• 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.

Type me video! >.<

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Then...
Ne
Fi <-- "critical parent" function
Te
Si

So, Fi actually does play a large role in the INFJ stack. Basically, the receiving and giving of criticism is filtered through Fi.

Isn't personality just conscious ego orientation? Those functions you outline are unconscious, and therefore part of the shadow. Your functions are so undifferentiated/unconscious at that level, that to give it some dorky name like "critical parent" seems like a reach to me. It's like anatomizing viscous goop.

I certainly never heard much from Jung or von Franz on this malarkey.

ETA: I realize you did not coin that terminology, and it's fairly conventional typological stuff. I'm not blaming you for the work of Robert Beebe (Beebe came up with this stuff, didn't he?). I just don't see the value in it, at this moment in time.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Oh okay, my mistake. I am simply unaware of how it was relevant. Do you find socionics a helpful complement to MBTI?

Yes, it helps to fill in the blanks when things don't add up.

Take me for example: I'm an INFJ but I'm an e4, so I often test as being an Fi dom. I also occasionally test near equal on Ni and Ne, so I've gotten function results like this: Fi > Ne > Ni > Fe > Ti > Se > Si > Te

Of course, results vary based on test, but Socionics does explain the higher Fi and Ne because it approaches the functions differently (I'm NOT very familiar with Socionics, for the record).
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
Isn't personality just conscious ego orientation? Those functions you outline are unconscious, and therefore part of the shadow. Your functions are so undifferentiated/unconscious at that level, that to give it some dorky name like "critical parent" seems like a reach to me. It's like anatomizing viscous goop.

I certainly never heard much from Jung or von Franz on this malarkey.

ETA: I realize you did not coin that terminology, and it's fairly conventional typological stuff. I'm not blaming you for the work of Robert Beebe (Beebe came up with this stuff, didn't he?). I just don't see the value in it, at this moment in time.

The unconscious indirectly plays a large role in our behavior so I don't see how it can be irrelevant or lacking value.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
The unconscious indirectly plays a large role in our behavior so I don't see how it can be irrelevant or lacking value.

I am not claiming the unconscious is irrelevant, I agree it has a large influence on our behaviour. I am just extremely skeptical of claims that we are able to distinguish the functions in the shadow to such an extent that we can clearly define the role of each one, when really the shadow seems to act more like a dark morass. Our conscious functions (like our dominant) on the other hand, are differentiated and refined, so it's much easier to describe how they work. And even then, typing is pretty difficult at times (hence this thread).

Jung himself rarely went beyond the dominant and the inferior, but now some claim to be able to delineate each and every function. In my experience, the best and most accurate descriptions are either directly from Jung's Psychological Types, or from his early acolytes (von Franz and van der Hoop). So I'm always skeptical of newer ideas about JCF. I know areas of study advance, but it just seems like they're going way too far out on a limb with the theory, and trying to justify their existence in the field.
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
I am not claiming the unconscious is irrelevant, I agree it has a large influence on our behaviour. I am just extremely skeptical of claims that we are able to distinguish the functions in the shadow to such an extent that we can clearly define the role of each one, when really the shadow seems to act more like a dark morass. Our conscious functions (like our dominant) on the other hand, are differentiated and refined, so it's much easier to describe how they work. And even then, typing is pretty difficult at times (hence this thread).

Jung himself rarely went beyond the dominant and the inferior, but now some claim to be able to delineate each and every function. In my experience, the best and most accurate descriptions are either directly from Jung's Psychological Types, or from his early acolytes (von Franz and van der Hoop). So I'm always skeptical of newer ideas about JCF. I know areas of study advance, but it just seems like they're going way too far out on a limb with the theory, and trying to justify their existence in the field.

People probably felt (and still feel) the same about Jung's theory in general.

Development takes time. Gaps are being filled in based on what can be observed and "what would make sense".
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
Yes, I just meant your Ti is not underdeveloped.

I figured. I guess that's why I get the occasional xNTP. INTP I can understand. ENTP just confuses me because, if anything, I don't think I give off dominant Ne vibes. It might be because I exhibit Fe, so to compensate for INTP having inferior Fe, they throw ENTP at me to explain Fe because it would be my tertiary (and therefore, "more used").
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
People probably felt (and still feel) the same about Jung's theory in general.

Development takes time. Gaps are being filled in based on what can be observed and "what would make sense".

Sure, I guess I just don't find these newly filled-in gaps to be particularly useful, observable, or "what would make sense". But that's just me. I prefer to grip my non-scientific theories lightly, and use them more as quick-and-dirty frameworks that are only "true" in so far as they are useful/practical (As Jung intended). But if other people want to have fun and stretch the original theory, it's a free country.

It just seems a bit like trying to make subatomic measurements by "eyeballing" the particle.
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
Sure, I guess I just don't find these newly filled-in gaps to be particularly useful, observable, or "what would make sense". But that's just me. I prefer to grip my non-scientific theories lightly, and use them more as quick-and-dirty frameworks that are only "true" in so far as they are useful/practical (As Jung intended). But if other people want to have fun and stretch the original theory, it's a free country.

It just seems a bit like trying to make subatomic measurements by "eyeballing" the particle.

My only question is, since this theory is an unproved "science", how else would we have development in cognitive theories without the people that do work on expanding and theorizing beyond what Jung came up with? Jung assumes a position of authority for many people, but there is no definite structure. At this time there's no way to prove any of it.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
My only question is, since this theory is an unproved "science", how else would we have development in cognitive theories without the people that do work on expanding and theorizing beyond what Jung came up with? Jung assumes a position of authority for many people, but there is no definite structure. At this time there's no way to prove any of it.

I never saw it as a theory that needed development, or that required a lot of proof. It's just a set of cognitive patterns Jung observed in his practice as a therapist, and he found it to be a useful framework. It's only true insofar as it "works", that is to say helps the patient. It's not supposed to isolate/describe every single function hiding in your subconscious.

I don't think of that as an argument based on Jung's authority, it's more like when an experienced person gives you advice and you find it useful. You take the advice seriously because of their authority/experience, but if you apply it and find it unhelpful, you don't continue believing it. That's why I don't frequent any Jungian forums devoted to his beliefs about UFO's.

I feel like I'm making a lot of Si-sounding arguments (My personal experience with applying the theory works as Jung intended, why mess with it), and you're making a lot of Ni-counters (but where is it all going?) and we're not understanding each other. ;)

since this theory is an unproved "science", how else would we have development in cognitive theories without the people that do work on expanding and theorizing beyond what Jung came up with?

I just think they should make up their own theories, rather than trying to justify their existence by adding superfluous towers and decorations to Jung's cloud castle in the sky. If they must contribute something, perhaps they could substantiate the theory with the use of neuroscience? Make the clouds more solid, rather than adding more clouds.

I'm not sure if it all checks out, but the work of Dario Nardi with brain scanning the different types comes to mind.
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
I never saw it as a theory that needed development, or that required a lot of proof. It's just a set of cognitive patterns Jung observed in his practice as a therapist, and he found it to be a useful framework. It's only true insofar as it "works", that is to say helps the patient. It's not supposed to isolate/describe every single function hiding in your subconscious.

I don't think of that as an argument based on Jung's authority, it's more like when an experienced person gives you advice and you find it useful. You take the advice seriously because of their authority/experience, but if you apply it and find it unhelpful, you don't continue believing it. That's why I don't frequent any Jungian forums devoted to his beliefs about UFO's.

I feel like I'm making a lot of Si-sounding arguments (My personal experience with applying the theory works as Jung intended, why mess with it), and you're making a lot of Ni-counters (but where is it all going?) and we're not understanding each other. ;)



I just think they should make up their own theories, rather than trying to justify their existence by adding superfluous towers and decorations to Jung's cloud castle in the sky. If they must contribute something, perhaps they could substantiate the theory with the use of neuroscience? Make the clouds more solid, rather than adding more clouds.

I'm not sure if it all checks out, but the work of Dario Nardi with brain scanning the different types comes to mind.


Are you implying that I'm an Ni dom? ;)

I honestly don't study the theory to apply it to the real world. I mean, I do apply it to the real world, but not in a concrete sense or so I can help people. I think the usefulness of the theory is purely its existence from which we use it to expand our understanding of certain things as well as to gain insight into other findings. But, of course, everyone has their own uses for it and definitions of why they believe it to be useful.

I've looked into Nardi's studies. Interesting stuff. He definitely has a different approach. I was actually going to mention him but it still isn't "proof", I guess. Observable patterns exist no matter what so that's proof enough for me to continue studying the theory. Basically, all we are doing is putting definitions and structures to these patterns in order to make sense of them and to discover why said patterns might exist. New patterns are being observed, are they not? We should build upon and expand when we can, instead of just starting something completely new.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Tritype? Like enneagram? If so, I believe I'm a 5 without a wing. I don't know.

Core 5 seems likely. Perhaps your wings are ambiguous, but the theory states that we all have a wing, typically but not always leaning more to one than the other.
 

beloiseau

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
52
Core 5 seems likely. Perhaps your wings are ambiguous, but the theory states that we all have a wing, typically but not always leaning more to one than the other.

Oh, I didn't know that. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on enneagram as I am cognitive function theory.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Oh, I didn't know that. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on enneagram as I am cognitive function theory.

I suggested a 4/5 hybrid because I am picking up on strong individualist qualities, and your photo also screams 5w4 or 4w5. However, even if you were a 5w6, tritype theory states that we all have a "fix" in each category; heart (2, 3, 4), head (5, 6, 7), and gut (8, 9, 1). So, you could have a tritype of 541 for example and still be a core 5w6, if that makes sense.

I personally prefer Enneagram to MBTI because I find that it gives my Ni something to play with. I like to pick people apart and find out what makes them tick.

I know you didn't ask, but I would hypothesize that your tritype if 541 of some order: The Researcher. I could also potentially see 548: The Scholar. The latter is a very dark tritype though, and you strike me as a bit more composed and orderly, like a 541.
 
Top