What MBTI type was Carl Jung

[Eric B]

Well what I'm saying is if you translate Jung's meaning of a function being conscious, in your language, this would most likely translate to it being differentiated by the ego-complex/Hero to you. So I'm (as far as I can tell) actually talking of the same thing you are -- differentiated by a complex.

Probably what you were referring to in what I was saying is when I keep bringing up a function being deployed true to its own principle -- that's what I meant by it being deployed of its own principle/not repressed by another. Roughly translated, this in Jung's world but your language corresponds to a function being differentiated by the ego, because when he (short form) said differentiated, without further qualifier, I believe he meant by the ego -- it being the center of consciousness in his view.

The question on the table, if we get on board with your idea that a complex--besides the ego-- can differentiate a function(-attitude) is whether the *secondary function* is differentiated by the ego-complex or by something else (e.g. the Parent), OR if that question has a conditional answer.

I would strongly guess the most consistent reading of Jung is he'd say the thing in italics, if he got on board with the slight extension of his language/theory. The reason being his two uses of the word "conscious" function. In his world, the more important use (at least in Psychological Types) appeared to correspond to the case where the aux is differentiated (though never fully--this I think corresponds to your quoted cautionary remark) by the ego, not by some other complex, and thus it's no surprise he thought of it being in the same attitude as the dom.

I'm sure I win a medal in thoroughly convoluting, but my point is actually very clear and simple to me at least. Sorry if it's hard to read.

Again, I think the answer to that, is as the person I was discussing it with put it, “The products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, provided they are linked to the ego's operating charter” (which is the dominant). Which means, my dominant individual-focused true/false judgment system will access intuitive products (implications, patterns, etc.) apart from the “Parent” complex. The Parent complex will just take some of those implications, namely the ones extracted from the objects or environment, and then put them forth (to self or others) as possible ways of seeing a situation.

Perhaps it can be seen as like primarily looking east. West, south, north, up and down are still implicit in your line of sight, even though you're not looking in them directly. They are still there, though you're not entirely conscious of them. The first one will simply be the reverse of the direction we're looking and the others will be at right angles, and you can only see into the [increasingly distant] parts of them that lie near the line of sight.
This will be different from actually turning in one of those other directions. You could think of this act of looking in a new direction as being like one of the other complexes.

 

[GavinElster]

Again, I think the anser to that, is as the person I was discussing it with put it, “The products of undifferentiated functions are perfectly capable of reaching consciousness, provided they are linked to the ego's operating charter”

That's a good way of looking at, e.g., how the products of even the inferior (4th function) can become conscious, although we basically know Jung distinguishes the products becoming conscious from the principle of the function being conscious (the latter being true in case of dominant), and the question is whether the aux demands saying any more than what you've said here--even if the others, like the tert or inferior, are covered by what you say here. The relevant line is basically this

The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.

But basically, continuing on, we still have this tension to square:

The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function

OK, so far, this is to your point, right??? But leave it to ol' Jung to make our lives difficult:

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect

That is, after paragraphs of referring to the secondary as just relatively unconscious we have that he refers to the dom-aux pair as the conscious functions, squaring an "intuitive feeling" attitude against that of a "practical intellect."
I think there is no denying this is just a nightmare for the readers, not something we can be blamed for puzzling over. But it doesn't seem to be an accident at all, so it does seem to be worth thinking about.


Basically, what I'm saying is that, while what the person you were discussing with was not wrong, the case of the auxiliary seems to warrant saying more, either to say Jung is wrong, or to explain what he meant. I have basically no doubt that this sort of line of Jung is consequential in why he seemed, in Psychological Types, to take the view of Nietzsche as having strong introverted intuition+introverted thinking. I think he'd have said the dominant attitude of Nietzsche was an "intuitive intellect" colored by introversion.

Please do let me know if I missed something big here, but I guess it seemed to me so far, your explanations don't distinguish much, if at all, in how specially you treat the auxiliary, compared to the other non-dominant/as you'd say undifferentiated functions?
That is, it's just one other guy, differentiated by the Parent, just like the inferior is by the Anima/us.
The idea is that, by definition of auxiliary, it should have a very special relation to the dominant!!!



If you'd like my hazard at a resolution that's coming to mind now, maybe what we want to say here is that

- there's really just one conscious function, notwithstanding Jung's use of language
- possibly what he really was going for was something like the function-TYPE in normal cases is actually describable best by two functions, not one. Because the type is a model of the general attitude, which tends to be covered by a dom-aux pair, rather than just the dominant.

In some sense, maybe we can think one will decide to go northwest or southeast most likely, not north or south. But, maybe the idea is that how one decides what direction to go is driven by one function or another. So if you start with thinking, it will in practice most likely require you to adopt a thinking-intuitive or thinking-sensation attitude to get anywhere, because otherwise there's purely rational functioning with no "data."
But, one's aims may still be characterized by thinking, even if one's direction of travel to get to those is thinking-intuitive.

 

[Eric B]

the case of the auxiliary seems to warrant saying more, either to say Jung is wrong, or to explain what he meant.

If you'd like my hazard at a resolution that's coming to mind now, maybe what we want to say here is that

- there's really just one conscious function, notwithstanding Jung's use of language
- possibly what he really was going for was something like the function-TYPE in normal cases is actually describable best by two functions, not one. Because the type is a model of the general attitude, which tends to be covered by a dom-aux pair, rather than just the dominant.

I would say that Jung is not perfect, and while not outright wrong, he was very unclear or ambiguous at times, and also apparently even changing or modifying certain things. So we can't read too much into stuff he says (like evidence of a contradiction between only the dominant being conscious, or the dominant and auxiliary.
That's why others like Grant, Beebe, etc. had to pick up where he left off and fill in the loose ends of his theory.

So it seems the extended Beebe model, where different complexes associate with all eight function-attitudes for each type, builds upon his notion that the dominant is the truly differentiated function, and it would cover the auxiliary also being pretty strong and seeming differentiated, where it can be considered part of an extended "type". That's what seems to work best, to me, in understanding and explaining type dynamics.

 

[GavinElster]

and it would cover the auxiliary also being pretty strong and seeming differentiated,

OK, I'm most likely just forgetting when you explained this, but how does the Beebe model explain this about the auxiliary?
That is, how is the aux not just another thing attached to just another complex -- how does it account for it seeming differentiated?

I would say that Jung is not perfect, and while not outright wrong, he was very unclear or ambiguous at times, and also apparently even changing or modifying certain things. So we can't read too much into stuff he says (like evidence of a contradiction between only the dominant being conscious, or the dominant and auxiliary.

First off -- of course we can change Jung. I have no problem with that. I'm very against orthodoxy -- and that applies to Beebe, socionics, etc too. I want the coolest interpretation until a new one seems cooler.
That said, I find it a good exercise just to unravel what Jung was thinking, because it seems like he had a lot of the right ideas, even if he didn't develop them out fully.

Anyway, basically, read just as saying he used "conscious" in two different ways, it's not such a big deal to nitpick. But I think the problem is his meaning in multiple places confirms he really took seriously this idea that the secondary alllllmost seems like the dominant (as does von Franz when she literally says you might have to look to the inferior function to tell which is dominant -- the dom or aux). Examples include giving Nietzsche as an example of an introverted thinking type (contrast between Cuvier+Nietzsche is stronger than between Darwin and Kant)....or just his/von Franz's willingness to treat someone with secondary thinking as if they're a thinking type.
Or just the very fact he'd think of allowing Nietzsche's thinking to be introverted -- clearly seems to me to suggest he thought thinking took on the attitude of consciousness, because it's (while not fully conscious) closer to conscious than not.

Or even this quote that I'm sure you're familiar with

As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious

That's again placing the auxiliary closer to on the same footing as the dominant, even if not fully, than saying it's just another function controlled by complexes besides the ego complex.
This language suggests the same thing as before -- seeing thinking/sensation as conscious, intuition/feeling unconscious

I guess even analyzing Jung's view on complexes/consciousness, it appears like Jung thought some were more related to consciousness/the ego than others.

Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego

That is, it would appear he thought some complexes were "connected with the ego" and others were less so -- I'd imagine he would, IF he jumped on board the Beebe train, view the auxiliary as controlled by a complex which is as close as possible to "bound up directly with the ego"/"connected with the ego" without actually being the ego-complex.

Is the Parent somehow bound up with Hero?

 

[Eric B]

The auxiliary is connected with the Parent, and by the very nature of that archetype (it's about support, and balancing the ego), it will be second strongest, and thus boost the associated function to a prominent place.

As I mentioned a bit before, Psychological Types is a collection of Jung's writing spanning a length of time. So he may have changed his view on some things between the different chapters.
Can you give the quote in ch. III about Nietzsche being both Ni and Ti? (Want to see the context and the exact way he put it).

 

[GavinElster]

Can you give the quote in ch. III about Nietzsche being both Ni and Ti? (Want to see the context and the exact way he put it).

OK, I'll try to find it at some point, thing is I don't currently have a copy of the full book on me (it used to be online, I think), but the wording purely from memory is roughly that Nietzsche is an intuitive with leanings towards introversion, and that his introverted intellectual side shows itself in Nietzsche's more aphoristic writings. Later he of course makes clear that intuition ranked about intellect, so it's clear N>T -- I think (again purely memory) in contrast to Schopenhauer where thinking>intuition. Obviously to anyone with any big familiarity with Psychological Types, Jung called the thinking function "the intellect" often.

In Ch. X, then, Jung more or less tells us Nietzsche is an introverted thinking type (in contrasting with Cuvier). But this isn't so surprising as, like I've said, von Franz and Jung didn't seem opposed loosely to calling an aux-thinking person a "thinking type" -- in line probably with viewing the top TWO (not just one) as conscious functions (in a sense at least).

But basically believe me when I say I'm pretty darn sure these are Jung ACTUALLY thinking of Nietzsche as both a Ni and Ti function-type, and that it's not explicable as just a trick of wording.

One should not be threatened by this -- it's OK to theorize apart from Jung (heck, obviously you see me doing that in how I type myself). But I'm mostly sure one can't wriggle out of this interpretation....and of course Beebe himself acknowledges many consider the dom/aux in opposite attitudes things heretical, so it isn't surprising that there's probably basis in the orthodoxy for the same-attitude view. And as you say, Jung's not above vague wording or even changing his mind (as he obviously did on his own type from sensation to intuition).



But!! It will interest you to note that in the Zarathustra seminar, Jung says Nietzsche's auxiliary is overall unconscious -- around the time he says Nietzsche basically just used intuition for a time.

 

[GavinElster]

On a different note, maybe could you say more on this:

and by the very nature of that archetype (it's about support, and balancing the ego)

Meaning in what way is the archetype about support and balancing the ego?? I see how Parent-Tertiary form a pair and Hero-Anima might be a pair, but what about Parent relates to balancing Hero?

 

[Eric B]

I see this page: Jung identified Nietzsche as both INTJ and I-TP | CelebrityTypes addresses the pertinent Jung statements (can't find ch. III anywhere, only X is up).
I wouldn't be so sure by that. He seems to emphasize intuition, and the onls evidences of Thinking are the highly ambiguous “intellect” and the parallel between the comparison of those other people, who were Ti vs Te. He never actually says Nietzsche is a “thinking” introvert. The was he can be so ambiguous in his terminology, you can't really go by something like this but so much.

As for the Parent, support is an integral part of the “parent” archetype, so that's what the complex that associateswith the auxiliary does. Part of this “support” is balancing the ego's standpoint. If the ego makes judgments, then those judgments need to be 'informed' by percetive data to begin with. If the ego perceives, it needs some rational grounding to direct the incoming data. If the ego turns inward, it also needs input from the real world environment, and if it turns outward, it also needs some grounding from within.
So the Parent complex is what provides this balance (which then usually gets passed on to others, hence “parenting” them).

 

[GavinElster]

I wouldn't be so sure by that. He seems to emphasize intuition, and the onls evidences of Thinking are the highly ambiguous “intellect” and the parallel between the comparison of those other people, who were Ti vs Te. He never actually says Nietzsche is a “thinking” introvert.

Jung generally refers to the thinking function interchangeably as "the intellect" in Psychological Types, it's not just in one location. That may not be a term you'd use for it, and there I sympathize, but there is no question what he meant by it. I'd agree Jung is vague on many other points, of course, just this does not seem to be one of them.

As for the attitude of thinking, you have two separate evidences for that: the fact that he refers, in the page you quoted, to the introverted intellectual side, and second, his view that Nietzsche vs Cuvier is a SHARPER example of Ti vs Te types than Kant vs Darwin.

Coupled with the fact that

a) in Psychological Types Jung, as you I think yourself agreed, thinks of the attitude as attached to CONSCIOUSNESS

b) Nietzsche clearly in Psychological Types AND even the Zarathustra seminar is explained overall to be an intuitive+thinking type with inferior feeling+sensation (even if there was a period he used intuition exclusively)

c) Jung tends to think of the top two functions as the "conscious functions," which would thus take on the attitude of consciousness as long as he's sticking to view a) (even if there's a sense the dom is the only absolutely conscious),

I really don't think it's surprising he would think of Nietzsche as a Ti type, in his appropriate sense. Now all this is very airy fairy, because for all we know, what he meant by the attitude of the auxiliary isn't the same as what you mean by it -- after all, you have no place in your current view for Jung's remark about two conscious functions yet, and maybe you'll decide Jung's thinking is better revised here.

All this doesn't mean he never changed his view since he wrote that, of course. But in a sense, I don't think any of this is surprising, as Beebe himself says his view of the attitude of the aux is "heretical" in many circles:

So we just sort of learned this in the most down-home natural way, and so, intuitive type, thinking type, feeling type, sensation type were absolute realities to all of us, and extravert, and introvert, and so forth. And then we had Wayne Detloff who was the man who first did the heretical thing of telling us that there was such a thing as a Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, and he was the one who told me something that I gather still is heretical in some circles, but not in the circles I travel in and create for myself, that if the superior function is extraverted, then the auxiliary function is introverted. If the superior function is introverted, the auxiliary is extraverted. And I know that there are many people who still resist the idea, but I am absolutely enamored of it, and I can usually prove how it is true of them, even against their resistance.

 

[Eric B]

Still not totally convinced. I think intellect could also refer to intuition (both N and T can be described as “in the head”, while S and F are about aesthetics). Is it possible he wavered and used the term to refer to N in that instance (or perhaps N and T together, like Keirsey calling the group “the Rational”)? Especially since he clearly says intuition several times in the same breath?

And the comparison to others, he didn't say “sharper example OF Ti VS Te”, he just draws a comparison of attitude. But if he's really saying Nietzsche is SO MUCH of a Ti dom. after emphasizing Ni so much, then he obviously changed his view, and I would not take this as any sort of consistent typology, to sas he was actually BOTH Ni and Ti. (This, again, is why others had to come later and complete and refine his theory. It was obviously not complete, or totally coherent, in itself. I always hearh he abandoned it later on, and let's not forget his allowance of “ambiversion” somewhere.
Also, if his auxiliary was weak, then NiTi would point ti INFJ. I don't know enough about Nietzsche to say otherwise or not. Though a tertiary would still not sound like a “sharper example” of Ti).

 

[GavinElster]

I think intellect could also refer to intuition (both N and T can be described as “in the head”,

Look, these are plausible interpretations by the modern lingo. Sure, in our modern post-MBTI/socionics world, I agree with you that N is intellectual in the appropriate sense. But Jung in his lingo very consistently refers to "the intellect" interchangeably with the thinking function.

But if he's really saying Nietzsche is SO MUCH of a Ti dom.

He is not saying he's a Ti-DOM, actually, he's just saying Nietzsche is an example of an introverted thinking type (and also, he's not just comparing attitude, Darwin vs Kant is his example of extraverted thinking vs introverted thinking -- not extraversion vs introversion -- so when he says the contrast is stronger in this case, he really does mean between those two things).

This would make sense to us if we're familiar with the fact that even von Franz is willing to refer to someone with secondary thinking as a thinking type, in line with Jung, in his own sense, viewing the aux/dom as "the conscious functions"!
That is, even if he made a huge fuss about only one being absolutely sovereign, in practice he tends (as in his diagnosis of himself as a natural scientist with thinking/sensation) to view the top two as conscious/ the bottom two as unconscious.

He's definitely not pulling a schizophrenic move and changing his mind from Ch. III to Ch. X haha (not that I'd put it past him, but in this case, no reason to think so for me)

 

[GavinElster]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]: here, I found a way to set your mind totally at ease, if anything will, on this (although to be honest, let me say that this wasn't necessary/my analysis above stands on its own -- but requires more uber-obsessive familiarity with Jung's peculiar language use, something I claim to have quite a lot of, not just a thoughtful understanding of the ideas, which you no doubt have/which honestly is probably more "useful"....)


You are familiar that Ch. XI is where Jung sets straight his definitions? Here, Jung literally defines intellect as directed thinking, which corresponds to active thinking (i.e. conscious, not unconscious, thinking).

Thinking

This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (v. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective

Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking

Intellect

I call directed thinking (q.v.), intellect.

I don't think these quotes are necessary, like I said, as my previous post's justification stands on its own, because in pre-Ch. X Psychological Types, it's true beyond reasonable doubt that Jung calls the thinking function--especially in its developed, not unconscious, form, as you saw-- "the intellect," but in case you needed to see this to further dispel doubt.


And let me emphasize that none of this is saying if he was right, just that he had a definite view. I think it is expected rather than not to see some subtle clashes between Jung's original thoughts and the Beebe school, but that just means we have to sharpen the argument for how to think about these ideas, not that we need to automatically adhere to Jung.

 

[Eric B]

[I see now you added another post, since I started to respond to the previous one]:

Look, these are plausible interpretations by the modern lingo. Sure, in our modern post-MBTI/socionics world, I agree with you that N is intellectual in the appropriate sense. But Jung in his lingo very consistently refers to "the intellect" interchangeably with the thinking function.


He is not saying he's a Ti-DOM, actually, he's just saying Nietzsche is an example of an introverted thinking type (and also, he's not just comparing attitude, Darwin vs Kant is his example of extraverted thinking vs introverted thinking -- not extraversion vs introversion -- so when he says the contrast is stronger in this case, he really does mean between those two things).

This would make sense to us if we're familiar with the fact that even von Franz is willing to refer to someone with secondary thinking as a thinking type, in line with Jung, in his own sense, viewing the aux/dom as "the conscious functions"!
That is, even if he made a huge fuss about only one being absolutely sovereign, in practice he tends (as in his diagnosis of himself as a natural scientist with thinking/sensation) to view the top two as conscious/ the bottom two as unconscious.

He's definitely not pulling a schizophrenic move and changing his mind from Ch. III to Ch. X haha (not that I'd put it past him, but in this case, no reason to think so for me)

Well, "sharper example" is something that sounds to me like it would be pointing to the dominant, though that is really not a strong point.
But also, does he say Cuvier is an extraverted Thinking type? If you allow him to refer tot he auxiliary as the type, then suppose he was referring to Nietzsche as the extraverted Thinker? (which then would not contradict dom. Ni, if an INTJ). And again, there's also the INFJ (tertiary) possibility.

Still, in any case, since he's not clear, and not even always consistent (recall, he did change on the "who/what bears the attitude" point, as well as ambiversion, etc.) I'll say again, I wouldn't build a whole "doctrine" of "NiTi types" on this. Experience also seems to support it, as I'm not NiTi; my iNtuition is clearly extraverted. Or you're saying it can be either. Again, an NiTi is an INFJ (Who for whatever reason might not be 'displaying' typical "Feeling" behavior; especially the NFJ who is "directive" in communication, which might look more like "T" toughness).

 

[GavinElster]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] haha, it's good you're checking all the angles on this, anyway, let's do it: well apart from the "introverted intellectual side" part about Nietzsche, the Cuvier/Nietzsche example is given as follows

The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

The order is

objective factor vs subjective factor

Darwin vs Kant

Cuvier vs Nietzsche

Pretty sure those two points together make it very unlikely that he's saying Cuvier is the Ti of the two, whilst Nietzsche the Te of the two.

Well, "sharper example" is something that sounds to me like it would be pointing to the dominant

I think he was just meaning Nietzsche's thinking is more introverted compared to Cuvier's thinking than is Kant's thinking function introverted compared to Darwin's own.

The thing is on average, Jung seems to be perfectly happy treating the dom/aux on a similar footing in these kinds of contexts and many others, so I don't think he was really thinking about thinking being either dominant vs auxiliary in Nietzsche in this particular context: for all practical purposes, he was just saying Nietzsche is a Ti type (he's also a Ni type), and he's just even more severely a Ti type

 

[GavinElster]

I'll say again, I wouldn't build a whole "doctrine" of "NiTi types"

Now as I've said many times, I don't hold to EITHER Beebe or Jung as "doctrine" -- I more or less have my own ideas on psychological type inspired by many of these people. I'm just getting what Jung said straight for the purposes of a horribly nitpicky exercise -- and that includes when Jung was too vague to be interpreted one way or another vs when his meaning is unmistakable (even if one thinks it is a wrong conclusion)

Ultimately, neither Beebe's nor Jung's theory is self-evident. We have to discuss, and make up our own minds.

 

[PurpleDawn]

I'd say Ni - Ti, so INFJ

 

[Pionart]

That's his tertiary Ti.

So many people saying INFJ that I figure I must be wrong there... it would explain why I like reading his works so much.

 

[Mole]

So many people saying INFJ that I figure I must be wrong there... it would explain why I like reading his works so much.

Jung reinforces psychopathology while Freud brings us back to painful reality. No wonder you like reading Jung so much and do not attend psychotherapy.

 

[Pionart]

and do not attend psychotherapy.

This stings. I've been trying for years to receive adequate psychotherapy but it's difficult for me to get it. It's not out of choice.

 

[VILLANELLE]

I think it's funny to type one of the people who created this whole system, or another method on it. Like, it's kind of ironic? Lol.

He allegedly typed himself as INTP and ISTP.

The BBC Interview, Face to Face, aired 1959, with transcript published in C.G. Jung Speaking, Princeton University Press, 1987:

I most certainly was characterized by Thinking … and I had a great deal of Intuition, too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. … I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for diagnosis. [pp. 435-6]

(From CelebrityTypes -- I use that website a lot.)