects it. All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude. Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment. Not [p. 418] only persons, but things, seize and rivet his interest. His actions, therefore, are also governed by the influence of persons and things. They are directly related to objective data and determinations, and are, as it were, exhaustively explainable on these grounds. Extraverted action is recognizably related to objective conditions. In so far it is not purely reactive to environmental stimuli, it character is constantly applicable to the actual circumstances, and it finds adequate and appropriate play within the limits of the objective situation. It has no serious tendency to transcend these bounds. The same holdsgood for interest: objective occurrences have a well-nigh inexhaustible charm, so that in the normal course the extravert's interest makes no other claims.
The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral view-point. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed. It might almost seem, although it, is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by objective factors would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of objectively given, facts is the normal one under all circumstances. Objective conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such con certainly conforms to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but, in relation to the universally valid laws of life. He is, in common with his milieu, in an abnormal position. The individual may, however, thrive in such surroundings [p. 419] but only to the point when he, together with his whole milieu, is destroyed for transgressing the universal laws of life. He must inevitably participate in this downfall with the same completeness as he was previously adjusted to the objectively valid situation. He is adjusted, but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. (Once more I would point to Spitteler's Epimetheus). Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type. On the one hand, the extravert owes his normality to his ability to fit into existing conditions with relative ease. He naturally pretends to nothing more than the satisfaction of existing objective possibilities, applying himself, for instance, to the calling which offers sound prospective possibilities in the actual situation in time and place. He tries to do or to make just what his milieu momentarily needs and expects from him, and abstains from every innovation that is not entirely obvious, or that in any way exceeds the expectation of those around him. But on the other hand, his normality must also depend essentially upon whether the extravert takes into account the actuality of his subjective needs and requirements; and this is just his weak point, for the tendency of his type has such a strong outward direction that even the most obvious of all subjective facts, namely the condition of his own body, may quite easily receive inadequate consideration. The body is not sufficiently objective or 'external,' so that the satisfaction of simple elementary requirements which are indispensable to physical well-being are no longer given their place. The body accordingly suffers, to say nothing of the soul. Although, as a rule, the extravert takes small note of [p. 420] this latter circumstance, his intimate domestic circle perceives it all the more keenly. His loss of equilibrium is perceived by himself only when abnormal bodily sensations make themselves felt.
These tangible facts he cannot ignore. It is natural he should regard them as concrete and 'objective', since for his mentality there exists only this and nothing more -- in himself. In others he at once sees "imagination" at work. A too extraverted attitude may actually become so regardless of the subject that the latter is entirely sacrificed to so-called objective claims; to the demands, for instance, of a continually extending business, because orders lie claiming one's attention or because profitable possibilities are constantly being opened up which must instantly be seized.
Hysteria is, in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type. The classical example of hysteria is always characterized by an exaggerated rapport with the members of his circle, and a frankly imitatory accommodation to surrounding conditions. A constant tendency to appeal for interest and to produce impressions upon his milieu is a basic trait of the hysterical nature. A correlate to this is his proverbial suggestibility, his pliability to another person's influence. Unmistakable extraversion comes out in the communicativeness of the hysteric, which occasionally leads to the divulging of purely phantastic contents; whence arises the reproach of the hysterical lie.
To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the side of the unconscious, which manifests its opposition to the extravagant extraversion in the form of physical disorders, whereupon an introversion of psychic energy becomes unavoidable. Through this reaction of the unconscious, another category of symptoms arises which have a more introverted character. A morbid intensification of phantasy activity belongs primarily to this category. From this general characterization of the extraverted attitude, let us now turn to a description of the modifications, which the basic psychological functions undergo as a result of this attitude. [p. 422]
Jung Subjective (introverted) Type description towards the consciousness
C. THE INTROVERTED TYPE
(I) THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
As I have already explained in section A (1) of the present chapter, the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors. In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation. Naturally, this is a special case, mentioned by way of [p. 472] example, and merely intended to serve as a simple illustration. But now we must go in quest of more general formulations.
Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. Two persons, for example, see the same object, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference, both in kind and degree, in the psychic assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers pre-eminently to that which reaches him from the object, the introvert principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates [sic] in the subject. In an individual case of apperception, the difference may, of course, be very delicate, but in the total psychological economy it is extremely noticeable, especially in the form of a reservation of the ego. Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert. We must not forget-although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so-that all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was unassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it [p. 473] would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
The same holds good for all the psychic functions: they have a subject which is just as indispensable as the object. It is characteristic of our present extraverted valuation that the word 'subjective' occasionally rings almost like a reproach or blemish; but in every case the epithet 'merely subjective' means a dangerous weapon of offence, destined for that daring head, that is not unceasingly convinced of the unconditioned superiority of the object. We must, therefore, be quite clear as to what meaning the term 'subjective' carries in this investigation. As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact. Now, in so far as the subjective factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself -- since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same -- it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially changeless reality [p. 474] would be altogether inconceivable, and any understanding with posterity would be a matter of impossibility. Thus far, therefore, the subjective factor is something that is just as much a fact as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. Thus far, also, the subjective factor claims the whole value of a world-determining power which can never, under any circumstances, be excluded from our calculations. It is the other world-law, and the man who is based upon it has a foundation just as secure, permanent, and valid, as the man who relies upon the object But, just as the object and objective data remain by no means always the same, inasmuch as they are both perishable and subject to chance, the subjective factor is similarly liable to variability and individual hazard. Hence its value is also merely relative. The excessive development of the introverted standpoint in consciousness, for instance, does not lead to a better or sounder application of the subjective factor, but to an artificial subjectification of consciousness, which can hardly escape the reproach 'merely subjective'. For, as a countertendency to this morbid subjectification, there ensues a desubjectification of consciousness in the form of an exaggerated extraverted attitude which richly deserves Weininger's description "misautic". Inasmuch as the introverted attitude is based upon a universally present, extremely real, and absolutely indispensable condition of psychological adaptation, such expressions as 'philautic', 'egocentric', and the like are both objectionable and out of place, since they foster the prejudice that it is invariably a question of the beloved ego. Nothing could be more absurd than such an assumption. Yet one is continually meeting it when examining the judgments of the extravert upon the introvert. Not, of course, that I wish to ascribe such an error to individual extraverts; it is rather the present generally accepted extraverted view which is by no means restricted to the extraverted [p. 475] type; for it finds just as many representatives in the ranks of the other type, albeit very much against its own interest. The reproach of being untrue to his own kind is justly levelled at the latter, whereas, this, at least, can never be charged against the former.
The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever present subjective factor. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness. Were the ego identical with the Self, it would be unthinkable that we should be able to appear in dreams in entirely different forms and with entirely different meanings. But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which, moreover, is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, that he tends to confuse his ego with the Self, and to exalt his ego to the position of subject of the psychological process, thus effecting that morbid subjectification of consciousness, mentioned above, which so alienates him from the object.
The psychological structure is the same. Semon has termed it 'mneme',[2] whereas I call it the 'collective unconscious'. The individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures, and, therefore, a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process, which is born anew in every creature. Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting [p. 476] has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the archetype. This term embraces the same idea as is contained in 'primordial image' (an expression borrowed from Jakob Burckhardt), and as such I have described it in Chapter xi of this book. I must here refer the reader to that chapter, in particular to the definition of 'image'.
The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object-incorrectly, at bottom-since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He reaches the unavoidable conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or a fantastic doctrinaire. Recently he seems to have reached the conclusion that the introvert is constantly influenced by an unconscious power-complex. The introvert unquestionably exposes himself to this prejudice; for it cannot be denied that his definite and highly generalized mode of expression, which apparently excludes every other view from the outset, lends a certain countenance to [p. 477] this extraverted opinion. Furthermore, the very decisiveness and inflexibility of the subjective judgment, which is superordinated to all objective data, is alone sufficient to create the impression of a strong egocentricity. The introvert usually lacks the right argument in presence of this prejudice; for he is just as unaware of the unconscious, though thoroughly sound presuppositions of his subjective judgment, as he is of his subjective perceptions. In harmony with the style of the times, he looks without, instead of behind his own consciousness for the answer. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of a more or less complete unconscious identity of the ego with the Self, whereupon the importance of the Self is reduced to nil, while the ego becomes inflated beyond reason. The undeniable, world-determining power of the subjective factor then becomes concentrated in the ego, developing an immoderate power claim and a downright foolish egocentricity. Every psychology which reduces the nature of man to unconscious power instinct springs from this foundation. For example, Nietzsche's many faults in taste owe their existence to this subjectification of consciousness.
Jung subjectiveness and objectiveness is a dichotomy dimension on its own. Do you have objective data on your own to prove that? In scientific rigorous, no, but I dont have anything against it too. I only have the modest experiment topic on that, that indicates that, but it is not rigorous enough. So, this is me being a little subjective on my theory, and many could complain about this. But Jung subjectiveness (Jung I) and objectiveness (Jung E) doesnt correlate with any other MBTI dichotomy dimensions (actually, there is very likely one or two slightly undesirable interferences which Im not going to talk about in this post, anyone can ask me later about that). Its a dimension on its own
Im phrasing here in a way that the reader can follow any or none cognitive function stack, it doesnt matter if you follow Ni-Fe-Ti-Se or Ni-Fi-Fe-Te or none of that, just INFJ. One could say, although "But a Ni-dom is always subjective, because Ni is a subjective function". Thats correct only if the subject personality is a pure type.
Jung said:
In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice.[Right at the start of 11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions]
Jung pure types arent realistic - Jung states that. Thats why being a Ni-dom doesnt auto-imply at being subjective. As I phrased here, I wish that you understand this concept can be seem as a dichotomy on its own (and Im oscilating between refering to you as 'you' or 'the reader' hoping that you catch the subjectivity and objectivity pattern in my communication). You dont need to work towards cognitive functions, although the reader could use one of my own formulas to understand it (Jung I/E which is S/O, subjective/objective, would be measured by the sum of the subjective/introverted cognitive functions minus the sum of objective/extroverted cognitive functions).
Having this cleared up, lets go to the second part: Jung J/P. Although I didnt have any measure of it, Jung J/P seems to be different than MBTI J/P. I asked about that yesterday: Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?
Jung J/P is conceived as rational/irrational. There are rational types, and these are Jung judgers, and there are irrational types, and these are Jung perceveirs. Jung does not address rational/irrational directly on that chapter. It is important to first note that Jung rational/irrational is different than wikipedia and common rational/irrational. Jung irrational is not about being emotive, while Jung rational is not about being rational opposed to emoctions. Jung rational/irrational doesnt correlate at all with emotions. Common sense irrationality is described as being bad, Jung irrationality is just a matter of preference. In a short resume, for Jung, a rational type is a person which guides him/herself with a judging cognitive function (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti), if a pure type. If not a pure type, a long discussion can start, but mainly should, at least in my opinion, follow the formula (Fe+Fi+Te+Ti>Ne+Ni+Se+Si). However, we can state that on a dichotomy sense, which is the point of view which I prefer the reader to follow, that a rational person does decisions towards the T/F MBTI dimension, while the irrational person does decisions towards MBTI N/S dimension. I dindt oscilate between rational/irrational towards this subject because it would be confusing, but here are text examples:
- In my own perception, Fi is kind of a confusing and mythical cognitive function. Sometimes it seems to judge people, while sometimes it seems to clearly forgive them with compassion. It sounds to me so confusing in this point, what is Fi exactly? [this is irrational form of text, oscilating between subjective in the first line, objective in the second and subjective on the third line]
- To Jung perspective frame, Fi is a judging function, while for Myers perspection frame, Fi is a perceveing function. In this point, this feels confusing and may confuse to anyone reading the concepts. Considering these theorical frames, what is FI exactly [this is the rational form of text, being objective in the first line, subjective in the second line, and coming back to objective on the third line]
Just in case you reader (mixed subjective and objectivity here on purpose) havent noticed, Fi is a perceveing judging function. Its perceveing on Myers and judging (rational) on Jung.
So, just remembering, try to understand, at least for now, as rational/irrational and objective/subjective as independent dichotomys on their own and not a manifestation of cognitive functions. If you use that view, the text of Jung becomes quite different. Jung use this dichotomy to create a 4 type categorization: The extraverted (objective) rationals, the extraverted (subjective) irrationals, introverted (subjective) rationals, introverted (subjective) irrationals. Jung describes all these 4 categories as a recapitulation: He first describes two pure types first, and then recapitulates the two together by connecting them using one of these 4 categories. Im going to pick my own yin and yang here (in no bad/good meaning of yin and yang). My yin is an extraverted(objective) rational, while my yang is an introverted(subjective) irrational. Im going to put the description of these two categories without spoilers, and the other two ones inside the spoilers.
5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types
I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment. But we must not overlook the point, whether by 'reasoning' we are referring to the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology, or to the standpoint of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. For such an observer could easily arrive at an opposite judgment, especially if he has a merely intuitive apprehension of the behaviour of the observed, and judges accordingly. In its totality, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to behaviour, without any concern for the domestic interior of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and accidental character of certain unconscious manifestations in the individual's behaviour than of the reasonableness of his conscious purposes and motivations. I, therefore, base my judgment upon what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore. This circumstance aggravates the difficulty of a lucid presentation of psychological matters to a degree not to be underestimated, and immeasurably increases the possibility of misunderstandings. The discussions which develop from these misunderstandings are, as a rule, quite hopeless, since the real issue is never joined, each side speaking, as it were, in a different tongue. Such experience is merely one reason the more for basing my presentation upon the subjective conscious psychology of the individual, since there, at least, one has a definite objective footing, which completely [p. 454] drops away the moment we try to ground psychological principles upon the unconscious. For the observed, in this case, could undertake no kind of co-operation, because there is nothing of which he is not more informed than his own unconscious. The judgment would entirely devolve upon the observer -- a certain guarantee that its basis would be his own individual psychology, which would infallibly be imposed upon the observed. To my mind, this is the case in the psychologies both of Freud and of Adler. The individual is completely at the mercy of the arbitrary discretion of his observing critic -- which can never be the case when the conscious psychology of the observed is accepted as the basis. After all, he is the only competent judge, since he alone knows his own motives.
The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions. I will try to make clear what I mean by these latter concepts in the sections that follow. At all events, that which happens to this type is irrational (from their own standpoint of course). Now, since there are vast numbers of men whose lives consist in what happens to them more than in actions resulting from reasoned intention, it might conceivably happen, that such a man, after careful analysis, would describe both our types as irrational. We must grant him, however, that only too often a man's unconscious makes a far stronger impression upon one than his conscious, and that his actions often have considerably more weight and meaning than his reasoned motivations.
The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such. But reason is also very largely subjective and individual. In our case this share is repressed -- increasingly so, in fact, the more the significance of the object is exalted, Both the subject and subjective reason, therefore, are always threatened with repression and, when it descends, they fall under the tyranny of the unconscious, which in this case possesses most unpleasant qualities. We have already spoken of its thinking. But, in addition, there are primitive sensations, which reveal themselves in compulsive forms, as, for instance, an abnormal compulsive pleasure seeking in every conceivable direction ; there are also primitive intuitions, which can become a positive torture to the individuals concerned, not to mention their entourage. Everything disagreeable and painful, everything disgusting, [p. 456] ugly, and evil is scented out or suspected, and these as a rule only correspond with half-truths, than which nothing is more calculated to create misunderstandings of the most poisonous kind. The powerful influence of the opposing unconscious contents necessarily brings about a frequent interruption of the rational conscious government, namely, a striking subservience to the element of chance, so that, either by virtue of their sensational value or unconscious significance, accidental happenings acquire a compelling influence.
10. Recapitulation of Introverted Irrational Types
The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.
From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within. These types are admittedly one sided demonstrations of Nature, but they are an educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day. In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. Their life teaches more than their words. From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method. A child certainly allows himself to be impressed by the grand talk of its parents. But is it really imagined that the child is thereby educated? Actually it is the parents' lives that educate the child -- what they add thereto by word and gesture at best serves only to confuse him. The same holds good for the teacher. But we have such a belief in method that, if only the method be good, the practice of it seems to hallow the teacher. An inferior [p. 513] man is never. a good teacher. But he can conceal his injurious inferiority, which secretly poisons the pupil, behind an excellent method or, an equally brilliant intellectual capacity. Naturally the pupil of riper years desires nothing better than the knowledge of useful methods, because he is already defeated by the general attitude, which believes in the victorious method. He has already learnt that the emptiest head, correctly echoing a method, is the best pupil. His whole environment not only urges but exemplifies the doctrine that all success and happiness are external, and that only the right method is needed to attain the haven of one's desires. Or is the life of his religious instructor likely to demonstrate that happiness which radiates from the treasure of the inner vision? The irrational introverted types are certainly no instructors of a more complete humanity. They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility, in which our civilization is so deplorably wanting.
10. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence. But, since the unconscious, in spite of its separation from the conscious subject, is always reappearing on the scene, the actual life of the irrational types exhibits striking judgments and acts of choice, which take the form of apparent sophistries, cold-hearted criticisms, and an apparently purposeful [p. 469] selection of persons and situations. These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive, stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous. To the rationally orientated mind, the real character of such people might well appear rationalistic and purposeful in the bad sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and, therefore, quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely orientated by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to the rational judgment. Finally, it may even appear to a rationally orientated mind that such an assemblage of accidentals, hardly deserves the name 'psychology.' The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational; for he sees him as something only half alive, whose only aim in life consists in fastening the fetters of reason upon everything living, and wringing his own neck with criticisms. Naturally, these are gross extremes; but they occur.
From the standpoint of the rational type, the irrational might easily be represented as a rational of inferior quality; namely, when he is apprehended in the light of what happens to him. For what happens to him is not the accidental-in that he is master-but, in its stead, he is overtaken by rational judgment and rational aims. This fact is hardly comprehensible to the rational mind, but its unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational, when he discovers someone who can set the ideas of reason above the living and actual event. Such a thing seems scarcely credible to him. It is, as a rule, quite hopeless to look to him for any recognition of principles in this direction, since a rational understanding is just as unknown and, in fact, tiresome to him as the idea of making a contract, without mutual discussion and obligations, appears unthinkable to the rational type. [p. 470]
This point brings me to the problem of the psychic relation between the representatives of the different types. Following the terminology of the French school of hypnotists, the psychic relation among the more modern psychiatrists is termed I 'rapport'. Rapport chiefly consists in a feeling of actual accord, in spite of recognised differences. In fact, the recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord. If we make this feeling conscious to a rather high degree in an actual case, we discover that it has not merely the quality of a feeling that cannot be analysed further, but it also has the nature of an insight or cognitional content, representing the point of agreement in a conceptual form. This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition. The rational would say that rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance. If, by some accident, the objective situations are exactly in tune, something like a human relationship takes place, but nobody can tell what will be either its validity or its duration. To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees a humanity of quite singular beauty. Accordingly each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. Although a psychological conscientiousness of [p. 471] this kind is by no means usual, yet it frequently happens that, notwithstanding an absolute difference of standpoint, a kind of rapport does take place, and in the following way. The one assumes with unspoken projection that the other is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings.
Psychic relationship, in the extraverted attitude, is always regulated by objective factors and outer determinants. What a man is within has never any decisive significance. For our present-day culture the extraverted attitude is the governing principle in the problem of human relationship; naturally, the introverted principle occurs, but it is still the exception, and has to appeal to the tolerance of the age.
5. Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types
Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data. But the predominance of one or other factor, conditioned by a psychic disposition often existing from early youth, deflects the reasoning function. For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible. A rational type has always a typical reasonal variation. Thus, the introverted rational types unquestionably have a reasoning judgment, only it is a judgment whose leading note is subjective. The laws of logic are not necessarily deflected, since its onesidedness lies in the premise. The premise is the predominance of the subjective factor existing beneath every conclusion and colouring every judgment. Its superior value as compared with the objective factor is self-evident from the beginning. As already stated, it is not just a question of value bestowed, but of a natural disposition existing before all rational valuation. Hence, to the introvert rational judgment necessarily appears to have many nuances which differentiate it from that of the extravert. Thus, to the introvert, to mention the most general instance, that chain of reasoning which leads to the subjective factor appears rather more reasonable than that which leads to the object. This difference, which in the individual case is practically insignificant, indeed almost unnoticeable, effects unbridgeable oppositions in the gross; these are the more irritating, the less we are aware of the minimal standpoint displacement produced by the psychological premise in the individual case. A [p. 497] capital error regularly creeps in here, for one labours to prove a fallacy in the conclusion, instead of realizing the difference of the psychological premise. Such a realization is a difficult matter for every rational type, since it undermines the apparent, absolute validity of his own principle, and delivers him over to its antithesis, which certainly amounts to a catastrophe.
Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling. In so far as he is a convinced participator in the general style, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible, is opposed to his principle. Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin. Little wonder, therefore, that it is precisely our epoch, and particularly those movements which are somewhat ahead of the time, that reveal the subjective factor in every kind of exaggerated, crude and grotesque form of expression. I refer to the art of the present day.
The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and [p. 498] protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert. Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judment of 'egoist' would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by its general efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.
What happens in my first looking at my own registred stats is that, although there is generally a clear preference on Jung subjectiveness and objectiveness, people are usually ambivalent on the rational/irrational. And there are even Jung reasons for that, but Im already being way too long so I wont explain that. So, usually we dont see extremes, so its kind of difficult seeing these dimensions and all this theorical thing at real life at a first glance. Except here, in this special topic, where you can see these dimensions clashing each other beautifully. Reckful is my yin at his way of communication: He is the objective rational. Legion is my yang: Subjective irrational at communication. (communication is E in MBTI, although some MBTI texts doesnt recognize writing texts and discussing on text as a E activity).
Im tired since it has been more than an hour im writing this. Because of that Im not going to fully point out everything on their discussion, I could do a complete analysis, but Ill fruitpick parts and try to show the big picture here.
It would be even more beautiful if Reckful and Legion were from the exactly same type, they share 3 dimensions (as today Reckful type is INTJ as written down on his own avatar and Legion type is INFJ), I wish it was four. Reckful rationality in communication come mainly from T dimension (prefering an objective approach instead of a subjective approach on Thinking. Its Thinking only, not T/F dimension). Legion irrationality(dont understand irrationality as a bad or offense, but with the same neutrality of Jung definitions) come mainly from N dimension (prefering a subjective approach instead of an objective approach on iNtuition). That is because, rationality has to come from MBTI T/F dimension while irrationality has to come from MBTI N/S dimension. If Reckful "was a F", his (both are males, I hope) ratinality would come from F while if Legion "was a T", irrationaly would still be coming from intuition.
How do I know that Reckful is my yin and Legion is my Yang? Well, at this point you reader should already noticed. Try re-reading their discussion after you read me from this point, and all of the pattern should be visible (correction: Reckful is mostly objective rational while Legion is mostly subjective irrational. There is one passage that Legion is objective rational. Things arent that black and white and thats why its complicated and this discussion here is one of the most black and white on these two dimensions thats why my fascination here). But if is still unclear, its time for fruitpicking:
Reckful: "And for good reason, since unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, the Grant function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and should probably be considered all but disproven at this point."
Legion (right after): "I have quite clearly been able to see function sequences in my writing, and thought processes, so to me it's essentially proven (but with some complicating factors)."
CG Jung: "The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact."
Jung quote come when he is describing the extraverted type, and this is how Reckful objectiveness and Legion subjectiveness clash and conflict between each other.
Reckful: "And for umpteen years, scores of believers in zodiac-based types have claimed to "quite clearly be able to see" (to use your words) the many aspects of personality that, e.g., Capricorns have in common."
CG Jung: "From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men."
In somewhere I remember but couldnt find, CG Jung talks about the objectiveness rejection to other subjectiveness point of view.
Reckful: "And the reason I think believers in the "tertiary Si" of INFPs belong in the same company as believers in the zodiac is that in over 50 years of MBTI data-gathering, correlating the types with everything under the sun"
CG Jung: "I term the two preceding types [pure Fe and Te doms] rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment."
Reckful: "the correlational patterns associated with Harold Grant's "function axes" have never shown up in any non-random number of data pools."
CG Jung: "The rationality of both types [pure Fe and Te doms] is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such."
Legion: "But so far you're just repeating the same limited perspective over and over, without acknowledging other approaches.
"
Me: Both of you are!
Legion: "There is such a thing as perception, and yes the conclusions drawn from perception can be erroneous, but if you're going to point to error as a conclusive demonstration that perception cannot be trusted, then nothing you say about the data can be trusted either, because that's your take on it."
Me: In the then nothing you say... Jung states something as that but I lost that quote on the sea of text.
Legion: "If you make an honest attempt to try and see the manifestation of functions, it's possible that you'll be able to see it too. (...) You're undermining the very venture of truth-seeking"
CG Jung: "Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. (...) The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. (...) Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating..."
Me: Subjective venture of truth-seeking is based on personal experiences, whereas objective venture of truth-seeking is based on data (or correlational data on this case). The attempt to try and see so you will be able to see it too, is guided through perception, meaning that its irrational (Jung concept of irrational, which has nothing to do with being sentimental!)
Legion: "Say two people are looking for something to see if it's real.
Person A searches in area 1 and doesn't find it. Person B searches in area 2 and finds it.
If one person didn't find it, and another found it, is it real?"
Me: I could find a hundred Jung quotes to this one. This is the entire manifestation of subjectiveness, and Im not saying that is good or bad.
Reckful: "And on the other hand, I'm basing my assertions not on any perception of mine, but on the fact that not a single HaroldGrantian anywhere has ever come up with any respectable body of correlational data that shows that TJs and FPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in TPs and FJs (or vice versa), or that SJs and NPs both tend to exhibit one or more aspects of personality that tend not to show up in SPs and NJs (or vice versa)."
CG Jung: " Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. (...) His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. "
Me: Perception-of-mine (irrational-of-subjective) versus facts-of-theworld (rational-of-objective) is the whole thing beautifully going on here.
Reckful: "They're nowhere, Legion. And they're always going to be nowhere."
Me: They are nowhere on the facts-of-theworld, but they do exist in the subjective perception (of Legion, and he is inviting you to explore that; Im not stating that you should take, you know). I just quoted that to make a complement on my last comment.
And finally:
Reckful: "its followers would have a lot more solid supporting evidence to point to at this point than the testimony of forum posters who say you just have to trust me, man, I can see those patterns in my writing."
Me: Solid supporting (solid=rational, supporting=objective) versus 'those patterns in my writing' (subjective).
Mr 3788 (@noname3788) is way more neutral. For example:
3788: "The only way to still support the function model is to question the testing method, which does happen quite frequently here. [objective-rational phrase] The alternative is to "study the functions", which may result in installing a perception filter into your brain, which scans all thoughts and behavior for compatibility with a specific function. [subjective-irrational phrase"
Finally, after a little bit more than two hours, I have my final saying.
This knowledge really can help us understand each other - as MBTI somehow do it. I love that, how much you can understand someone using these concepts, understanding why legion or reckful act like that, state like that. I like this mutual understanding and I hope you reader catch that. Its good when we understand others.. Im tired and I cant really do the right words on this final passage, but this understanding is as beautiful as it is, I just dont have words. And I really like this knowledge, and I hope you reader is being able to fly beyond all this chaos with me, like a spyplane flighting stealthly above in the middle of a war, to peacefully fly over understanding almost everything (ok, i still got some doubts, and there are the interferences which I didnt talk about).
PS: I am a lot like reckful on my communication (from my last two cognitive function tests I am neither objective nor subjective, but I have been consistently being prefer rational over irrational), however I am a lot open on my views too. I already re-arranged things not only in my own but in a loose way to support someone to subjectively have a Grant Stack at the same time that people, usually, objectively dont.
I kind of got confused on your text... Also, your topic is not on the proper place, there is a "whats my type" subforum. But here we go...
1. Kind of Ne/Ni.
2. Lack of Si (SJ Si).
3. Cant say much.
4. You could be ambiverted OR you could be introverted in Jung/Myers and extroverted in Jung/Myers. The type me text tends to be full of subjectivity so its kind of hard to tell if you are I/E in Jung.
5. Se but it is weak.
6. Te? Or Ti?
7. Fe and lack of Fe, sounds confusing, I miss this one lol.
8. Ne
9. Ne or Ni, weakly?
10. -Si +Ne
11. Ne and Ti
12. Not cognitive function related at all, I think.
13. Ne and Ti again
14. Not cognitive function related at all, I think. Unless if you are a ENFJ/ESFJ.
15. I miss the train of thought here..
16. Thats dichotomy points for P, as far as I knwo there is not a specific cognitive function for being messy.
17. Fi?
18. +Ne - Si again.
19. Same as 18
20. Ti followed by Te.
You want explanations? Well, thats quite complicated, but here goes.
I see a lot of -Si, or basic not really a lack of Si, but rather a repulse for Si. Which means that you cant really be neither Si-dom or aux, and, since this is Myers Si Im talking about and not original Jung Si, it auto-implys that you are not SJ, but that doesnt really imply that you are NP.
I see a lot of Ne. Your Ne moments are on those which you may not wonder the reason of life (thats more Ni than Ne actually), but you may wonder about how you could change MBTI to be more accurate, cans and coulds. At least in my opinion, Ne is more close to openess to experience than with intuition itself. Your diverse activites suggest a good play of Ne on your life, so I would say that Ne plays a good role in your life.
I see Ti over Te, barely no Fi and no Fe at all.
Ti>Te, Ne significant, no Fe and no Si at all, gives me INTP or ENTP. I would say XNTP.
But Im fear Im wrong since your file says ISFP.
When there is a display of both intuition and sensing ISFP is a good guess, since ISFP is the intuitive sensor (not only by internet but by my own measures).