User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    Yes, this is the view held by a Jungian psychologist named John Beebe. I don't think I've seen the ENTP/ESFP shadow theory before, but I like it. It's just as valid in my opinion.
    Cool, because I doubt that my shadow is INTJ, if I have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    In terms of alternative function models, there's a fair bit of evidence that Jung believed the first two were oriented in the same direction and the second two were oriented in the opposite direction (e.g. Ne-Te-Fi-Si for ENTP). The user Reckful has discussed this before, so I'd suggest reading some of their posts if you're interested.
    Thanks. I'll look into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    There's also Model A in Socionics, which despite what some say is incredibly different from the MBTI stack to the point where a lot of people (myself included) are different types in both systems.
    Socionics is like... I've done a couple of flybys of that planet, but I've never landed on it. It seems to have developed a lot since ~2000, when the ENTP profile had a sketch with horns growing out of the ENTP's head. It was hilarious, and I didn't think I was an ENTP at that time, but whatever website that was, it made it hard to take it seriously.
    But anyways, I might give that another look.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    I know a user on another site who proposed a "4-tier" model of strongest to weakest functions. For ENTPs it would be:

    1. Ne
    2. Ti, Te, Se
    3. Fe, Fi, Ni
    4. Si


    I like this model because it incorporates the "shadow functions" into the main stack instead of segregating them into their own section like a lot of models do.
    I like that too. What I like about it is that it looks like you could swap some of the values around and still get a generally ENTP temperament, similar to the way you can swap around particular physical attributes and still get a generally "endurance athlete" profile, or a generally "hourglass figure" or whatever. In other words, you can fit into a general family of attributes without having every specific detail match up. I don't know how precise the poster on the other site meant for that stacking to be, but as I see it, it allows for variety, while it still roughly defines a pattern.

    Likes Zeego liked this post

  2. #12
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    248

    Default

    ..I've got a question, how are these profiles by simulatedworld a "Jungian Cognitive Function analysis" considering the following:

    Jungs 'stack' descends from conscious to unconscious, essentially creating something similar to an IIEE/EEII 'stack' once you understand his theory - and when the dominant function-attitude is taken too extreme it basically creates an IEEE/EIII stack, where the 'auxiliary' joins the inferior unconscious attitude to form a 'block' - the idea of an alternating pattern such as IEIE/EIEI is not Jungian.

    Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Fe and Fi are not separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.

    The idea these profiles are anything remotely close to a "Jungian cognitive function analysis" is misleading, to say the least.
    Likes Norexan, Hexcoder liked this post

  3. #13
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    Sim was very good, and I've even been influenced by him. So unfortunate that he got banned.

    Jung's theory I would say was really not complete, and not always consistent. He laid the groundwork, and others like Myers, Grant and Beebe added more to it, according to observations.
    Like I know I'm not "TiNi", as this "Jungian purist" kind of assumption would insist. Other INTP's usually have weaker Si, and even Ne may not be as strong as mine is. Since both Ne and Si are strong, then their shadows, Ni and Se are weakest. (The stack is not necessarily about relative strength, but it's all reflections; whatever is most conscious, its opposite will be more suppressed). That's what verified the Grant stack for me.

    The best way to understand it, which is basically Beebe's contribution, is complexes bringing the functions into consciousness, and setting their attitudes. So, being dominant introvert, and dominant Thinking, then the overall attitude is introvert, and so the auxiliary may seem introverted too, because the overall preferred world-view (a term Sim used a lot) is introverted. The auxiliary is supporting the ego's dominant perspective, which is introverted.
    But it's the "complex" carrying the auxiliary function (which Beebe called "Caretaker" or "Parent") that, for the sake of the complex's own agenda, which is that of "balance", then turns outside to the environment, coloring the auxiliary function with an extraverted orientation. Its reflection, the "Child" then takes the tertiary function (opposite of the auxiliary), and back in the dominant attitude. And so on.


    So it's true that there aren't really eight "cognitive functions", but rather the four × two attitudes. But it's the eight complexes that organize them into eight function-attitudes.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  4. #14
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Sim was very good, and I've even been influenced by him. So unfortunate that he got banned.

    Jung's theory I would say was really not complete, and not always consistent. He laid the groundwork, and others like Myers, Grant and Beebe added more to it, according to observations.
    Like I know I'm not "TiNi", as this "Jungian purist" kind of assumption would insist. Other INTP's usually have weaker Si, and even Ne may not be as strong as mine is. Since both Ne and Si are strong, then their shadows, Ni and Se are weakest. (The stack is not necessarily about relative strength, but it's all reflections; whatever is most conscious, its opposite will be more suppressed). That's what verified the Grant stack for me.
    I understand you haven't read Psychological Types, is that correct?
    It wasn't as incomplete, nor was it as inconsistent as people would like to tout about - you can actually go through Jungs work post-Psychological Types, and find him expanding on some of the things he outlined in Psychological Types, and it all makes sense.

    Now, considering you are an INTP via dichotomy - this isn't suggestive of "Ti" dominance, by way of the J, really (considering Myers basically made the P/J thing up due to not understandings Jungs theories on the general attitude of consciousness.
    The functions-in-attitudes have never been clinically validated either - so, if we're playing the non-validated-science game, then INTP best reflects Ni-Ti-F-Se, Ni, as, the P indicates N/S is above T/F.

    The best way to understand it, which is basically Beebe's contribution, is complexes bringing the functions into consciousness, and setting their attitudes. So, being dominant introvert, and dominant Thinking, then the overall attitude is introvert, and so the auxiliary may seem introverted too, because the overall preferred world-view (a term Sim used a lot) is introverted. The auxiliary is supporting the ego's dominant perspective, which is introverted.
    But it's the "complex" carrying the auxiliary function (which Beebe called "Caretaker" or "Parent") that, for the sake of the complex's own agenda, which is that of "balance", then turns outside to the environment, coloring the auxiliary function with an extraverted orientation. Its reflection, the "Child" then takes the tertiary function (opposite of the auxiliary), and back in the dominant attitude. And so on.
    Beebe's argument for the orientation of the auxiliary function being in the opposite direction to the dominant is terrible - hopefully you can clarify this a little, because, my understanding is as follows:
    • Beebe's psychologist let him just talk about his dreams etc, out loud, and somehow this made Beebe think his auxiliary function was Thinking.
    • Beebe decided he "crossed spines" with someone who types as ISFP via dichotomy, and uses circular reasoning to support his position on the auxiliary - he says, that since the ISFPs stack is Fi-Se-N-Te, then that means Beebe's own auxiliary is introverted - Ne-Ti-F-Si.

    The above is absolutely horrendous - but notably, the second point - Beebe uses the current, after-the-fact type-dynamics the MBTI employs, to somehow, prove to himself that he follows the same stack.

    As I'm sure you're aware, these type-dynamics have literally no credibility at the this point, there's absolutely nothing "Ti" about an INTP, for instance - not tested for in the MBTI, and if you've got some studies that split the INTJs from the INTPs, for instance, on account of completely different functions (in attitudes), I'd absolutely love to read it.

    So Beebe does literally nothing credible whatsoever to determine the orientation of the auxiliary function - I note he doesn't explore or dive into the mistakes Myers made regarding her understandings of I/E, instead just accepting them, and supporting them with his own subjective take.
    I mean I'm paraphrasing, but "My friends an ISFP and that means Fi-Se in MBTI so that means my auxiliary is definitely Ti" is beyond absurd.

    If I'm missing something - let me know, because the guys reasoning scared the shit out of me when I considered how influential he's been.

  5. #15
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    In meant "incomplete" as in terms of being well "developed". He put the ideas out there, but they weren't totally clear, and then he seemed to have wavered in places, which is why we have these endless debates as to what he meant, and even what his exact stacking would be. Like he's been cited as saying people aren't introverts or extraverts; only the functions. Which deviates from his earlier usage, and is what's picked up by those insisting on "eight cognitive processes".

    So Myers, Grant and Beebe all came along and solidified which attitude should fall where. And it seems most people who know type can identify with their dominant-auziliary assignments. Like I said, I am in no way NiTi.
    And what you're saying about J/P is simply the difference between Myers and Socionics, basically. I say Socionics and not Jung, because Jung didn't call the dichotomy "judging/perceiving"; he called it rational/irrational.
    Myers determined that the most visible form of "judging" or "perceiving" (and therefore the most likely useful in interpersonal interaction) was extraverted judging or perceiving, and so denoted this with the J/P dichotomy. So it wasn't a "lack of understanding" of Jung; it was a determination of a more [externally] useful dichotomy. Someone in Socionics came behind, and decided it should be the dominant function to be truer to Jung, but instead of resurrecting his original terms, they took the J/P and just made it lowercase: "j/p".
    So what you're calling "INTP" is really an INTJ, with the auxiliary assumed to be the same attitude as the dominant. It's still "Ni+T" ("introverted intuitive with Thinking"), to use Jung's terminology (or IN-T, or ILI, in the three letter versions of the codes).

    So forget INTP being "J"; and INTJ being "P". To insist upon that is to mix up Jung's fourth category with Myers'. Again, it's not her misunderstanding; it's those who don't realize those are deliberately two completely different factors and demand they should be treated the same.
    The MBTI does measure Ti indirectly, because if you score highest on I and T, and then also P, the P is covering general behavioral preferences pointing [that's what the variable does] to the perception being extraverted, which accompanies an introverted judgment. So then the "T" must be introverted, and also dominant. So it's just as you said; they aren't separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.

    And Beebe's "crossed spines" is not about the attitude of the auxiliary, as you have it; it's about the rationality (rational or irrational; or dominant judgment or perception). Ne is irrational, while Fi is rational, and that's why ENTP and ISFP would have crossed spines. So then the whole stack is denoted as having an 'irrational" or "rational" spine. The "spine" is the set of tandems formed by the dominant through its reflections and shadows, and so encompasses the dominant, inferior, Opposing and Demonic (stack positions 1, 4, 5, 8; Ne-Si-Ni-Se, or Fi-Te-Fe-Ti, respectively), and these will all have the same rationality as the dominant. The auxiliary forms the base of the "arms" (2, 3, 6, 7), which will all be the opposite rationality of the spine. So for an ENTP, it will be rational (Ti-Fe-Te-Fi), and for ISFP, it will be irrational (Se-Ni-Si-Ne).

    What is supposed to happen when two people have "crossed spines", is that they will have misunderstandings in communication, where one is simply making a perception, which the other then takes as a judgment, or vice versa. I often wonder about this, and think that it could be affected by the other complexes, like we could both have rational spines, but if one of us switches to an arm complex, then one might still mistake a perception on the others' part for a judgment.

    His way of putting together the ideas is simply an Ne approach, and so yes, he will take his dreams and other personal experience as setting the idea; Ne says "yes" (the connection exists), and if Ti also says yes ("true" according to logical principles I know), then he will put it out as a likely theory. (Weren't you an Ni type? That would be why this perspective makes no sense to you. Ni is more likely to say "no" to something, for an unconscious internal reason, and then Je backs it up with external analysis or authority, and then the overall reaction is just an all around "NO!")
    Last edited by Eric B; 05-27-2018 at 08:05 AM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  6. #16
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    In meant "incomplete" as in terms of being well "developed". He put the ideas out there, but they weren't totally clear, and then he seemed to have wavered in places, which is why we have these endless debates as to what he meant, and even what his exact stacking would be. Like he's been cited as saying people aren't introverts or extraverts; only the functions. Which deviates from his earlier usage, and is what's picked up by those insisting on "eight cognitive processes".
    Can you provide your source regarding the claim that people are not introverts/extraverts and are "only the functions"?
    I feel I know precisely the section you're talking about, but the way you've presented it doesn't actually reflect what Jung meant.

    So Myers, Grant and Beebe all came along and solidified which attitude should fall where. And it seems most people who know type can identify with their dominant-auziliary assignments. Like I said, I am in no way NiTi.
    And what you're saying about J/P is simply the difference between Myers and Socionics, basically. I say Socionics and not Jung, because Jung didn't call the dichotomy "judging/perceiving"; he called it rational/irrational.
    It should be noted that Jung did indeed use both "judgment" and "perception" as ways to refer to his rational and irrational types.

    Myers, Grant and Beebe didn't "solidify" the attitudes, they altered them based upon Myers own misunderstandings of introversion and extraversion.
    For more information on that, and the ramifications of her misunderstanding - read this post.

    Myers determined that the most visible form of "judging" or "perceiving" (and therefore the most likely useful in interpersonal interaction) was extraverted judging or perceiving, and so denoted this with the J/P dichotomy. So it wasn't a "lack of understanding" of Jung; it was a determination of a more [externally] useful dichotomy. Someone in Socionics came behind, and decided it should be the dominant function to be truer to Jung, but instead of resurrecting his original terms, they took the J/P and just made it lowercase: "j/p".
    So what you're calling "INTP" is really an INTJ, with the auxiliary assumed to be the same attitude as the dominant. It's still "Ni+T" ("introverted intuitive with Thinking"), to use Jung's terminology (or IN-T, or ILI, in the three letter versions of the codes).
    It was due to a lack of understanding, and is addressed in the post linked above.

    So forget INTP being "J"; and INTJ being "P". To insist upon that is to mix up Jung's fourth category with Myers'. Again, it's not her misunderstanding; it's those who don't realize those are deliberately two completely different factors and demand they should be treated the same.
    The MBTI does measure Ti indirectly, because if you score highest on I and T, and then also P, the P is covering general behavioral preferences pointing [that's what the variable does] to the perception being extraverted, which accompanies an introverted judgment. So then the "T" must be introverted, and also dominant. So it's just as you said; they aren't separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.
    The MBTI does not measure "Ti" indirectly nor directly, and no, P = perceiving. Attempting to use "P" to support "Ti" indirectly being tested for within I+N+P is disingenuous and misleading to say the least.
    Assuming any "accompaniment" if an introverted judgment is to fail to understand my point - this isn't true to Jung at all - which is why I responded to this topic - outlining the ENTP as Ne-Ti-Fe-Si is not true to Jung at all and therefore, this is *not* a "Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis".
    It's an internet-MBTI one. It's not even a Myers-based one because she believed the tertiary was in the same direction as the auxiliary and inferior - this, and the others, should all be re-titled "A Grantian Cognitive Function Analysis" as they're misleading and spreading misinformation as it currently stands.

    This belief that "the T must be introverted" is unfounded and again, comes back to Myers completely failing to understand and respect introversion and extraversion as their own complete temperaments - note, this is not suggesting that an introvert is 100% introverted, rather that introversion from a Jungian perspective does not require extraversion in order to perceive anything externally, nor in order to make judgments in accordance with external criteria - these aspects are simply non-preferred aspects of the introverted attitude.
    Vica versa for the extraverted attitude.

    And Beebe's "crossed spines" is not about the attitude of the auxiliary, as you have it; it's about the rationality (rational or irrational; or dominant judgment or perception). Ne is irrational, while Fi is rational, and that's why ENTP and ISFP would have crossed spines. So then the whole stack is denoted as having an 'irrational" or "rational" spine. The "spine" is the set of tandems formed by the dominant through its reflections and shadows, and so encompasses the dominant, inferior, Opposing and Demonic (stack positions 1, 4, 5, 8; Ne-Si-Ni-Se, or Fi-Te-Fe-Ti, respectively), and these will all have the same rationality as the dominant. The auxiliary forms the base of the "arms" (2, 3, 6, 7), which will all be the opposite rationality of the spine. So for an ENTP, it will be rational (Ti-Fe-Te-Fi), and for ISFP, it will be irrational (Se-Ni-Si-Ne).
    Eric, fair call on the difference being rationality and irrationality, that's correct, my mistake.
    Still has literally no credibility outside of Beebe's own "Ne".
    I mean, did he actually test the theory on a broader scale?

    What is supposed to happen when two people have "crossed spines", is that they will have misunderstandings in communication, where one is simply making a perception, which the other then takes as a judgment, or vice versa. I often wonder about this, and think that it could be affected by the other complexes, like we could bother have rational spines, but if one of us switches to an arm complex, then one might still mistake a perception on the others' part for a judgment.
    Cool. I don't believe in any of this, and won't, until it's got some scientific credibility. But, Beebe's certainly "interesting", if nothing else.

    His way of putting together thee ideas is simply an Ne approach, and so yes, he will take his dreams and other personal experience as setting the idea; Ne says "yes" (the connection exists), and if Ti also says yes ("true" according to logical principles I know), then he will put it out as a likely theory. (Weren't you an Ni type? That would be why this perspective makes no sense to you. Ni is more likely to say "no" to something, for an unconscious internal reason, and then Je backs it up with external analysis or authority, and then the overall reaction is just an all around "NO!")
    I used to resonate with "Ni", however, I feel I'm simply too logical and factual to actually be an "N" - I could be "peacocking" my Sensation here, though, and downplaying my own "N" for reasons unknown - but, either way - I do prefer what you've deemed "Je" - at least, from a Thinking perspective - which is undoubtedly why I've even responded to this topic.

    It's not true to the source, therefore, it's not Jungian - depicting ENTPs as Ne-Ti etc etc is "fake news" for multiple reasons - the only relevant one to this topic however, is that it's not true to Jung - so, not a Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis.

    An actual JCF analysis, should follow Jungs theories on the general attitude of consciousness - which of course, points towards the ENTPs "stack" as being Ne-Te-Fi-Si.

    I understand it's semantics - I'm all for a broader system than Jungs anyway - but, it spreads misinformation, and I think it's high-time we as a community stood up and fought against that.
    Ne-Ti-Fe-Si is not true to Jung.

    Therefore, this - and all other type descriptors that adhere to the Grant stack - are not Jungian Cognitive Functions analysis - that's all my point is here.

  7. #17
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung. As I said, his theory was very formative (that's a better term) and hard to completely decipher as it is, and not always consistent. When Myers, Beebe and others call their theories "Jungian", they mean that his concept was the foundation for their teachings; not that they are relaying his views 100%. For instance, this page, The Energy Factor – Wellness Resources of Vermont is the typical introductory way of putting the relation of modern theorists and Myers, to Jung:

    When Jung originated the conceptual framework of psychological type, he did so in terms of the function-attitudes. Briggs and Myers simplified the “public face” of the model, but at the same time, they also expanded its scope. Beginning in the 1980s, analytical psychologist John Beebe began to reconcile the two frames. This enabled him to expand the model to encompass the entire territory of personality, including the part of us that is not conscious.
    It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.

    Beebe uses his theories in his analysis on clients (He is an analyst, after all), and often uses them as examples in his writings, so that does seem to "test" his theory; though I guess you want some more formal testing. Don't know whether he's done that or not.

    The quote is "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types." and this is from "Appendix: Four Papers on Psychological Typology, at 523" (and which as it is, is a very hard reference to find online).
    This citation is again, often used by those who focus on "eight cognitive processes", but I would agree, keeping the functions and attitudes as separate variables is better at understanding what they really are.

    You're probably an INTJ or ENTJ (seems like it), and being "logical and factual", obviously indicates T. You mentioned S, and I take it that was supposed to tie to the "factual" part of it, but "factual" is T as well. S is perception of facts, and T is judgment of facts. (Where N is perception of inferences, and F is judgment of human affect; both getting into "meanings" beyond the mere "facts").
    So you can be N dom. or T dom. and still deal in "facts" (which for a J type are perceived internally and verified by external judgment, such as the demand for "empirical" research). If ENTJ, then Se will be tertiary, and fairly conscious, so that may make the focus even more "concrete", though Ni will still be auxiliary, and enough to draw you to a topic like this. If Ni is dominant, Te will be aux. and still create a "factual" approach, but it will be more about determining which abstract ideas (such as theories) are "correct", more so than dealing with more physical things.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/
    Likes highlander liked this post

  8. #18
    The Bat Man highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    21,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung.

    It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.
    I couldn't agree more . I can't understand why so many people can't understand this somewhat obvious thing.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639
    Likes Eric B liked this post

  9. #19
    Senior Member Turi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung. As I said, his theory was very formative (that's a better term) and hard to completely decipher as it is, and not always consistent. When Myers, Beebe and others call their theories "Jungian", they mean that his concept was the foundation for their teachings; not that they are relaying his views 100%. For instance, this page, The Energy Factor – Wellness Resources of Vermont is the typical introductory way of putting the relation of modern theorists and Myers, to Jung:


    It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.
    You'll find there's a reason for this, from my perspective - these models deviate too far and they're all built upon the same mistakes I outlined in the thread I linked - that's what led to the IExE and EIxI stacks, it's why there's a P/J divide etc etc they're all built upon a failure to understand introversion and extraversion - so, I don't view them as "expansions" I simply view them as spreading misinformation and falsities.

    I'm not a hardcore Jungian myself. I don't use his methods to type people with. I prefer a broader, more expansive system that actually has the above issue solved - and therefore, is actually an expansion of Jungs work and not simply an elaboration on misinformation.

    Beebe uses his theories in his analysis on clients (He is an analyst, after all), and often uses them as examples in his writings, so that does seem to "test" his theory; though I guess you want some more formal testing. Don't know whether he's done that or not.
    I do, and he should provide some actual credible research, really.

    The quote is "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types." and this is from "Appendix: Four Papers on Psychological Typology, at 523" (and which as it is, is a very hard reference to find online).
    This citation is again, often used by those who focus on "eight cognitive processes", but I would agree, keeping the functions and attitudes as separate variables is better at understanding what they really are.
    ..I don't know what copy of Psychological Types you've got, but mine's got these appendixs in the back, here's the quote:

    Recapitulating, I would like to stress that each of the two general attitudes, introversion and extraversion, manifests itself in a special way in an individual through the predominance of one of the four basic functions. Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types, such as thinking types, sensation types, etc. There are thus at least eight clearly distinguishable types. Obviously one could increase this number at will if each of the functions were split into three subgroups, which would not be impossible empirically.

    One could, for example, easily divide thinking into its three well-known forms: intuitive and speculative, logical and mathematical, empirical and positivist, the last being mainly dependent on sense perception. Similar subgroups could be made of the other functions, as in the case of intuition, which has an intellectual as well as an emotional and sensory aspect. In this way a large number of types could be established, each new division becoming increasingly subtle.
    Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 477). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

    I bolded the part you quoted - as you'll see, it is not suggesting people are not introverts or extraverts and are instead functions - it's pretty obviously to do with *not* splitting I/E from the functions - it's suggesting that's not how the theory works - this ties into what I've outlined above, in that everyone post-Myers has been off-base from a "Jungian" perspective.
    There's nothing Jungian about a separate I/E facet, and there's nothing Jungian about the P/J reflecting ones external behaviour - don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Myers has done - I'm just of the opinion that she deviated far too far from anything "Jungian" for the MBTI model to be considered as "Jungian" - which is my issue with the title of this thread, and many others.

    They are not Jungian Cognitive Functions Analysis. They are "Grantian" function analysis, considering orientation of the tertiary function deviates from Myers.

    You're probably an INTJ or ENTJ (seems like it), and being "logical and factual", obviously indicates T. You mentioned S, and I take it that was supposed to tie to the "factual" part of it, but "factual" is T as well. S is perception of facts, and T is judgment of facts. (Where N is perception of inferences, and F is judgment of human affect; both getting into "meanings" beyond the mere "facts").
    I understand what all of the four functions are - but, getting into "meanings" ie, beyond "mere facts" is probably better aligned at introversion as opposed to N or F or any function in particular - all of the functions, in the introverted attitude, can see beyond the surface (E) level - even N, when in the extraverted attitude, is very much a surface-level intuition - to the point where actual "Ne" comes very close to "Se":

    But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation.
    Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 339). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

    That's not the whole section - in context, Jungs referring to Sensation in the extraverted attitude - and intuition is in the Extraverted attitude is being outlined in very much the same way, undoubtedly by way of extraversion.

    See what I mean? You've pegged N (and F) in general as "getting into meaning beyond the mere facts" but that's not actually the case, it's only the case when in the Introverted attitude, the extraverted attitude means they are very much pertaining to the "mere facts" insofar as the facts are basically anything in the outer world.

    So you can be N dom. or T dom. and still deal in "facts" (which for a J type are perceived internally and verified by external judgment, such as the demand for "empirical" research). If ENTJ, then Se will be tertiary, and fairly conscious, so that may make the focus even more "concrete", though Ni will still be auxiliary, and enough to draw you to a topic like this. If Ni is dominant, Te will be aux. and still create a "factual" approach, but it will be more about determining which abstract ideas (such as theories) are "correct", more so than dealing with more physical things.
    Se is only tertiary in ENTJs in the Grantian and Beebe models - it's not in Myers model, and it's not accurate at all from a Jungian perspective as I've outlined - and this is honestly all my issue is here, that these descriptors are not Jungian anything.
    They're Grantian.

    Even Ni having to have Te or Fe "aux" is incorrect from a Jungian perspective - I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm all for Ni types being able to be Ni-Te, Ni-Ti, Ni-Fe and Ni-Fi and none of this pertaining to "loops" or any other such non-credible nonsense - but the fact remains that perspective is not Jungian.

    That's why people complain about it - it's simply not "true" - it's not an accurate portrayal of Jungs work.
    They should be renamed.


    @highlander - it's got nothing to do with any failure to understand anything, it's only to do with wanting the truth represented - and the truth is, the Harold Grant stack is *not* Jungian, therefore these threads are misleading and spread misinformation - not only this, but it's somewhat disrespectful to Grant et al who only had the best of intentions at heart.

    Grant wasn't trying to force this stack onto anybody, he just thought it seemed like that's how people developed so he threw it out there without a whole lot of research or studies behind it (a "plausible hypothesis", in his words) - so it's just sketchy from multiple angles to depict descriptors using the Grant stack, as anything remotely Jungian.

    It disrespects Grant, and it's not true to Jung.

    I know nobody cares about this kind of thing, but there are people out there who push for the truth - I believe you're one of them, hence why you put in the effort you do into refining the TypoC test etc.
    Likes highlander liked this post

  10. #20
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,605

    Default

    OK, I've just answered your other post.

    I don't think anyone ever claimed J/P as "external behavior" was "Jungian". As for I/E being misunderstood and not splitting the attitudes from the functions, I addressed that in the other thread.

    As for N/F "meanings", that was just my own way of distinguishing S and T as both dealing with "Facts". I know "meanings" may have been a rather weak term. You then throw the attitude into that, and there is so much cross-talk in these, like like "concrete/abstract" (can be S/N or i/e) or "subjective/objective" (can be either i/e or T/F). So yes an introverted function may be more into "meanings", since it involves an "internal model" of things, and thus extraversion may seem more factual. That basically parallels concrete/abstract in that respect. But Ne in some respects still deals in "meanings", ad Si in "facts".
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/
    Likes highlander liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTJ] ESTJ: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-18-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. [ISTJ] ISTJ: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2014, 12:03 AM
  3. [ESTP] ESTP: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 02:17 PM
  4. [ESFJ] ESFJ: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 02:16 PM
  5. [ISFJ] ISFJ: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs Type Profiles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 02:14 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