Don't Abuse the JUNG!

[Wonkavision]

"It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless." ---Carl Jung



Believe it or not, there are actually some who interpret this quote to mean that Carl Jung was AGAINST using typology to classify people.

Of course, its simply ridiculous that one of the most famous contributors in the history of typology would be against the use of typology, but there seems to be a strange movement, even among some TypeC members, to actually discredit typology, while lacking even the most basic understanding of the theory (and basic reading comprehension, for that matter). :steam:


Look.......

The problem here is twofold:


1. There is a very important phrase within the quote, which is somehow being overlooked.

and

2. The quote has been taken entirely out of its proper context.




POINT 1.

Jung said: "It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless."

In other words, He's saying that classifying people according to type is not an end in itself, implying that it is a means to an end.

This becomes even clearer when you look at the quote in its entire context.


POINT 2.

Here is the quote within its proper context:

"It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless. Its purpose is rather to provide a critical psychology which will make a methodical investigation and presentation of the empirical material possible.
First and foremost, it is a critical tool for the research worker, who needs definite points of view and guidelines if he is to reduce the chaotic profusion of individual experiences to any kind of order.
Secondly, a typology is a great help in understanding the wide variations that occur among individuals, and it also furnishes a clue to the fundamental differences in the psychological theories now current.
Last but not least, it is an essential means for determining the "personal equation" of the practising psychologist, who, armed with an exact knowledge of his differentiated and inferior functions, can avoid many serious blunders in dealing with his patients."

Jung mentions some of the many benefits of typology here, and is CLEARLY promoting it, rather than denouncing it.


In conclusion, I find it amazing how people who bristle at the idea of classifying people by type can spend so much time on a forum called "Typology Central"---but, then again--- "it takes all kinds", I guess.

Just STOP ABUSING the JUNG!

PLEASE!

 

[Synthetic Darkness]

I don't think anyone is "bristling" at the thought of classifying people based on their mbti type I think that some people (myself included) find it ridiculous that so many people base so much on a person's type. People come on forums like these to find out more about themselves not to be pushed into a little box. That's just how I view this forum maybe there are people who like being put into little boxes...to each his/her own? =)

 

[Wonkavision]

Hey---if you're not one of those people, then it's not directed at you.

They know who they are.

 

[Athenian200]

Umm... there is one thing I'm curious about. Why do you have to phrase and format your posts that way? It doesn't make any sense to me to say things that way. It's kind of distracting and "off" somehow.

It would have sufficed to do this:

The quote "It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless." has been used to imply that Jung didn't approve of the use of personality typology to classify individuals.

I maintain that it is incorrect to infer that, because he believed this was pointless in itself, that he believed it pointless altogether. I believe my position is supported by the larger context from which the quote was culled, which I'll provide here:

"It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless. Its purpose is rather to provide a critical psychology which will make a methodical investigation and presentation of the empirical material possible.
First and foremost, it is a critical tool for the research worker, who needs definite points of view and guidelines if he is to reduce the chaotic profusion of individual experiences to any kind of order.
Secondly, a typology is a great help in understanding the wide variations that occur among individuals, and it also furnishes a clue to the fundamental differences in the psychological theories now current.
Last but not least, it is an essential means for determining the "personal equation" of the practising psychologist, who, armed with an exact knowledge of his differentiated and inferior functions, can avoid many serious blunders in dealing with his patients."

Given the additional information in the above paragraph, I claim that the assertion that Jung did not support typology is a result of a misunderstanding of this quote and it's surrounding context at best, and evidence of an individual's desire to twist Jung's words to serve their own anti-typology agenda at worst.

I mean, doesn't that look better to you?

Oh, and by the way... I agree with you.

 

[Wonkavision]

Umm... there is one thing I'm curious about. Why do you have to phrase and format your posts that way? It doesn't make any sense to me to say things that way.

It would have sufficed to do this:

The quote "It is not the purpose of a psychological typology to classify human beings into categories - this in itself would be pretty pointless." has been used to imply that Jung didn't approve of the use of personality typology to classify individuals.

I maintain that it is incorrect to infer that, because he believed this was pointless in itself, that he believed it pointless altogether. I believe my position is supported by the larger context from which the quote was culled, which I'll provide here:


Given the additional information in the above paragraph, I claim that the belief that Jung did not support typology is a result of a misunderstanding of this quote and it's surrounding context at best, and evidence of an individual's desire to twist Jung's words to serve their own anti-typology agenda at worst.

I mean, doesn't that look better to you?

Oh, and by the way... I agree with you.

Well, I suppose your way is more concise---but it isn't my way.

So, no---I don't think yours looks better.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, I suppose your way is more concise---but it isn't my way.

Okay, fair enough. The odd formating and exaggerated, extended reaction are a form of self-expression. Got it.

So, no---I don't think yours looks better.

Really? Why not? I'm curious.

Oh, and... LOL @ "Abuse the Jung." "Jung" sounds like "Young."

Your title was great.

 

[Wonkavision]

Okay, fair enough. The odd formating and exaggerated, extended reaction are a form of self-expression. Got it.

Yes. Exactly. I'm an ENFP. I like to personalize it.

Really? Why not? I'm curious.

Because.....um.......I prefer my style over yours.

Surely, you don't think your way is objectively superior to mine, do you?

Oh, and... LOL @ "Abuse the Jung." "Jung" sounds like "Young."

Your title was great.

Thanks.

 

[Athenian200]

Because.....um.......I prefer my style over yours.

Surely, you don't think your way is objectively superior to mine, do you?

Nope, I suppose not. I was just wondering if you found anything lacking in my style. But apparently you just meant that your style is better for you personally. Which I agree with.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Wonkavision]

Nope, I suppose not. I was just wondering if you found anything lacking in my style. But apparently you just meant that your style is better for you personally. Which I agree with.

I admire the fact that you communicate very efficiently.

In fact, I'll be taking a Journalism class pretty soon, and making an attempt to learn that very skill.

It looks like its gonna be harder than I thought, but all I can do is try.

 

[BlueScreen]

Last but not least, it is an essential means for determining the "personal equation" of the practising psychologist, who, armed with an exact knowledge of his differentiated and inferior functions, can avoid many serious blunders in dealing with his patients.

This has been the most beneficial thing I've found from typology. We all have blind spots. The cool thing is if you know your blind spot you check it.

p.s. ENFP presentation is awesome. When are you staring journalism? I wanted to know a bit about what it is like for ENFPs. I'm thinking of starting that or writing/communications next year.

 

[Wild horses]

Well Albert Einstein was the main contributor to the atomic bomb but he was against using it!

But I agree I don't think that Jung was against using typology esp since in lots of his writings he used type explicility to explain behaviour etc all be it he did it in the form of archetypes! I did get a sense however, that he believed that people could evolve between types; any thoughts on this! Does type change during our lifetimes?

 

[Nonsensical]

I agree whole-heartily.

And Athenian, who cares how he phrased it? That's such a little pin prick of a complaint that it is almost funny that you would first result to telling him that it 'looks wrong'. LOL, Super J.

But back to reality, I think we take Typology too far. We think it divides us like the languages we speak. All of the same type must think the same, must be interested in the same things, and when we aren't identical to everybody of our own type, we question our type.

There's more space than that! It's not a 16 box structure, I don't even think you can picture such an abstraction. And Typology doesn't delve as deep into our psyches as we give it credit to. It's all preference. Some people can see it, but some people are look at Typology as some sort of wall built around our personalities.

Good Thread, Wonka!

 

[Quinlan]

Yes, but did he intend it to be used in the amateur way it is around here? It is hard enough for people to type themselves accurately, let alone the poeple that think they know everyone's type off of first impression.

It's all preference. Some people can see it, but some people are look at Typology as some sort of wall built around our personalities.

Interesting because I have noticed that when you type people you like to put limits on type "____ type couldn't possibly do that" or "only ___ type could do that", that is building walls to me.

 

[Chloe]

Everybody who isn't knowledgable enough is abusing it, and 99% of forums doesn't have enough knowledge on subyect.. so it can't be avoided. It's the nature of this forum - bunch of laics trying to get mbti.
But I generaly agree with OP.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I think Jung would have disagreed with the stereotypes that are used in judgements of other based on perception of type. I agree with him that it can be a useful tool for a psychologist. However, I know of no one here who uses it in that capacity. More often it is used in support of ego-centric pursuits disguised as knowledge.

There is a fundamental difference in using type as a means to further one's understanding of the mind or psychology of another, and using it in the way it is here.

One can use a wrench as a hammer, with acceptable results, but it's still better utilized as the tool is was intended to be.

 

[ThatGirl]

Oh Jung again......

Always playing the victim.

 

[Frank]

I always got the impression that Jung viewed it as a good starting point, a way to begin and organize all of the data. The "beginning" of a theory, if you will. He never seemed to have an absolute certainty of its accuracy, as a zealot would.

 

[Jaguar]

I always got the impression that Jung viewed it as a good starting point, a way to begin and organize all of the data. The "beginning" of a theory, if you will. He never seemed to have an absolute certainty of its accuracy, as a zealot would.

Bingo.

 

[Moiety]

Burn the non-believers!

 

[Wonkavision]

I always got the impression that Jung viewed it as a good starting point, a way to begin and organize all of the data. The "beginning" of a theory, if you will. He never seemed to have an absolute certainty of its accuracy, as a zealot would.

Yeah, but if you read the quote, its obvious that Jung was completely convinced of its usefulness.

He didn't take the stance that many take in TypeC, which is basically "Yeah, typology is interesting, but in the end it really doesn't mean a whole lot."


People are so afraid of being seen as a zealot, that they feel they have to play down their enthusiasm for typology.

Then, as a result of so many people doing that, anyone who is openly enthusiastic about it seems like a zealot by comparison.