User Tag List

View Poll Results: Have you read the ENTIRETY of Jung's 'Psychological Types'?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • I have read 'Psychological Types'

    12 63.16%
  • I have not read 'Psychological Types'

    2 10.53%
  • I plan to read 'Psychological Types'

    5 26.32%
12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 14

  1. #1
    Senior Member Quick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    451
    Posts
    127

    Default How many of you have actually ready 'Psychological Types'?

    So just curious, for my own info, how common it is on a typology site like this have actually read the entirety of 'Psychological Types' by Carl Jung. If you have only read the chapter on Cognitive Functions DO NOT say you have read 'Psychological Types'

    There are three options:
    I have read 'Psychological Types'
    I have not read 'Psychological Types'
    I plan to read 'Psychological Types'
    But your individuality and your present need will be swept away by change,
    and what you now ardently desire will one day become the object of abhorrence.
    ~ Schiller - 'Psychological Types'

  2. #2
    Senior Member Smilephantomhive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    3,309

    Default

    You need an in between answer if only reading the cognitive function part doesn't count as reading it.
    "Avoid getting too preoccupied thinking about what you’re going to do, to actually do it."
    — Rachel Wolchin

    johari
    nohari
    avatar

  3. #3
    Senior Member Quick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    451
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilephantomhive View Post
    You need an in between answer if only reading the cognitive function part doesn't count as reading it.
    Disagree. Reading the chapter on Cognitive Functions without the context of the rest of the book means you are not really going to understand what he is saying. I don't say this because I have read the whole book yet. I am currently on chapter 3 and already I can see that this is the kind of book where just taking pieces from it isn't adequate and does Jung a disservice. I see little point in only reading that chapter without reading the rest of the book. The choices I came up with are intentional.
    But your individuality and your present need will be swept away by change,
    and what you now ardently desire will one day become the object of abhorrence.
    ~ Schiller - 'Psychological Types'
    Likes Turi liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Yes, I have - also the Definitions chapter is basically necessary, you'll find a lot of people quote Jung without knowing the definitions of what they're quoting.

  5. #5
    .
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Chapter 10 is a necessity to read. For people who haven't read it, here it is.

    Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

    I've read it, upwards and backwards numerous times, often citing excerpts. Because of Jung's writing style, it can be interpreted in different ways.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Quick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    451
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turi View Post
    This is what annoys me. People just interpreting things willy nilly and basically ad-libbing personality theory as they go.

    Multiple interpretations = not usable in the real world for objectively tracking type.

    I for one don't think it's really as up for interpretation as people seem to believe.
    It's pretty clear what he meant, if you understand the context (point of this thread really) at a bare minimum, the following Definitions chapter really clears things up.
    Literally defining terms that people think they can improvise with.

    Before I forget this is a great resource as well - not rreeeeeaaaallllyyyy up for subjective interpretation to any major extent.
    I was going to say things weren't as open to interpretation as they seem, but I haven't read that far yet. I can say based on what I have read, Jung definitely builds off previous topics so unless you have context for the former, you are not going to understand the latter.
    But your individuality and your present need will be swept away by change,
    and what you now ardently desire will one day become the object of abhorrence.
    ~ Schiller - 'Psychological Types'

  7. #7
    Senior Member Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,689

    Default

    Its one of the few of Jungs books I've not actually read.

    I've read most of his other books and two great introductions to his thinking by Anthony Storr and Anthony Stevens.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  8. #8
    Junior Member everdream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Socionics
    derp
    Posts
    21

    Default

    I read some chapters. I hope that counts as "have read".

  9. #9
    Google "chemtrails" Bush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENtP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Posts
    5,145

    Default

    I've read the thing at least twice, but I'm not sure what's actually open for discussion.
    Ne = Ni > Ti = Fe > Te > Fi > Se = Si
    J. Scott Crothers
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics
    Mod, Typology Central

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics

  10. #10
    Used Thread Salesman Population: 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,359

    Default

    Only excerpts. Then again I’ve never claimed to be anything but a novice of this whole experience.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Sx dom ENTP's: How many of you have mis-typed as an ENFP?
    By The Great One in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 09:09 PM
  2. [E6] Type 6's: How many of you have OCD?
    By The Great One in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-07-2013, 03:46 PM
  3. How many of you have made the move to purchasing music digitally?
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 03:14 PM
  4. How many of you don't have problems with nightmares?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO