User Tag List

View Poll Results: How do you rate this book?

12. You may not vote on this poll
  • * (worst)

    2 16.67%
  • **

    1 8.33%
  • ***

    1 8.33%
  • ****

    5 41.67%
  • ***** (best)

    3 25.00%
First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018


    Not even going to bother.

  2. #12
    is indra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014


    Literally blew my mind.
    tiny purple fishes run laughing through your fingers
    and you want to take her with you, to the hard land of the winter

  3. #13
    J.M.P.P. R.I.P. B5: RLOAI Kephalos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    EII None


    It has a strange structure.

    It's like two books, the first book doesn't quite develop the theory explicitly but inside interpretations of religious, literary, philosophical and historical texts, and presents the theory as he probably developed it and his sources, and the second book develops the theory without any references, more like an outline.
    I do not know where the error lies. I do not pretend to set people right, but I do see that they are often wrong. -- Jane Austen, Mansfield Park.

    I wish as well as everybody else to be perfectly happy; but, like everybody else it must be in my own way. -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility.

    She was not often invited to join in the conversation of the others, nor did she desire it. Her own thoughts and reflections were habitually her best companions. -- Jane Austen, Mansfield Park.
    Likes Forever_Jung liked this post

  4. #14
    Guardian of Ga'Hoole Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    5w6 sp/so
    LII None


    Where is @Mole and his four star rating?
    A path is made by walking on it.


  5. #15
    SMB5: rlUAI Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017


    I voted but I forgot which option I vote.

    I had finished reading almost totally a few weeks ago. I skipped some boring paragraphs analyzing myths and all that stuff... And I had read chapter X like 3 times.

    I didn't vote 5 stars as I remember. I like Jung theory, but I don't like how he writes. I am with those who thinks he is a Ni-dom, because in several parts of the book it is as if he is speaking an ancient language. I am a 100% sure that text would look obscure even on my own native language. But after I had cracked it, things went way more clear. A lot of things that look subjective and "prior to interpretation" are not that subjective, but the writing is really hard to understand and figure. Jung looks quite vague at the beginning, while he is actually making an effort to NOT be vague, while some people after him are vague on purpose... I also don't like the order of the chapters. For anyone starting the reading, I would recommend chapter XI of definitions first, chapter X and than the other chapters. Start reading it from the beginning just makes it more confusing since he starts to talk about stuff before giving clear definitions, to only proper define the types in the end of the book: I think he should introduce the definitions first (chapter XI), the types after that (chapter X) and only then the other parts (liking or not they are bonus, even though it is on these parts where E/I gets deep; Jung E/I is quite deep). Also, some versions have extra additions of articles at the end, and, actually, the articles are worth reading first because some of them works as a good general introduction, that is more straight to the point and more clear.

    The obscurity of Jung's writing is partially the reason why people carry many different post-Jung interactions and definitions that starts not to evolve, but to derail it, specially when people ignore any data or evidence so whatever they say will be a truth. A lot of post-Jung stuff went against Jung partially because of a lack of understanding.

Similar Threads

  1. Psychological Types + Neurosis
    By astrotheologian in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2017, 09:48 AM
  2. [JCF] An explanation of why academia hasn't accepted, or even tested, Psychological Types
    By funtensity in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-25-2014, 03:55 PM
  3. Review of new book: 'The Question of Psychological Types'
    By Economica in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2013, 05:14 PM
  4. INTJ & INTP & Psychological Types
    By Jack Flak in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 09:56 AM
  5. A Critic of Psychological Types (not the functions).
    By Little_Sticks in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 03:37 AM

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