- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 26,643
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 6w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I recently came across an article which was written by Henry Thompson. For those who aren't familiar with him, here is the story.
Somewhere along the line, with the popularity of MBTI, the underlying depth of complexity of Jung's theory was lost and people only focused on the four functions vs eight. The words would be there in various MBTI books (extraverted thinking, introverted sensing, etc.) but they were never explained. Thomson's book, "Jung's Function Attitudes Explained," written in 1996, was the first book to exclusively focus on the eight functions and how they manifest themselves. It also includes a brief description of the "grip" experiences that Quenk elaborates in great detail on in Beside Ourselves/Was That Really Me?. It is concise, clearly written and straightforward while imparting important principles and examples. Maybe someone else would have written it if he hadn't but it seems to be a cornerstone work in terms of influencing people to think about Jungian functions vs. MBTI letters.
So, the following is a link to an article he wrote in 2006 that seems to reflect how his views may have changed - or that at least he was questioning things.
http://www.hpsys.com/PDFs/Type and Reductionism 2006.pdf
What are your thoughts on all of this?
Somewhere along the line, with the popularity of MBTI, the underlying depth of complexity of Jung's theory was lost and people only focused on the four functions vs eight. The words would be there in various MBTI books (extraverted thinking, introverted sensing, etc.) but they were never explained. Thomson's book, "Jung's Function Attitudes Explained," written in 1996, was the first book to exclusively focus on the eight functions and how they manifest themselves. It also includes a brief description of the "grip" experiences that Quenk elaborates in great detail on in Beside Ourselves/Was That Really Me?. It is concise, clearly written and straightforward while imparting important principles and examples. Maybe someone else would have written it if he hadn't but it seems to be a cornerstone work in terms of influencing people to think about Jungian functions vs. MBTI letters.
So, the following is a link to an article he wrote in 2006 that seems to reflect how his views may have changed - or that at least he was questioning things.
http://www.hpsys.com/PDFs/Type and Reductionism 2006.pdf
What are your thoughts on all of this?
Last edited: