funtensity
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
_
Last edited:
Vicky Jo said:Notice that Jung says to the interviewer he was “characterized by Thinking,†followed by his admission, “I had a great deal of intuition too.†In my experience, most INTJs are “characterized by Thinking†and less renowned for their intuition. Experienced typologists know that it’s common for introverts to be better known for their extraverted auxiliary process than their introverted dominant process. This would easily explain why Jung is “characterized†that way, even when it does not truly represent him. He goes on to say, “I had a great difficulty with Feelingâ€; and then emphasizes, “my relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant; I was often at variance with the reality of things†— which seems like an indication of his inferior extraverted sensing function and the struggles he had with it over his lifetime.
Jung gave us a theory. Aside from correlating the MBTI with the Big 5, academia hasn't tested it. Why?
Thus, when a classic academic type reads Psychological Types, they tend to write it off as the workings of a crank.
It is yet another theory that must be tested.
They have no introspective mechanism with which to distinguish it from any of the other cognitive biases that might lead one to believe in astrology. They don't have that feeling that tells them holy shit, this is actually correct. It simply does not resonate with them in the same way. They don't get it.
Stream of consciousness that compresses reality into an alternate basis which seems real: *P
I don't think he was an INTJ. If he were an INTJ, then academia would have given his work more serious consideration a long time ago, because academia itself is INTJ.
Instead, when INTJs read his work, they don't understand it the way he does. They think it needs to be subject to the scientific method (and they gasp in despair when they realize it's not easily testable), and they don't find it intuitively obvious because they don't have the same kind of insight into themselves.
(...) whereas to me I was inwardly identifying all of these aspects of myself. I was identifying all of the neural machinery, and reconceptualizing my very self in terms of the things being learned. This changed the way I experience reality.
I spend most of my time as a Ti Ni Se Fe and I am getting better at switching between Ni and Se. I think my Ni has become so dominant in me because I spent a long time studying under INTJs.
Going back to the purpose of this thread, though: you have to address why academia, an outward manifestation of INTJ, continues to ignore Psychological Types.
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] you said Jung viewed himself as a Ti-dom when he wrote Psychological Types, so what do you think about the Vicky Jo stuff you linked to? In saying that Jung viewed himself as a Ti-dom "at the time he wrote Psychological types", do you mean to imply that he might have changed his mind about his type (or even thought of himself as having changed type) at some later time?
From that interview, "characterized by thinking" sounds like he was saying thinking was his dominant function, but of course that's not absolutely clear. He had "a great deal of intuition" so he essentially considered himself an NT, and his "definite difficulty with feeling" is consistent with that. However, he hasn't given us "all the necessary data for the diagnosis" because he said nothing about introversion. Although, it depends what he meant by his comments about his difficulty with reality. In that context it seems logical to think he's talking about tert/inf sensation, but Jung described Si-doms' "relation to reality" as, to say the least, "not particularly brilliant", so could that be a reference to his introversion? He says, "the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life." and his comments about his type are in the past tense, so maybe he's saying he was an introverted thinking type, but is now an introverted intuitive. But why would he tell us what his type was in the past, while saying nothing about his current type? Was he deliberately being confusing?
Here's some of Vicky Jo's explanation:
Jung wouldn't have considered himself to have an extraverted auxiliary, but I can kind of see what she means in that maybe, despite being an Ni-dom, he was known more for his thinking than his intuition.
Conclusion: um... Jung is confusing.
Sure, academic psych nowadays is about e.g. empirical research. But there's no denying its roots in the liberal arts, which continues to influence the field because the sciencey part of psych is relatively new. See also: systems engineering. In that field, the scientific rigor didn't hit until about the middle of the last century.Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
Jung gave us a theory. Aside from correlating the MBTI with the Big 5, academia hasn't tested it. Why?
Academia is an outward manifestation of the mind of the J types, which have extraverted judging functions in their dominant set. This especially includes INTJ and ENTJ types.
Jung's work Psychological Types, on the other hand, is the outward manifestation of the P types, which have introverted judging functions in their dominant set. ISTP and INTP are particularly notable instances of this.
Some may claim that Jung was an INTJ, but this is very non-obvious. Jung didn't build out his theory using Te. He created the simplest theory in his mind that explained as much variance in his patients as possible, and then wrote it down in a book. This compressed thinking is not the style of Te. To compress vast swaths of patient behaviors into a few cognitive functions is distinctly Ti or, perhaps (conceivably), Fi. It is not Te or Fe. Not one bit.
Here I claim that for the most part, those with dominant extraverted judging functions have relatively little insight into the workings of their own minds, as compared to those with introverted judging functions. When a *NTJ reads Psychological Types, there isn't the same introspective resonation in their minds as is achieved with a *P type, such as INTP, ISTP, INFP, INFP, ENFP, etc.
Thus, when a classic academic type reads Psychological Types, they tend to write it off as the workings of a crank. It is yet another theory that must be tested. They have no introspective mechanism with which to distinguish it from any of the other cognitive biases that might lead one to believe in astrology. They don't have that feeling that tells them holy shit, this is actually correct. It simply does not resonate with them in the same way. They don't get it. Their mind is tuned to things in the world, not to their representation in the mind, as it is in those with introverted judging functions.
Academia = *J
Stream of consciousness that compresses reality into an alternate basis which seems real: *P
Discuss.
Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
They do not have better frameworks for understanding "mind stuff" now. The MBTI / JCF is far more advanced than anything academic psychology has produced.
Academia is still stuck with "theory of mind," which is an extremely shallow form of empathy that is tantamount to assuming that the other person's mind works like yours. And it is thus far incapable of creating composite descriptions of anything but terse length that explain substantial variance across people.
I also consider the description of academia as largely an outward manifestation of INTJ to be unimpeachable. *NTJs occupy a remarkable percentage of academics, and if you were to write a type description of academia it would essentially be that of INTJ, with some other types mixed in here and there for good, but not good enough, measure. And this kind of thinking can be pulled straight out of Psychological Types: Jung sought to reconcile Freud and Adler's theories, which he considered to be outward manifestations of E/I.
Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
Sure, academic psych nowadays is about e.g. empirical research. But there's no denying its roots in the liberal arts, which continues to influence the field because the sciencey part of psych is relatively new. See also: systems engineering. In that field, the scientific rigor didn't hit until about the middle of the last century.
Even leaving the whole "liberal arts" thing aside .. ... academia is chock full of P types.
Perhaps you're referencing Te users rather than J-types in general.
The issue with psychology and academia is that psychology, while logical, has little application to society. It merely provides insight into human behavior on the basis of assumptions (depending on the field of psychology) and provides no actual solutions or tangible goals as to its implementation. This is particularly true of Jung's work.
If it doesn't fix something, it's irrelevant.
Ti/Fe types might see it as a logical (Ti) way to help people (Fe), but the Te/Fi nature of modern society strives mainly for moral/self-satisfying (Fi) ways to do/organize things (Te).
Jung gave us a theory. Aside from correlating the MBTI with the Big 5, academia hasn't tested it. Why?
Academia is an outward manifestation of the mind of the J types, which have extraverted judging functions in their dominant set. This especially includes INTJ and ENTJ types.
Jung's work Psychological Types, on the other hand, is the outward manifestation of the P types, which have introverted judging functions in their dominant set. ISTP and INTP are particularly notable instances of this.
Some may claim that Jung was an INTJ, but this is very non-obvious. Jung didn't build out his theory using Te. He created the simplest theory in his mind that explained as much variance in his patients as possible, and then wrote it down in a book. This compressed thinking is not the style of Te. To compress vast swaths of patient behaviors into a few cognitive functions is distinctly Ti or, perhaps (conceivably), Fi. It is not Te or Fe. Not one bit.
Here I claim that for the most part, those with dominant extraverted judging functions have relatively little insight into the workings of their own minds, as compared to those with introverted judging functions. When a *NTJ reads Psychological Types, there isn't the same introspective resonation in their minds as is achieved with a *P type, such as INTP, ISTP, INFP, INFP, ENFP, etc.
Thus, when a classic academic type reads Psychological Types, they tend to write it off as the workings of a crank. It is yet another theory that must be tested. They have no introspective mechanism with which to distinguish it from any of the other cognitive biases that might lead one to believe in astrology. They don't have that feeling that tells them holy shit, this is actually correct. It simply does not resonate with them in the same way. They don't get it. Their mind is tuned to things in the world, not to their representation in the mind, as it is in those with introverted judging functions.
Academia = *J
Stream of consciousness that compresses reality into an alternate basis which seems real: *P
Discuss.