• 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.

What MBTI type was Carl Jung

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Some have posited that Jung was a "pure type":

In the MBTI, all types are purposely treated as if the first and second functions of individuals NECESSARILY have opposite directions. This is because those who have designed the instrument believe that pure types will lack a necessary balance between introversion and extraversion, and this will be less healthy. 1

Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -

Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: they are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary. To live happily and effectively in both worlds, people need a BALANCING auxiliary that will make it possible to adapt in both directions -to the world around them and to their inner selves.
This theoretical bias in the MBTI is so strong, and has become so deeply embedded in how the system operates and is understood, that we would venture to guess that most MBTI practitioners never learned about the possibility of 'pure type' in the first place. Or, if they had, they surely no longer give much consideration to how the profiles of pure types may differ from profiles of the others. Even those who once were aware of the distinction come to forget, over time, about the possibility of 'pure' types. As we have shown elsewhere, this accounts for an interesting contemporary confusion about the personality type of Jung himself. Although one camp argues that he was an INTP (ie, Jungian IT) and the other argues that he was INTJ (Jungian IN), both remain unaware - because they are caught up in MBTI assumptions - of the fact that Jung was, ironically, himself a 'pure' type. A person who had introverted thinking and introverted intuition as his first two functions (with the former as dominant at some points in his career, and the latter dominant at other times), Jung was one 'pure' or 'extreme' type who not only lived 'effectively', but also made an extremely significant contribution.

Which could explain why people see him as an INTP or INTJ. The existence of "pure types" would explain people like my partner, who clearly seems to favor Ti and Si... without much Fe (just a smidgen) or Fi (almost none) to speak of. In my partner's case, this seems to make him extremely introverted and even less practical than I am as an INFP (as hard as that is to believe).
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
I'm surprised and find it ironic that there is no consensus.

You know with Jung being the forefather of all this... it might seem an important matter to have resolved.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Lol, pure types. That sounds lame. We already have Jesus and Optimus Prime. Rooms full.
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
Lol, pure types. That sounds lame. We already have Jesus and Optimus Prime. Rooms full.

Agreed. What a load of rubbish.

All this theory is going to people's heads. They need to get out there in the real world and start using MBTI.

All that matters is typing ability in terms of utility. If you can't type people correctly or have no real world skill, then I'm not interested in debating theory with you that may or may not match reality.
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
Speaking of matching reality to theory:

"Neuroscience and Jung’s Model of the Psyche: A Close Fit"
http://iaap.org/congresses/barcelon...nd-jungs-model-of-the-psyche-a-close-fit.html


Furthermore if anyone believes "Only an individual can type themselves correctly" please let me know so I can add to ignore list because you are clearly deluded then. Myers Briggs, while creating a superb system, were simply dead wrong on this point.

Our psychology is derived from evolutionary mechanism. Mixture of diverse cognitives within a tribe gives it greater strength than a monoculture tribe. Also specialization lead to neurological differentiation.

In other words, our personality type is independent of our assessment of our personality type. It is also independent of competing psychological models. (Big 5, Sociionics, MBTI, KTS etc)

Just as science tries to model reality, the most accurate model wins. Eg Einstein's GR (General Relativity) improved on Newton's models.

In my view MBTI with a solid understanding of Jungian cognitives is the best (most accurate) system at the moment.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Agreed. What a load of rubbish.

All this theory is going to people's heads. They need to get out there in the real world and start using MBTI.

All that matters is typing ability in terms of utility. If you can't type people correctly or have no real world skill, then I'm not interested in debating theory with you that may or may not match reality.

I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.

This I can understand. I'm just knocking the idea of pure types. People already have enough psychological excuses for their messiah complexes. Masterminds, Indigo Children, Idiot Savants, Assburgers. So I'm going to be a hater and deny them the Pure Type.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
the conflict is between people who insist on immediate judgment, who believe that a theory is a definition of itself and that you "understand" it, when you know the theory, because you have read all about it and other people who check with reality and try to understand reality (like how people's minds work) feel that a theory is just a map of reality and its either wrong or right, based on whether it's in harmony with reality. the former think that the function table of the MBTI defines what P means in the mbti, that would be extroverted perception, either as dominant or as secondary function ... they just believe it. the latter look for example at people who naturally (without prior knowledge about typology) score P and find that these are the irrational types who are actually 'dominated' by a either introverted or extroverted perceptive function (as evident to someone who can SEE functions in people, using theory of mind and reality based understanding of what functions are, as opposed to someone who just looks out for superficial symptoms), which leads to the conclusion that the mbti function table is wrong, meaning the mbti tests/results and its cognitive theory/function table are twisted against each other for the introverted types and in fact the introverted mbti types (meaning the test results) are identical to those of socionics or jung, ie ISFP is ISFp is SEI is SiFe until individuals are "taught" false self images on message boards, then test results will begin to differ in many ways ..
 

five

New member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
141
MBTI Type
ZZZZ
Enneagram
5w6
I know it will sound silly, but I'm an extremely good typer. It's easier than you might expect: most people end up forming close relationship with their socionics (Jung) dual type. If you can type yourself correctly, you can quickly determine your own relation to towards the cognitive functions of another person; if you check out their social sphere you might see that either it's full of their duals, or not. If the second option is correct, then you need to start over with relationship-typing, and so on.

Eh, tbh it would be weird if I really sucked at typing. I've been familiar with Jung since 2004, so only an idiot wouldn't be able to apply such knowledge after 7 years.

If Socionics is respected and used a lot around here (typologycentral), then I'm out the door, because Socionics is a load of crap. It's not as well correlated with reality as MBTI is.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If Socionics is respected and used a lot around here (typologycentral), then I'm out the door, because Socionics is a load of crap. It's not as well correlated with reality as MBTI is.

Yeah, this is primarily a Socionics forum. *snicker*
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
the conflict is between people who insist on immediate judgment, who believe that a theory is a definition of itself and that you "understand" it, when you know the theory, because you have read all about it and other people who check with reality and try to understand reality (like how people's minds work) feel that a theory is just a map of reality and its either wrong or right, based on whether it's in harmony with reality. the former think that the function table of the MBTI defines what P means in the mbti, that would be extroverted perception, either as dominant or as secondary function ... they just believe it. the latter look for example at people who naturally (without prior knowledge about typology) score P and find that these are the irrational types who are actually 'dominated' by a either introverted or extroverted perceptive function (as evident to someone who can SEE functions in people, using theory of mind and reality based understanding of what functions are, as opposed to someone who just looks out for superficial symptoms), which leads to the conclusion that the mbti function table is wrong, meaning the mbti tests/results and its cognitive theory/function table are twisted against each other for the introverted types and in fact the introverted mbti types (meaning the test results) are identical to those of socionics or jung, ie ISFP is ISFp is SEI is SiFe until individuals are "taught" false self images on message boards, then test results will begin to differ in many ways ..

Yes, exactly, agree 100%.

If Socionics is respected and used a lot around here (typologycentral), then I'm out the door, because Socionics is a load of crap. It's not as well correlated with reality as MBTI is.

Then your perception of reality must be skewed.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Mapping people like Jung did is usually a Ti talent. I can feel the craving cry within me, the logical beast that cries to be unleashed and to put whole of humanity into 16 boxes...

usually people who think like that have no clue about boolean logic and electronics cause otherwise they'ld now how impossible it is to synthesize human logic
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Furthermore if anyone believes "Only an individual can type themselves correctly" please let me know so I can add to ignore list because you are clearly deluded then. Myers Briggs, while creating a superb system, were simply dead wrong on this point.

In other words, our personality type is independent of our assessment of our personality type.

Of course a person still has a personality type even if they haven't evaluated it. But do you think mind reading at this point is going to be 100% correct?

People already have enough psychological excuses for their messiah complexes. Masterminds, Indigo Children, Idiot Savants, Assburgers.

:rolleyes: These are categories, not complexes. The "pure type" is just another category, which just needs a better name because of the annoying associations with the word "pure"

I don't know if Jung was an actual "pure type," but he was probably very introverted thinking.

based on like every INTP I know and have ever known they wouldn't be bothered to categorize people they'd of just led a happy life of being them with no weird systematic creations.

The INTPs you know don't like making systems? Really? :thelook:
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Whats with the Hitler avatars ? You guys make me sit tightly every three seconds -.-
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
let's make this thread into an argument about hitlers type. you know it has to happen.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Oh not again, the old hitler thread already reached 88 pages *hidden sign in this post for inter-german-secret-communication* :p
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
These are categories, not complexes. The "pure type" is just another category, which just needs a better name because of the annoying associations with the word "pure"

It's not about the word pure to me so much as encourages unique snowflake-ness. Someone who is at a level of psychological completeness compared to the rest of the human race. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - If it was about experience or putting work into it. Except, this isn't about experience, but an idea that champions being intrinsically complete via Type and birthright.. or what have you.

As for Jung, he himself had a lot of views on this. Except it was more about the angle I'm getting to. He talked about the ultimate goal being one of Individuation, integrating all of our differing traits.. but he also said it was something attained in old age, at best. So it's about experience.
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]: since when does snowflakeness mean being more psychologically complete?
 
Top