• 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.

Jung's Function Attitudes Explained - Henry Thompson

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
6a00d834526c3e69e201116866e19d970c-320wi
 

William K

Uniqueorn
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
986
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Well, you could read the pdf that Jag posted once before (I don't remember in which thread) by Thompson titled "The Evolution of Function-Attitudes" if you want a point-form summary of some of the things in his book.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, you could read the pdf that Jag posted once before (I don't remember in which thread) by Thompson titled "The Evolution of Function-Attitudes" if you want a point-form summary of some of the things in his book.

I can't get the link to work, but a copy of that paper is on High Performing Systems, Inc. :: Leadership Solutions for the 21st Century. It is not a point form summary of what is in the book at all. If you google it, you can find it.

One of his more recent articles though:

www.hpsys.com/PDFs/Type and Reductionism 2006.pdf

Which is pretty interesting. One quote:

"For the most part, reductionism can be viewed as a linear approach in that it assumes that if a system is dissected into smaller and smaller parts we will be able to understand how the system works. Although the process sounds good in principle, it does not work with “complex systems.” Systems, as defined here, are greater than the sum of their parts. For example, if you have a light bulb, a battery and a piece of wire lying on the table, that is all you have. But, if you organize those “parts” in a certain structure, you have a light bulb, battery, piece of wire and light (as well as other parts that are beyond this discussion). The key is that when you reduce (dissect) a system into its parts, some of them disappear, e.g., separate the wire and battery and the light is gone.
A system is a purposive organization of interdependent parts which interact in such a manner as to form a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.
As we discuss components of psychological Type, we are engaging in reductionism"

.
 
Top