The merit of an author's work does not depend on the perspective of his reviewer for legitimation. A work of conceptual integrity would still be a work of conceptual integrity if noone even recognized it as such.A person's certain bias or perspective, as you put it, may prevent him or her from understanding the virtues of a meritorious work, however, this fact alone does not show that the work in question is implausible.
This is a really Ti-oriented position, bolded part especially. It implies that logic exists as a fundamental property of the universe regardless of any external conditions, which is part of what I've been arguing Ti tends to lead people to believe.
If I can provide a sound argument for my view, it does indeed follow that anyone who holds a view contradictory to mine is mistaken.
What if others don't agree that your argument is sound? Who is the ultimate authority on whether a given argument is sound?
Because Jung's work has been regarded as mystical and highly speculative, secondly, the notorious MBTI inkslingers have thoroughly vitiated his scholarly reputation. He is often seen as the grandfather of MBTI. Now, can you even begin to imagine any notion that is perceived as even remotely relevant to such rubbish as taken seriously by genuine scholars?
Well, MBTI was actually taught in my university psychology courses, or at least touched upon as one method of categorizing personality types. So apparently some people in academia do take it seriously. In fact, Jung's typological theories are not really taught in any academic context as far as I know--which doesn't, of course, necessitate that they aren't worth studying, but if you're using "genuine scholars" as evidence, MBTI (unfortunately) gets more attention in academia than does Jungian typology, so perhaps looking at the way academia treats Jung/MBTI/typology is not the best method of judging its validity.
On that note, in Principles of Typology, I have rendered Jung a great service. First of all, I have framed his views in a very systematic as well as a verbally precise manner, thereby giving them their philosophical justification. Secondly, I have extricated his work from the folk typological bilge by showing that his work is not at all similar to that of contempory authors of MBTI books. Thirdly, I have shown how in principle his ideas could be justified by science.
Can you give a precise definition of "folk typology" vs. "genuine typology"?
The fact that scholars have not studied his work carefully does not show that it lacks merit, rather it shows that Jung has been severely misrepresented. In part due to his own rather circumlocutious, vague and unsystematic style of exposition and also due to the low quality work of those who are mistakenly regarded as his successors.
Fair enough, but the distinctions Jung is trying to make regarding the nature of cognition have not yet been explored by science to any degree anywhere nearing complete understanding. If and when neuroscience progresses this far, Jung's ideas on typological categorization may be rendered entirely obsolete.
The trick is observing the words that best display their cognitive habits. Jung was performing the right technique when he was analyzing poetry, philosophy and biographies in his search for type. The MBTI writers were wrong to analyze people's behavior at common-place social gatherings.
So which behaviors are worth studying and which ones aren't? And how do you know the difference?
This is the key term for you to focus on: cognitive behaviors.
Okay, I'd like to hear more about what constitutes a "cognitive behavior" as opposed to any other behavior.
Yes, but this does not mean that his extroverted faculties are working to the extent that they need to be in order to be fully usable. An extroverted cognitive function is by definition stimulated by action rather than passive activity. Merely receiving information will not be enough to ensure that it is engaged to produce its full potential.
So what sort of action must a person be engaged in in order to make full use of his extroverted functions?
Also, isn't it possible that the extroverted functions could be used to some degree, even if not to their full potential, while a person is working in isolation?
A person working on isolation is generally forced to rely on the introverted faculties far more than on the extroverted. Hint: in order to receive information from the outside, you don't need to use an extroverted function. You need to use an extroverted function only to be stimulated to engage in a certain cognitive task from without rather than from within.
Right, I got that much. It just seems to me that even when working in isolation, whatever materials the person has with him (whatever he is working on) could provide enough external stimulation as to make use of his extroverted functions. You say that an extroverted function is defined by "action"; well, what exactly constitutes "action"?
It certainly is ridiculous, I wonder what inspired you to include it in the discussion?
Your implication that extroverted functions cannot be active when a person is working in isolation in combination with your explanation that extroverted functions require external stimuli to operate led me to believe that you don't think such a person is receiving external stimuli.
Observe cognitive tendencies by watching a person's activity where their mind is highly active instead of their mundane daily behaviors. Read their poetry, self-portraits or fantasy essays.
Elaborate more on this point, if you wouldn't mind.
The trouble is that its terribly difficult to sufficiently activate Ne for a person committed to a solitary task.
As an Ne dominant, I must disagree. Whenever I am working on any task (especially a solitary one that I consider to be boring), my mind constantly associates this task with many other things, concepts and situations that are, at face value, entirely unrelated to the task at hand. Connecting the current context with a multitude of seemingly unrelated contexts via abstract perceptions of similarity is virtually automatic for me, no matter whether I am working in a group or on a solitary task.
You need to use intuition to recall those impressions, just like you need to use intuition to perform any cognitive task, from the minute to that of Napoleonic complexities.
Sure, and I contend that an Si dominant person would use the inferior Ne function much more often than Ni in order to do this.
The difference is that I support my views with a solid rationale. I don't have to adhere to the original Jungian views in order to avoid being called a folk typologist, I only need to ensure that my views are adequately supported.
What I'm trying to say is that "solid rationale" is more subjective than you seem to want to allow. What you see as solid rationale may not seem to be solid rationale to someone else, despite your continual implications that your opinion of what constitutes solid rationale is somehow objectively correct.
Good, they've matured past the behaviorist stage in their inquiry. However, where they look for these cognitive tendencies also matters a great deal. Are they looking for these habits of mind in the behavior of their alcoholic uncle Joe that they've seen at a family party when they were five? Are they looking for them in the behavior of Dr.House or Dr.Seus? Or, alternatively, are they genuinely examing the cognitive behaviors of people who were expressing their thoughts at leisure and were not forced to obey any external standard? If it is the latter, then their typological inference would indeed carry far more weight than that of the people in the former camp.
So the key to avoiding folk typology is to focus on a person's behaviors when he's free to express himself fully without any constraints from externally imposed rules or standards?
I don't think I am directly observing cognitive behaviors either. What led you to believe that this is what I was doing?
Your implication that behavior-based typology is invalid led me to believe this was what you were doing. Apparently, it is not universally invalid to look to behavior for typological data; rather, it is the
type of behavior and in what context that differentiates folk typology from legitimate typology. Is that correct?
Exactly and this vindicates the claim that every person relies on Introverted perception quite significantly when engaging in a solitary task. He simply is not active enough to sufficiently engage the extroverted faculties.
Even a solitary task involves performing some sort of action and engaging the external world in some way. Where do you draw the line between what is sufficient action to engage the extroverted functions and what is not?
The stimuli needed to get one's extroverted faculties to produce the output that he needs in order to rely on them.
Extroverted functions will need a lot more stimulation than that to ignite. For the meantime, the person you have in mind would have to rely on Introverted Intuition.
Is it your contention that, when I go through the process of association that I described above during a solitary task, I am actually using introverted intuition?
The activity is almost by definition low on stimuli. Generally an extrovert tends to be drained altogether by such an activity unless he happens to have a rich inner life or a captivating mental task to be occupied with. Much of this is because of the nature of his cognitive functions as cognitive functions define his temperament. The extroverted function does not cease to function, but it would be inactive to the point where it appears as if it has stopped functioning.
What if the task with which he is occupied while sitting at the desk provides significant mental stimulation for him (as I describe above)?
In that case Ne-Fi activity that is very reminiscent of Fe should also be severly opposed by that Te process, yet it isn't. Its not because Ne-Fi are above Te in the hierarchy of cognitive efficacy.
Ne-Fi activity is not very reminiscent of Fe because the Feeling component is not stimulated by external means.
Because the function is the same, just the attitudes are different. What the two have in common is that Feeling is the most efficacious cognitive faculty of their psyche, that is by far more important than the natural sources of stimulation for both of these.
That may be true, but I contend that people who make a habit of depending upon internal stimulation for Feeling will often learn to dislike depending upon external stimulation for it to an even greater degree than depending on external stimulation for Thinking.
I see the differecen between the two functions, yet what reason does this give me to believe that the discrepancy is wider than the one between Fe and Ti and or Fi and Te?
It's not the discrepancy between the processes themselves that's the issue here; it's the way people with these tendencies tend to interpret the opposite attitude of their primary functions. See below.
I don't see that. What evidence is available to support that claim?
My evidence for this is really only available through observing the behavior of others. When ExFPs fail to get the results they want through their regular Ne+Fi or Se+Fi, for instance, they rarely seem to behave in a way associated with Fe, but begin to resemble rather childish ExTJ types, commanding and delegating in a coldly impersonal manner (generally this seems to happen because something is stressing them out) in order to get the necessary tasks completed. Kind of like, "Ok, asking nicely isn't working and that's upsetting, so I guess you've forced me to be mean about it!"
When they get into this mode they seem to resemble xxTJs far more than xxFJs; in fact, they rarely seem to do much of anything that resembles xxFJ types at all.
Unfortunately I can't give you any evidence for this beyond my personal experience with people, and the fact that looking at it this way seems to describe their behaviors more accurately for my purposes.
What reason is there to suppose that this antithesis surpasses the one between Thinking and Feeling or other functionally opposed faculties?
I don't see any reason to suppose that the antithesis between Thinking and Feeling,
when they are oriented in opposite directions, is all that significant in the first place. I don't find the antithesis between Ti and Fe nearly as significant as the antithesis between Ti and Fi or Te and Fe because, as I mentioned in a previous post, Ti deals with introverted judgment and Fe with extroverted judgment. In short, they don't interfere with each other because they don't make the same types of decisions.
How did you arrive at this view?
Explained above. To recap, I will use ENFP as the continuing example--in my experience, ENFP types, since the most natural way to experience Feeling for them is through internal stimuli, if they discover that this method is not working, they seem to assume that Feeling is not going to work in this situation, so they switch over to Thinking ("I've tried being nice, but it's not working, so no more Mr. Nice Guy!"), which for them is most naturally simulated by external means and expressed through a Te attitude.
Where do you see that? If that is true, you should also conclude that Te people are naturally opposed to Ti people and vice versa, Ne people to Ni and Se to Si. Can you furnish the adequate evidence to support all of those claims? You have to support them all or the underlying principle collapses.
Indeed, I do conclude that. Look at some of the argument threads on this board! All the evidence you need is around you in the form of disagreements between others. Look at the numerous "I don't get Fi!" threads all started by Ti/Fe users, for instance. Note how the TPs tend to align with the FJs and the FPs with the TJs--this is because they share the same preferences for judgment functions.
Every time someone makes a thread about "I really don't get people who use x judgment function", you can see two factions line up: The Ti/Fe-ers (TPs and FJs) vs. the Fi/Te-ers (FPs and TJs.)
If the Fi dom/aux people (xxFP) were more natural users of Fe than Te, wouldn't they tend to align with the FJs moreso than the TJs? And yet they don't. You would see more even divisions across T/F lines, and yet that doesn't happen, as TPs tend to make decisions in a much more similar fashion to FJs than they do to FPs. Why do you suppose this is?
Now, that is folk typology. This paragraph contains no arguments, no references to purely cognitive behaviors, just expositions of behaviors of people who supposedly have this or that Jungian type.
All typological ideas must be based on observations of the behavior and speech of others. It seems strange that when I do this, it's dismissed as folk typology, but when you make typological inferences through the same method of observing the behavior/speech of others and inferring cognitive tendencies, it's somehow legitimate. Why is that?
Yes, they tend to, however, this claim is significantly different from 'they do'.
Fair enough, but I would point out that the entire system is based on discussing tendencies. There are very few absolutes.
Expositions of typology that focus on people's trivial daily behaviors and make no reference to purely cognitive tendencies tend to be labelled as folk typology, especially if they also lack the rigor of argument. There is nothing wrong with observing behaviors, as long as you separate the typologically relevant ones from the irrelevant.
What kind of behaviors qualify as "purely cognitive tendencies" and why? How do you know the difference?
I have some chores to get done, but I'll come back a bit later and address the remainder of your post.