What's the difference between an INTP with a heart and an INFP with a head?

[Cellmold]

You're welcome.
It happens to be true!
And what good is a theory which encourages you to ignore your individual complexity in order to over-identify with narrow aspects of yourself and others?

Very true, I myself never identified with any descriptions of any of the types even when I first discovered it. However it was interesting reading Jung and going more in-depth.

 

[Pseudo]

You're right, I do. But being ambiguous doesn't mean a type can't mostly fit; that's what I mean. It fits me well enough to use it for practical purposes, but not perfectly, hence not limiting myself to it. If I'm INXP, or INTX, or INXX, that still means I act like INTP some of the time, and if I feel this is my center at this time in my life (however indefinite a center it is), I think people should respect that. That's my opinion on types- people fluctuate. Being an unorthodox INTP really means I'm INTP+INTJ+INFP+INFJ+ENFP+ENTP. So I am, but I'm not. It depends on how you look at typology. I thought it would be obvious to most people that type is sort of fluid, but apparently not.

The point of the system is to give a general sense of a personas personality. It's already vague and not INTPs will be the same. But I don't see any point if you insist that you are 3/8 of the whole system.

INTPs have Fi but it not dominant.

I think in regards to your type people just don't see the NT that you are instant that you have. And when you defend it it is an a very NF style.

 

[INTP]

INTPs have Fi but it not dominant.

lies, INTPs have F, but its attitude(

The readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way, based on an underlying psychological orientation. (See also adaptation, type and typology.)


From a great number of existing or possible attitudes I have singled out four; those, namely, that are primarily oriented by the four basic psychological functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition. When any of these attitudes is habitual, thus setting a definite stamp on the character of an individual, I speak of a psychological type. These function-types, which one can call the thinking, feeling, sen-sation, and intuitive types, may be divided into two classes . . . the rational and the irrational. . . . A further division into two classes is permitted by the predominant trend of the movement of libido, namely introversion and extraversion.[Ibid., par. 835.]

The whole psychology of an individual even in its most fundamental features is oriented in accordance with his habitual attitude. . . . [which is] a resultant of all the factors that exert a decisive influence on the psyche, such as innate disposition, environmental influences, experience of life, insights and convictions gained through differentiation, collective views, etc. . . .At bottom, attitude is an individual phenomenon that eludes scientific investigation. In actual experience, however, certain typical attitudes can be distinguished . . . . When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is produced. . . . There is thus a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude.[Ibid., pars. 690f.]

Adaptation to one’s environment requires an appropriate attitude. But due to changing circumstances, no one attitude is permanently suitable. When a particular attitude is no longer appropriate, whether to internal or external reality, the stage is set for psychological difficulties (e.g., an outbreak of neurosis).

For example, a feeling-attitude that seeks to fulfil the demands of reality by means of empathy may easily encounter a situation that can only be solved through thinking. In this case the feeling-attitude breaks down and the progression of libido also ceases. The vital feeling that was present before disappears, and in its place the psychic value of certain conscious contents increases in an unpleasant way; subjective contents and reactions press to the fore and the situation becomes full of affect and ripe for explosions.["On Psychic Energy," CW 8, par. 61.]

The tension leads to conflict, the conflict leads to attempts at mutual repression, and if one of the opposing forces is successfully repressed a dissociation ensues, a splitting of the personality, or disunion with oneself.[Ibid.]

Attitude (Einstellung)

This concept is a relatively recent acquisition to psychology. It originated with Müller and Schumann [14]. Whereas Kulpe [15] defines attitude as a predisposition of the sensory or motor centres to a definite stimulation or persistent impulse, Ebbinghaus [16] conceives it in a wider sense as a phenomenon of exercise, introducing an air of the customary into the individual act which deviates from the customary. Our use of the concept proceeds, from Ebbinghaus' conception of attitude. For us, attitude is a readiness of the psyche to act or to react in a certain direction. It is precisely for the psychology of complex psychic phenomena that the concept is so important, since it provides an expression for that peculiar psychological phenomenon wherein we find certain stimuli exercising a powerful effect on one occasion, while their effect is either weak or wholly absent on another. To have a certain attitude means to be ready for something definite, even though this definite something is unconscious, since having an attitude is synonymous with an a priori direction towards a definite thing, whether this be present in consciousness or not. The state of readiness, which I conceive attitude to be, always consists in the presence of a certain subjective constellation, a definite combination of psychic factors or contents, which will either determine action in this or that definite direction, or will comprehend an external stimulus in this or that definite way. Active apperception (q.v.) is impossible without an attitude. An attitude always has an objective; this can be either con-scious or unconscious, since in the act of apperceiving a new content a prepared combination of contents unfailingly emphasizes those qualities or motives which appear to belong to the subjective content Hence a selection or judgment takes place which excludes the irrelevant. As to what is, and what is not, relevant is decided by the already orientated combination or constellation of contents. Whether the attitude's objective be conscious or unconscious is immaterial to its selective effect, since the choice is already given a priori through the attitude, and therefore follows automatically. It is useful, however, to distinguish between conscious and unconscious, since the presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, the one conscious and the other unconscious. Which means to say that the conscious has a preparedness of contents different from that of the unconscious. This duality of attitude is particularly evident in neurosis.

There is a certain kinship between the concept of attitude and the apperception concept of Wundt, though with this difference, that the idea of apperception includes the process of relating the already prepared content toˆthe new content to be apperceived, while the concept of attitude relates exclusively to the subjectively prepared content. Apperception is, as it were, the bridge which connects the already present and prepared content with the new content, the attitude being, in a sense, the end-pier or abutment of the bridge upon the one bank, while the new content represents the abutment upon the other bank. Attitude signifies an expectation, an expectation always operates selectively—it gives direction. The presence of a strongly toned content in the field of consciousness forms (sometimes together with other contents) a certain constellation which is synonymous with a definite attitude, because such a conscious content favours the perception and apperception of everything similar, and inhibits the dissimilar. It creates an attitude corresponding with it This automatic phenomenon is an essential cause of the onesidedness of conscious orientation. It would lead to a complete loss of equilibrium if there were no self-regulating, compensatory (q.v.) function in the psyche to correct the conscious attitude. Thus in this sense the duality of the attitude is a normal phenomenon, which plays 'a disturbing rôle only when conscious one-sidedness becomes excessive.

As ordinary attention, the attitude can be either a relatively unimportant subsidiary phenomenon or a general principle determining the whole psyche. From disposition, environmental influence, education, general experience, or conviction a constellation of contents may be habitually present, continually moulding a certain attitude which may operate even down to the most minute details of life. Every man who has a special sense of the unpleasant side of life will naturally have an attitude of constant readiness for the disagreeable. This excessive conscious attitude is counterbalanced by an unconscious attitude for pleasure. The oppressed individual has a conscious attitude that always anticipates oppression; he selects this factor in experience; everywhere he scents it out; and in so doing his unconscious attitude makes for power and superiority. The total psychology of the individual even in its various basic characters is orientated by the nature of his habitual attitude. In spite of the fact that general psychological laws are operative in every individual, they cannot be said to be characteristic of the individual, since the nature of their operation varies completely in accordance with the nature of the general attitude. The general attitude is always a resultant of all the factors that can have an essential influence upon the psyche, such as inborn disposition, education, milieu-influences, experience of life, insight and convictions gained through differentiation (q.v.), collective ideas, etc. Without the absolutely fundamental importance of attitude, there would be no question of the existence of an individual psychology. But the general attitude effects such immense displacements of energy, and so modifies the relations between individual functions, that resultants are produced which frequently bring the validity of general psychological laws into question. In spite of the fact, for instance, that a certain measure of activity is held to be indispensable for the sexual function both on physiological and psychological grounds, individuals certainly exist who, without injury to themselves, i.e. without pathological phenomena and without any demonstrable restriction of productive power, can, to a very great extent, dispense with it; while, in other cases, quite insignificant deprivations or disturbances in this region may involve very considerable general consequences. How potent individual differences can be is seen perhaps most clearly in questions of likes and dislikes. Here practically all rules go by the board. What is there, in the last resort, which has not at one time given man pleasure, while at another has caused him pain? Every instinct, every function can be subordinated to other instincts and functions and act as a servant. The ego or power-instinct can make sexuality its serviceable subject, or sexuality make use of the ego. Thinking may over-run everything else, or feeling swallow up thinking and sensation, all in obedience to the attitude.

Au fond, the attitude is an individual phenomenon and is inaccessible to the scientific method of approach. In actual experience, however, certain attitude-types can be discriminated in so far as certain psychic functions can also be differentiated. When a function habitually predominates, a typical attitude is thereby produced. In accordance with the nature of the differentiated function, constellations of contents take place which create a corresponding attitude. Thus there exist a typical thinking, a feeling, a sensational, and an intuitive attitude. Besides these purely psychological attitude-types, whose number might possibly be increased, there are also social types, namely, those for whom a collective idea expresses the brand. They are characterized by the various '-isms'. These collective attitudes are, at all events, very important in certain cases, even outweighing in significance the purely individual attitude.

) is extraverted.

 

[Salomé]

That totally needs spoiler tags.

And not just because it's dumb.

 

[INTP]

That totally needs spoiler tags.

And not just because it's dumb.

jung > mbti/whateverrandoms

 

[cascadeco]

jung > mbti/whateverrandoms

Jung doesn't know how to express himself clearly, it seems, and it's amazing mbti came out of all of that rambling.

 

[INTP]

Jung doesn't know how to express himself clearly, it seems, and it's amazing mbti came out of all of that rambling.

in order to express complicated things, you need complicated words or you are not expressing the whole thing in its whole glory. MBTI/whatevers lose 90% of the essentials, because they are typology for dummies, simplified to few simple words.

 

[cascadeco]

in order to express complicated things, you need complicated words or you are not expressing the whole thing in its whole glory. MBTI/whatevers lose 90% of the essentials, because they are typology for dummies, simplified to few simple words.

Yeah, but that's assuming what he's talking about is legitimate and actually reflects reality. Based on a few of the blips that you quoted, I have my doubts.

Edit: Also, he still rambles. Rambling is not necessary to convey complicated ideas.

 

[INTP]

Yeah, but that's assuming what he's talking about is legitimate and actually reflects reality. Based on a few of the blips that you quoted, I have my doubts.

Edit: Also, he still rambles. Rambling is not necessary to convey complicated ideas.

i find that his work reflects the reality way better than MBTI/whatevers do. why do you have your doubts?

i dont see rambling, i see covering the issue from multiple angles in order to cover all(or more) aspects of it

 

[cascadeco]

i find that his work reflects the reality way better than MBTI/whatevers do. why do you have your doubts?

Namely, that many of his statements are probably only true (to the extent he states they manifest) based on extreme types. So, it diminishes the application to real-world personalities.

 

[Pseudo]

lies, INTPs have F, but its attitude(
) is extraverted.

I said thy don't have Fi

 

[INTP]

I said thy don't have Fi

you said "INTPs have Fi but it not dominant."

 

[ygolo]

LMAO...INFP vs INTP. Why is it that I would say INFP would whip an INTPs butt leaving it raw and chapped

Because, the INTP might like it. You know, depending.

 

[INTP]

Namely, that many of his statements are probably only true (to the extent he states they manifest) based on extreme types. So, it diminishes the application to real-world personalities.

why do you say that? he speaks great(est) insight to how different types psyche functions and if you take his type descriptions literally, i guess you forgot to read this part: "In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced." - psychological types; paragraph 666 'the principal and auxiliary functions'

no type description can describe the type accurately, because type is not describable, only how different aspects of type(functions) work can be described.

 

[Salomé]

jung > mbti/whateverrandoms

Jung doesn't know how to express himself clearly, it seems, and it's amazing mbti came out of all of that rambling.

I think he did ok. Of course much is lost in translation.

Jung published his theory of psychological types in 1921. Later, Isabel Briggs Myers developed it into a four letter code in order to "distinguish people" However, Jung objected strongly to this use of his theory, calling it a "nothing but a childish parlour game" and saying that "the classification of individuals means nothing, nothing at all" For example, he said it is wrong to suggest that everyone is either an introvert or an extravert. Rather, everyone has both an introvert side and an extravert side and most people are "fairly well balanced" between the two. Personality is more complex than suggested by a code that has only 16 variations.

 

[INTP]

Of course much is lost in translation.

i dont have any definite knowledge about this, since i havent read the german version(and dont even understand ger), but Hull(translator of the book) was quite close to jung and if i remember correctly, did the translation work in Switzerland, so jung probably looked after than not too much was lost.

 

[cascadeco]

why do you say that? he speaks great(est) insight to how different types psyche functions and if you take his type descriptions literally, i guess you forgot to read this part: "In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced." - psychological types; paragraph 666 'the principal and auxiliary functions'

no type description can describe the type accurately, because type is not describable, only how different aspects of type(functions) work can be described.

I read the part you posted, and that's it, and based on what I read, that's why I said what I said; I'm not claiming to have read the entirety of his writings, because I haven't. Was the above quote in the part you posted? I didn't see it. (and if it is there, well, it was due to his rambling that I didn't see it)

 

[Salomé]

i dont have any definite knowledge about this, since i havent read the german version(and dont even understand ger), but Hull(translator of the book) was quite close to jung and if i remember correctly, did the translation work in Switzerland, so jung probably looked after than not too much was lost.

I wasn't talking about German -> English.

 

[greenfairy]

The point of the system is to give a general sense of a personas personality. It's already vague and not INTPs will be the same. But I don't see any point if you insist that you are 3/8 of the whole system.

INTPs have Fi but it not dominant.

Well, I do. Opinions differ.

I think in regards to your type people just don't see the NT that you are instant that you have. And when you defend it it is an a very NF style.

That may be true, but the persona I present online and the time I spend on here is a tiny fraction of what I do and how I am in real life, so it is impossible to get an accurate picture of me or any person just from this. And the people who do know me in real life overwhelmingly say I'm more of a thinker. And how, may I ask, would an NT defend their NT-ness? I don't see any other way to do it. I've presented arguments of cognitive functions, I've compared and contrasted things, I've meticulously analyzed myself- what else is there to do? The fact that you or anyone else can't see something that looks like your idea of Ti or NT-style thinking does not mean it's not there.

 

[INTP]

I read the part you posted, and that's it, and based on what I read, that's why I said what I said; I'm not claiming to have read the entirety of his writings, because I haven't. Was the above quote in the part you posted? I didn't see it. (and if it is there, well, it was due to his rambling that I didn't see it)

that first quote was from jung lexicon and second was from definitions section of psychological types. i thought you had some idea of what he wrote, since you judged what he wrote..