• 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.

Jungian Function Webpage

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ego sees them as opposites, F is opposite of T, S is opposite of N and I is opposite of E. for example INTP would be able to easily see T and N in the ego even tho they are I/E opposites, because they arent opposite judgments, but J and P, so ego doesent try to repress these, instead it represses opposite judgment, Fe. the reason third is not as repressed by ego than fourth, is that aux doesent have so big of a role in ego(ego sees it less of self than dom), so ego doesent try to repress third as much. and because dom(Ti) is so much of ego 'self' it represses its opposite judgment(Fe) to much greater degree.

Bit naturally this isnt all this simple. because third also works as filter for fourth(like dom to aux), you need to also come conscious of fourth in order to filter it properly. if you dont know what you are filtering, you wont be able to filter it properly. this is why one jungian analyst wrote an essay about third being in the shadow of fourth to journal of analytical psychology.

This sort of mechanisms on the mind(according to jung) extend even out of typology. for example this reconciling third that emerges the union of the opposites(in typology of dom/inferior) can be seen as transference(sort of projection of patients unconscious towards analyst) in therapy sessions, where the opposites would be the patient and analyst. by analyzing this transference will tell about the patients unconscious and this can help the patient to realize more about the self(which is the goal in analytical psychology)

So nothing specific about displacement, just generalizations about function analysis.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's still funny to me how amateur typologists argue function usage with the tert function in the same orientation as the dominant function, when Jung believed himself that it was in the opposite orientation....It is an MBTI concept, adapted, basically blindly imo, by practitioners ever since.

And where does 'ego' come into play? Typology doesn't address ego directly. INTP, are you inventing this yourself? Not saying it's wrong, just that those Freudian terms weren't, to my mind, really brought into typology and aren't represented by it, strictly speaking. Jung speaks to 'differentiated' and 'undifferentiated' functions, and archetypes.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
So nothing specific about displacement, just generalizations about function analysis.

I dont think displacement is relevant to functions. you think it is? if so, how?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
It's still funny to me how amateur typologists argue function usage with the tert function in the same orientation as the dominant function, when Jung believed himself that it was in the opposite orientation....It is an MBTI concept, adapted, basically blindly imo, by practitioners ever since.

And where does 'ego' come into play? Typology doesn't address ego directly. INTP, are you inventing this yourself? Not saying it's wrong, just that those Freudian terms weren't, to my mind, really brought into typology and aren't represented by it, strictly speaking. Jung speaks to 'differentiated' and 'undifferentiated' functions, and archetypes.

Its funny when people say that in MBTI tert is same orientation as dom and jung thought different, when infact its the opposite. in MBTI tert is same orientation as aux and inferior. jung was quite vague about this leaving room for interpretation, in his earlier writing he hints that its same as in MBTI(thats why myers interpreted it that way), but in his later work he pretty much said that its same orientation as dom, still leaving bit for interpration. but the way he explained inferior and tert working together the same way as aux and dom, if you would read(and get) him, it would be pretty obvious. also this concrete function thing makes some people not well educated on the subject misunderstand what he says.

And when it comes to ego, im speaking about ego as jung defined, not freudian ego and functions have quite alot to do with it, its just that MBTI is lacking all the depth from typology, so its not mentioned in MBTI. ego is as important part of typology than unconscious is. but MBTI rarerily talks even about functions woeking unconsciously, but just talks of undeveloped functions and as if these functions didnt exist because you arent in control over them..

MBTI is like the easy mode, and you know, you never get good by playing the easy mode, no matter how much you play.

And no im not making this up, im just talking about this in more depth as jung said it works. also there are much much more to typology than just differentation and archetypes are totally unrelated to jungs typology, they are just part of beebean typology and word archetype in beebean term isnt even the same thing as in jungian psychology
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Its funny when people say that in MBTI tert is same orientation as dom and jung thought different, when infact its the opposite. in MBTI tert is same orientation as aux and inferior. jung was quite vague about this leaving room for interpretation, in his earlier writing he hints that its same as in MBTI(thats why myers interpreted it that way), but in his later work he pretty much said that its same orientation as dom, still leaving bit for interpration. but the way he explained inferior and tert working together the same way as aux and dom, if you would read(and get) him, it would be pretty obvious. also this concrete function thing makes some people not well educated on the subject misunderstand what he says.

And when it comes to ego, im speaking about ego as jung defined, not freudian ego and functions have quite alot to do with it, its just that MBTI is lacking all the depth from typology, so its not mentioned in MBTI. ego is as important part of typology than unconscious is. but MBTI rarerily talks even about functions woeking unconsciously, but just talks of undeveloped functions and as if these functions didnt exist because you arent in control over them..

MBTI is like the easy mode, and you know, you never get good by playing the easy mode, no matter how much you play.

And no im not making this up, im just talking about this in more depth as jung said it works. also there are much much more to typology than just differentation and archetypes are totally unrelated to jungs typology, they are just part of beebean typology and word archetype in beebean term isnt even the same thing as in jungian psychology

Jung doesn't speak of undeveloped functions, at least not in adults. He speaks of undifferentiated functions. But all of our functions are developed, it's just that the unconscious ones take on the archetypal characteristics of unconscious images.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Jung doesn't speak of undeveloped functions, at least not in adults. He speaks of undifferentiated functions. But all of our functions are developed, it's just that the unconscious ones take on the archetypal characteristics of unconscious images.

I said MBTI is talking about undeveloped functions..

What comes to archetypes, its totally different thing than functions. when you are for example projecting from anima, you may project unconscious functions at the same time and to the same target also, so the target might shows projections from both anima and unconscious function at the same time, but you are doing this unconscious function projection even if you arent projecting any archetype with it, so yes it kinda means that your unconscious functions might be affected by archetypes, but they are still totally different things. in analytical psychology no one even mentions typology when talking about archetypal stuff, because its pretty irrelevant to it.

Archetypes are affecting complexes, which are affecting ego.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Its funny when people say that in MBTI tert is same orientation as dom and jung thought different, when infact its the opposite. in MBTI tert is same orientation as aux and inferior. jung was quite vague about this leaving room for interpretation, in his earlier writing he hints that its same as in MBTI(thats why myers interpreted it that way), but in his later work he pretty much said that its same orientation as dom, still leaving bit for interpration. but the way he explained inferior and tert working together the same way as aux and dom, if you would read(and get) him, it would be pretty obvious. also this concrete function thing makes some people not well educated on the subject misunderstand what he says.

Hmm. I've studied Psychological Types pretty extensively and though he is vague, there are several references to the tert being opposite the dominate. Can you tell me the later work you are referring to?

And when it comes to ego, im speaking about ego as jung defined, not freudian ego and functions have quite alot to do with it, its just that MBTI is lacking all the depth from typology, so its not mentioned in MBTI. ego is as important part of typology than unconscious is. but MBTI rarerily talks even about functions woeking unconsciously, but just talks of undeveloped functions and as if these functions didnt exist because you arent in control over them..

I was asking because I've thought a lot about how ego fits in with our personality, especially in terms of whether it falls within the nature vs nurture categories; and its relationship to functions in our minds/physches. Other things like enneagram stacking provide clues as well to our fundamental personality that are lacking in the explanations provided by typology and the study of the ego, etc.

I need to read more Jung, that's for sure. :unsure:
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Hmm. I've studied Psychological Types pretty extensively and though he is vague, there are several references to the tert being opposite the dominate. Can you tell me the later work you are referring to?



I was asking because I've thought a lot about how ego fits in with our personality, especially in terms of whether it falls within the nature vs nurture categories; and its relationship to functions in our minds/physches. Other things like enneagram stacking provide clues as well to our fundamental personality that are lacking in the explanations provided by typology and the study of the ego, etc.

I need to read more Jung, that's for sure. :unsure:

It is on psychological types, in some of those added lectures/letters/whatevers from later years than the book itself.

When it comes to ego and personality, its pretty much just about the functions that make up the personality, of which some ego approves and some tries to deny. stability of personality is one of the 5 core functions of ego, it doesent want you to change personality, thats why it might be hard to differentiate functions. how ever in personal unconscious there is complex called persona, which is pertty much what you try to make others see you as. comes from the latin word, meaning mask of an actor. anyways, in some theories of personality, theythink that persona is part of personality, how ever in jungs model they are different things, because jung sees personality coming from the functions and functions habe nothing to do with persona. or well, persona might make you look like different type and relating too much on persona, you might even think that you are this type that you have used to wear as a mask, but its not the persons real personality, its just a mask.

Edit. added few things.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It is on psychological types, in some of those added lectures/letters/whatevers from later years than the book itself.

When it comes to ego and personality, its pretty much just about the functions that make up the personality. how ever in personal unconscious there is complex called persona, which is pertty much what you try to make others see you as. comes from the latin word, meaning mask of an actor. anyways, in some theories of personality, theythink that persona is part of personality, how ever in jungs model they are different things, because jung sees personality coming from the functions and functions habe nothing to do with persona. or well, persona might make you look like different type and relating too much on persona, you might even think that you are this type that you have used to wear as a mask, but its not the persons real personality, its just a mask.

I think the tert tends to orient more for most people in healthy states in the opposite attitude from the dominant...I think Jung had it 'right' from the beginning, if what you say is true and he changed his stance later. I do think neurotic conditions are more likely to arise when the tert is in the same attitude of the dominant......I started a thread about it all a while back.


Yeah, I saw that about the 'persona', one his his archetypes, right? I'm trying to discern for myself the core personality of a person, and what makes up that core personality. And where the ego and other facets of personality fall in relation to our core, or innate, being. I think our core personality is comprised other factors besides cognitive functions, though I haven't quite figured out how to define them or describe them, or even what 'they' are.

Do you think cognitive functions can adequately describe a person's innate personality?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I said MBTI is talking about undeveloped functions..

Hm, yes, crazy MBTI.

What comes to archetypes, its totally different thing than functions. when you are for example projecting from anima, you may project unconscious functions at the same time and to the same target also, so the target might shows projections from both anima and unconscious function at the same time, but you are doing this unconscious function projection even if you arent projecting any archetype with it, so yes it kinda means that your unconscious functions might be affected by archetypes, but they are still totally different things. in analytical psychology no one even mentions typology when talking about archetypal stuff, because its pretty irrelevant to it.

Archetypes are affecting complexes, which are affecting ego.

Ego creates complexes on the basis of primitive archetypes and then defends these complexes against anxiety-inducing experiences such that the psychological outcome is more pleasant than the anxiety, and yet the complex remains in place. One of these defense mechanisms is displacement. The cognitive process that created displacement in the first place no longer exists, it doesn't have to, and so it goes into the unconscious where it resides with the archetype, such as the image of a father or father-figure.

But the cognitive process itself was the product of functions. For example, if one is psychologically replacing someone with a father-figure, then originally this involved the Si function.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Hm, yes, crazy MBTI.



Ego creates complexes on the basis of primitive archetypes and then defends these complexes against anxiety-inducing experiences such that the psychological outcome is more pleasant than the anxiety, and yet the complex remains in place. One of these defense mechanisms is displacement. The cognitive process that created displacement in the first place no longer exists, it doesn't have to, and so it goes into the unconscious where it resides with the archetype, such as the image of a father or father-figure.

But the cognitive process itself was the product of functions. For example, if one is psychologically replacing someone with a father-figure, then originally this involved the Si function.

You got this all wrong, ego doesent create complexes etc etc. all of this is totally wrong lol.

There is this thing called psyche, which involves; body, collective unconscious, personal unconscious and consciousness.

Collective unconscious is the part of us that we all share, jung said that its on our genes. structures within the collective unconscious are called archetypes. inherited parts of the psyche, structuring patterns of psychological performance linked to instincts, hypothetical entity, irresentable in itself and only evident trought its manifestations. archetype is symbol producing machine.

These archetypes usually have an effect on already existing complexes or new complexes may born from associating manifestations on some particular thing.

Personal unconscious contains all memories and fantasies either repressed or just havent met suitable conditions yet(latter is the same with archetypes). structures within the personal unconscious is called complexes. "clusters of feeling toned associations around common theme", this common theme can be anything from money to your favorite shirt to your mom, can be both good and negative.

Archetypes can attach themselves to these complexes and shape it. Like if you know a girl named amie, she seems very different person to you if shes just anybody or if the amie complex has been affected by anima, even tho shes still the same person, you just see her differently, because the amie complex(or feeling toned associations around it) has been affected by anima.

Then there is the consciousness. consciousness possesses a level of intensity, so all weak concepts remain unconscious. consciousness deters incompatible material and these remain unconscious(this could be inferior function or anything else outside functions). consciousness holds a momentary adaptation to situation.
Ego is the structure in consciousness, jung listed 5 core functions of ego, stability of personality(it doesent want to make you switch personality every day, so it doesent want to see you as a feeler either, because it sees you as T), stability of identity(you feel yourself after you wake up the next morning, not michael jackson), cognition(you know how to calculate 1 + 1 etc. but also all other conscious evaluation, judging, making sense of perceptions etc), executive functioning(you know how to walk etc to survive your day), reality testing(expect and obey laws of physics).

Now when we derive a complex from out unconscious, the ego takes a beating from the complex and suffers from reduced ability to operate appropiately. complex sort of steals the show and later we might notice that we behaved in unusual ways. its that the behavior of our normal personality was replaced by behavior motivated by complex, this is usually negative behavior, but quite often pretty useful and needed for the situation.

Then there is this thing called compensation, which means balancing, adjusting and supplementing. psyche tries to compensate one sidedness of the consciousness. ego is compensated by the unconscious(collective and personal). cba to explain more about this, but this is why the unconscious functions want to come into consciousness, why archetypes appear etc.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I read Jung's part of Man and His Symbols and was sort-of buying into his deep belief that dreams are like bridges into ancient archetypal images and themes. Then I heard about current dream research that basically says dreams are related directly to short term memory retention; our brain's attempt to figure out what and how to store memories. It made me question Jung's ideas.

I wonder now if his archetypes never were really the sacred stuff of universal proportions he thought they were, but man's common and recurring themes for so much of time. Leading me to wonder if archetypes are just representations of man's theme as man moves through time, advancing and collectively changing as he goes along.

In short, does Jung attribute too much sacred other-worldly-ness to archetypes, based on his insights at the time and historically. Do archetypes actually result from the way ego uses functions to deal with life events? Therefore, as life events and circumstances change over time, as they will for the human experience, won't archetypes necessarily change as well to reflect that?

functions + ego influence (behaviors?) = archetype ???
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I think the tert tends to orient more for most people in healthy states in the opposite attitude from the dominant...I think Jung had it 'right' from the beginning, if what you say is true and he changed his stance later. I do think neurotic conditions are more likely to arise when the tert is in the same attitude of the dominant......I started a thread about it all a while back.


Yeah, I saw that about the 'persona', one his his archetypes, right? I'm trying to discern for myself the core personality of a person, and what makes up that core personality. And where the ego and other facets of personality fall in relation to our core, or innate, being. I think our core personality is comprised other factors besides cognitive functions, though I haven't quite figured out how to define them or describe them, or even what 'they' are.

Do you think cognitive functions can adequately describe a person's innate personality?

Cba to type much anymore and gotta go to sleep. but persona isnt an archetype, its an complex.

What comes to all this personality talk, you need to define personality, because there are sooooooooooooooo many ideas of what is personality and they vary to a great degree, so its impossible to say anything if i dont know what you mean with the word personality.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I read Jung's part of Man and His Symbols and was sort-of buying into his deep belief that dreams are like bridges into ancient archetypal images and themes. Then I heard about current dream research that basically says dreams are related directly to short term memory retention; our brain's attempt to figure out what and how to store memories. It made me question Jung's ideas.

I wonder now if his archetypes never were really the sacred stuff of universal proportions he thought they were, but man's common and recurring themes for so much of time. Leading me to wonder if archetypes are just representations of man's theme as man moves through time, advancing and collectively changing as he goes along.

In short, does Jung attribute too much sacred other-worldly-ness to archetypes, based on his insights at the time and historically. Do archetypes actually result from the way ego uses functions to deal with life events? Therefore, as life events and circumstances change over time, as they will for the human experience, won't archetypes necessarily change as well to reflect that?

functions + ego influence (behaviors?) = archetype ???

No no no no no no no and no. i can write more tomorrow and explain, but dreams arent just archetypal, they may show you an archetype, but mostly its about stuff in personal unconscious. i have studied dream from modern point of view, the neurology of it etc and jungs ideas and modern view match perfectly, even the archetypal stuff in it
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You got this all wrong, ego doesent create complexes etc etc. all of this is totally wrong lol.

So is your English, but do you see me laughing at that? I wish I had a dime for every one of your misspellings and bad grammar.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Cba to type much anymore and gotta go to sleep. but persona isnt an archetype, its an complex.

What comes to all this personality talk, you need to define personality, because there are sooooooooooooooo many ideas of what is personality and they vary to a great degree, so its impossible to say anything if i dont know what you mean with the word personality.


I guess it depends on how you also define "persona." According to wiki, on the Jungian Archetype page, it is:

The Persona, to Jung a mere "functional complex ... by no means identical to the individuality", the way we present to the world - a mask which protects the Ego from negative images, and which by post-Jungians is sometimes considered an "archetype ... as a dynamic/structural component of the psyche".


But I agree with you, I consider a 'persona' to be adopted by a person as a coping mechanism/ or complex.


I usually mean personality as what nature has given us innately. I'm working out now if that includes our phenotype, which i believe it does. The 'substance' of our minds/psyches; the admixture of our matter and our form (soul) which forms the foundation (which i call core) from which we express ourselves, interact with our world, from which dispositions arise, and behaviors develop. Personality, in the way I mean it, is what we are born into the world with and is not predicated by anything else; it is pure.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No no no no no no no and no. i can write more tomorrow and explain, but dreams arent just archetypal, they may show you an archetype, but mostly its about stuff in personal unconscious. i have studied dream from modern point of view, the neurology of it etc and jungs ideas and modern view match perfectly, even the archetypal stuff in it


Jung seemed pretty darn clear that dreams were ephemeral and carried ancient archetypal wisdom independent of the individual, but could show the individual, if the individual cared to observe it (with psychological interpretation), a link between his/her mind and a higher wisdom represented by repetitive symbols.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Do you have a webpage that discusses this?
It's basically apart of this whole premise:
http://www.erictb.info/erica.html
It's still funny to me how amateur typologists argue function usage with the tert function in the same orientation as the dominant function, when Jung believed himself that it was in the opposite orientation....It is an MBTI concept, adapted, basically blindly imo, by practitioners ever since.
That's best understood in terms of everything that is not differentiated (dominant) collecting in the opposite attitude from the dominant, and the Child complex orienting the tertiary to the dominant attitude.

As for archetypes, they are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". A conglomeration of memories, and images freighted with emotion, which when personalized through experience, become "complexes".
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Jung seemed pretty darn clear that dreams were ephemeral and carried ancient archetypal wisdom independent of the individual, but could show the individual, if the individual cared to observe it (with psychological interpretation), a link between his/her mind and a higher wisdom represented by repetitive symbols.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCaOgaGY6dU

"dreams reveal complexes and sometimes the archetypal background"

i wrote in some earlier post on this topic how complexes(which are structures within personal unconscious) get affected by archetypes. so yes dreams might show some archetypal symbols, but mainly its just the contents of your personal unconscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RISsYQh_w

here jung gives an example of archetypal image in dream;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVeZz5QnEFE

the complex in which the archetype in presented(in the womans dream) is the jung complex in the womans personal unconscious
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I guess it depends on how you also define "persona." According to wiki, on the Jungian Archetype page, it is:

The Persona, to Jung a mere "functional complex ... by no means identical to the individuality", the way we present to the world - a mask which protects the Ego from negative images, and which by post-Jungians is sometimes considered an "archetype ... as a dynamic/structural component of the psyche".


But I agree with you, I consider a 'persona' to be adopted by a person as a coping mechanism/ or complex.


I usually mean personality as what nature has given us innately. I'm working out now if that includes our phenotype, which i believe it does. The 'substance' of our minds/psyches; the admixture of our matter and our form (soul) which forms the foundation (which i call core) from which we express ourselves, interact with our world, from which dispositions arise, and behaviors develop. Personality, in the way I mean it, is what we are born into the world with and is not predicated by anything else; it is pure.

I suggest listening some podacasts from here: http://www.jungian.ca/jung-podcasts/

he explains very well pretty much the whole jungian psychology
 
Top