What MBTI type was Carl Jung

[527468]

His type in his system was very likely the Introverted Intuitive, more than the others. If you want to convert that to MBTI, then perhaps Ni. However going by dichotomies/functions of MBTI is a different story than Jung's own stuff. I think I, N, and T he made plenty obvious for us. So it's a matter of if he's an INTP or INTJ imo.

 

[ICUP]

The guy is ISTP... he SAID he was. I don't know why that's so difficult for people to understand.
As much as people around here think N is the way to be, I commonly see N's being so ridiculously unreasonable, it's amazing.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The guy is ISTP... he SAID he was. I don't know why that's so difficult for people to understand.

OH MY, Little Bunny. You know not what you say. When did he say that pray tell?

 

[ICUP]

OH MY, Little Bunny. You know not what you say. When did he say that pray tell?

In Analytical Psychology, he pretty much laid it out.

 

[Mal12345]

OH MY, Little Bunny. You know not what you say. When did he say that pray tell?

Was it before or after they invented the MBTI?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

In Analytical Psychology, he pretty much laid it out.

He was INTP....and you could argue INTJ. If you wanted to. But not ISTP. Though you got the Ti dom right.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Was it before or after they invented the MBTI?

I'm making the executive interpretation between Jungian functions, his writing style, and MBTI. Like little bridges going across....

 

[ICUP]

He was INTP....and you could argue INTJ. If you wanted to. But not ISTP. Though you got the Ti dom right.

Go read Analytical Psychology.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Go read Analytical Psychology.

I read Pyschological Types. Pretty in depth, meaning I reviewed some sections over and over to glean every nuance of meaning if could. I think I got to know Jung's style pretty well.

 

[ICUP]

I read Pyschological Types. Pretty in depth.

That's not where he explains his own type.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

That's not where he explains his own type.

Lol. It's pretty obvious. To me anyway.

Rock on Bunny Person.

 

[ICUP]

Lol. It's pretty obvious. To me anyway.

Rock on Bunny Person.

Well, regardless, I think Carl Jung knows his own type better than any of you know his type, so I'm going to stick with what he said.
I'm sure inventing a type based on someone I have never met with limited knowledge, is a better guess than simply reading what the guy has to say about himself, and his own type.

 

[Zarathustra]

In Analytical Psychology, he pretty much laid it out.

Which I'm pretty sure that was published long before he gave this quote from the interview posted earlier in the thread (when he was 80+ yrs old), which suggests his sensing preference was not very strong...

You seem to have not ever dealt with this (highly damaging) criticism of your argument.

In fact, you seem to have not really considered many of the arguments made.

I'm not decided on what he is, but INFJ, ISTP, INTP, and INTJ would be my possibilities (and probably somewhere in that order).

As I said in my posts, he seems to me to be in some kind of a NiTi or TiNi loop, which would point to INFJ or ISTP.

As [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said, though, how you possibly square him being an ISTP with his saying, "I was often at variance with the reality of things" and "I had a great deal of intuition, too", I do not know. Both quotes, but especially the first, would seem to point to his not being an Se-aux...

 

[ICUP]

You seem to have not ever dealt with this (highly damaging) criticism of your argument.

In fact, you seem to have not really considered many of the arguments made.

I'm not decided on what he is, but INFJ, ISTP, INTP, and INTJ would be my possibilities (and probably somewhere in that order).

As I said in my posts, be most certainly seems to be in some kind of a NiTi or TiNi loop, which points to INFJ or ISTP.

As [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] said, though, how you possibly square him being an ISTP with his saying, "I'm often at variance with the reality of things", I do not know.

That quote would not seem to point to him being an Se-aux.

Like I said, I'm sure that he didn't know his own type, since he spent all of his time dealing with it, as a pro, and that somehow, a bunch of bloody amateurs on an internet forum suddenly know better. Hell, I know my own type and I'm nowhere near as good as he was.... I trust that he knew his own type. The information he gives later on in life also makes sense, from this perspective. There are writings on how we grow to become more evenly-balanced as we grow older. I am 50/50 P/J and 50/50 S/N already, and I'm only 41. I actually get INTJ in testing. So I trust that he was then detailing how he had changed as he grew older. This seems a lot more reasonable of an answer than him not knowing his own type initially, and I don't think Jung was unreasonable or dumb enough to mistype himself for more than an afternoon, a couple of weeks at the most. It took me about two weeks for my initial mbti type, a day for my enneagram type, and a week to type my instinctual variant. I think Jung was much more serious, a better observer, and obviously put more time in than I did.

 

[Zarathustra]

Like I said, I'm sure that he didn't know his own type, since he spent all of his time dealing with it, as a pro, and that somehow, a bunch of bloody amateurs on an internet forum suddenly know better. Hell, I know my own type and I'm nowhere near as good as he was.... I trust that he knew his own type. The information he gives later on in life also makes sense, from this perspective. There are writings on how we grow to become more evenly-balanced as we grow older. I am 50/50 P/J and 50/50 S/N already, and I'm only 41. I actually get INTJ in testing. So I trust that he was then detailing how he had changed as he grew older. This seems a lot more reasonable of an answer than him not knowing his own type initially, and I don't think Jung was unreasonable or dumb enough to mistype himself for more than an afternoon, a couple of weeks at the most. It took me about two weeks for my initial mbti type, a day for my enneagram type, and a week to type my instinctual variant. I think Jung was much more serious, a better observer, and obviously put more time in than I did.

No offense, but I don't think that's a strong argument. At all.

In fact, it doesn't deal with a bunch of arguments that were made before you ever posted in the thread (did you read them?).

Especially considering, as I noted before, when he was asked whether he knew what type he was, he responded, "Naturally, I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know..." (emphasis added). Obviously, based on his response, it was not an easy or painless of a question for him to figure out (as you imply that it was), as he spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to do so.

Also, do you know when this book was written? I have tracked down a number of publications of his with "Analytical Psychology" in the title, and have a number of possible dates, but the most seemingly relevant one is questionable, so I'm wondering if you could clarify specifically which one it is, when he wrote it, and when it was published.

And big deal that you're 50/50 P/J -- in most cases, that's a meaningless number anyway. The questions on tests that determine whether one is a P or a J are pretty ridiculous, when it really comes down to it -- as has been noted countless times on this forum.

I also want to add, and this is the first time I've ever discussed anything with you, so this really is not an observation about any discussion that has ever taken place between you and me, but what I have observed about how you argue with others, in general, but your entire method of argumentation in this thread really belies what Dario Nardi noted about Ti-doms in his research:

Ti types:
Least interested in listening...
ITPs are likely to quickly stop listening as they assess the relevance of what others are saying.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I like the explanation of him being extemely introverted. I think that TiNi or NiTi combo is not uncommon in great thinkers and results in the 'mad scientist'/'diabolical mastermind' archetypes.

Jung was in his 40's when he wrote the material for PT, etc. If he were INTP, or INTJ or INFJ, it would not be unreasonable at all for him to have become very adept with his auxiliary function in both attitudes, and since he preferred introversion, for that to mean a TiNi thrust to his thinking.

I personally find him to be so detail oriented, especially regarding definitions and the way he seems to focus in on the way something works, that I do not get an Ni dom feel from him, though I do see the Ni....And I think I would. I feel an Ni dom-ness to Nietzsche, for example. No, that is not 'scientific' but my personal opinion. Also, he has little regard for 'dominant irrationals.'

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, some of the things you said are why I could see him being a Ti-dom -- specifically the way he described things.

But, honestly, in the BBC interview he says something that it's hard for me to believe that any Ti-dom would say.

Honestly, what Ti-dom, when asked, "Do you believe there is a God?", says, "I don't believe. I know."

To me, that just sounds like something straight out of the mouth of an INFJ.

 

[ICUP]

No offense, but I don't think that's a strong argument. At all.

In fact, it doesn't deal with a bunch of arguments that were made before you ever posted in the thread (did you read them?).

Especially considering, as I noted before, when he was asked whether he knew what type he was, he responded, "Naturally, I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know..." (emphasis added). Obviously, based on his response, it was not an easy or painless of a question for him to figure out (as you imply that it was), as he spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to do so.

I also want to add, and this is the first time I've ever discussed anything with you, so this really is not an observation about any discussion that has ever taken place between you and me, but what I have observed about how you argue with others, in general, but your entire method of argumentation in this thread really belies what Dario Nardi noted about Ti-doms in his research:

Oh, I don't doubt that I am adhd'ish a bit......
I will look at the video, but I still think he knew his type just fine. I think he probably was very if-and-or-but in a lot of ways, like some of us can be, in that we see a new piece of information and then re-evaluate, especially since this was all obviously being written by him........

If he thinks he's a thinker and then a sensor, and has done enough work on it to write a book, I believe he knows what he is. He was no dummy. He had become highly-complicated by the point of Analytical Psychology.

I think it's a strong argument, in that, somehow you people think that by Analytical Psychology, he didn't know what he was. I think that's just absurd. Just because he questions and doubts constantly, does not mean he doesn't know. It just means he doubts. If he had spent so much time analyzing himself, as he says he has, then I'm sure he knew his own type by Analytical Psychology.

 

[Mal12345]

In Analytical Psychology, he pretty much laid it out.

What you will see laid out in Analytical Psychology is a description of the scientific method applied to psychology. He laid down hypotheses, conducted experiments, and observed the results...

But then what?

I have no problem with Jung playing scientist with people's minds. But something remarkable occurred in between observing the results of experiments and the theory that finalized the experiments. The data and observations did not form a theory by themselves. An original product has to come from the mind itself, so that's intuition.

 

[Zarathustra]

I will look at the video...

Your opinion is hereby meaningless.