Freud/Jung's Type

[Sentura]

Jung INTP(?)
Freud ENTP(?)

again, what do you base this on?

 

[Sol_]

what do you base this on?

Their books and photos.

 

[Sentura]

Their books and photos.

have proof?

 

[heart]

jung was without doubt INFJ. if he was T, he would not have the ability to understand people as well as he did.

I could never believe Jung was J.

 

[Sentura]

I could never believe Jung was J.

how so? show me where you see his Ne, please.

 

[heart]

how so? show me where you see his Ne, please.

His work on Alchemy for one, he connects patterns.

Show me where you see secondary Fe in his work or his private life.

 

[Sentura]

His work on Alchemy for one, he connects patterns.

Show me where you see secondary Fe in his work or his private life.

he doesn't necessarily use Fe in his work as much as he uses Ni. i know when i work on research i almost exclusively focus my energy on Ne.

 

[heart]

he doesn't necessarily use Fe in his work as much as he uses Ni. i know when i work on research i almost exclusively focus my energy on Ne.

You don't know your own judging function from what your type indicates, so how would you know what you use?

If you do research only on Ne, how in the world do you know what you think/feel about the information you take in? Using Ne would be pure perception, nothing else.

 

[Sentura]

You don't know your own judging function from what your type indicates, so how would you know what you use?

why do people keep thinking that i don't know my type? i know my type, and it's ENXP. my auxiliary functions do not fit in neither ENTP or ENFP roles, but my dominant function is still Ne, and i use it extensively.

i mean, how hard can it be to understand that not everyone fits the mere 16 types that MBTI offers?

If you do research only on Ne, how in the world do you know what you think/feel about the information you take in?

i don't. Ne does it for me.

 

[heart]

why do people keep thinking that i don't know my type? i know my type, and it's ENXP. my auxiliary functions do not fit in neither ENTP or ENFP roles, but my dominant function is still Ne, and i use it extensively.

i mean, how hard can it be to understand that not everyone fits the mere 16 types that MBTI offers?



i don't. Ne does it for me.

You don't even understand MBTI then. It's impossible to be both ENTP and ENFP under MBTI theory.

No point going on here about this, we're using different systems to type people.

 

[Sentura]

You don't even understand MBTI then. No point going on here about this.

are you kidding me? i understand MBTI perfectly well, but i also take the results with a grain of salt. 16 types cannot classify 6 billion people PERFECTLY, which you seem to imply. besides, is it so wrong of me to write my type in my own theory while discussing the MBTI types of others?

what is it with people, especially IXXPs being so anal about this? is it just that time of the month?

 

[heart]

are you kidding me? i understand MBTI perfectly well, but i also take the results with a grain of salt. 16 types cannot classify 6 billion people PERFECTLY, which you seem to imply.

If you don't think the system is valid, then why bother debating what types people are under MBTI? It would seem pointless for you.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I see Jung as INTJ. Ni-dom certainly. I don't see him as INFJ, as much as I would love to have him in the INFJ camp. He was just a bit too clinical. But he was definitely well-rounded, regardless of type.

 

[Sentura]

If you don't think the system is valid, then why bother debating what types people are under MBTI? It would seem pointless for you.

a) it is in my interest to improve my own abilities to type people, and with that, be able to do further research into the field.

b) it is in my interest to analyze how other people think, analyze and behave in situations, regardless of type. i look for empirical proof of the truths in MBTI while filtering away false assumptions.

can i ask how you have come to trust MBTI as the ultimate truth for stereotyping people?

 

[professor goodstain]

I see Jung as INTJ. Ni-dom certainly. I don't see him as INFJ, as much as I would love to him in the INFJ camp. He was just a bit too clinical. But he was definitely well-rounded, regardless of type.

Everybody had to be clinical in that environment. Germanys atmosphere at that time is the definition of clinical.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Everybody had to be clinical in that environment. Germanys atmosphere at that time is the definition of clinical.

Okay. I still stand by him as INTJ.

 

[heart]

can i ask how you have come to trust MBTI as the ultimate truth for stereotyping people?

I don't. But if I am here talking about MBTI, then I am going to at least loosely follow the guidelines of the system. But again, it's a waste of time talking about it if you are going to make up your own rules. It's fine if you have your very own typing system that you come up with and want to talk about, but if talking about MBTI, why bother if you don't even believe it?

 

[Sentura]

Okay. I still stand by him as INTJ.

i would trust him to have a high F then. like the professor said, germany's atmosphere was clinical at the time.

 

[professor goodstain]

Okay. I still stand by him as INTJ.

i do too, to an extent. He could organize his theories quite well. As if he never sent his ideas into a tangent. He eventually made a decision and articulated it. As though it was the only direction he took with his theories. What we do here today is constently challenge them. He could have done this himself, quite often, but due to such a clinical environment, we may never know what he may have also wanted to articulate.

 

[Sentura]

I don't. But if I am here talking about MBTI, then I am going to at least loosely follow the guidelines of the system.

that's exactly what i do.