Katharine and Isabel Briggs type?

[Limit]

THIS is a reasoning for him being Ni dom?

but his theories were anything but. It's very apparent his ideas were rooted in Ni, not Ti. Ti was just the tool for presentation, the screening filter.

First off, if you’ve read his books like Psychological Types, you will know that he wrote that book in response to two types of theories that were already developed: Addler’s and Freud’s. He was trying to identify and show how they could be seemingly so different and contradictory but also interrelated showing how some people would relate to Addler’s (a more introverted perspective) rather than Freud’s (a more extraverted perspective).

Jung states that in his book that he was OVERLY concerned with Empirical data. He spends MOST of Psychological types going over their ideas. Jung did not make theories from theories. He set out to prove or disprove other theories and relied on an extensive amount of sources from field work, literary sources, etc. You would know all this if you had actually read the book.

Furthermore, Jung states that he could NOT understand Introverted Intuition or how ANYONE could ever think like that. Often stating that it was a very interesting, yet didn’t know the function could be productive to the society.

So not only does Jung state point black that he’s not an Ni dom, but even the reason you give for him being an Ni dom is wrong. He developed theories, but it was from trying to prove or disprove theories and cram multiple theories into one. His theories often did not come from hunches. It came from reading over all the data he could find on psychological behavior. He did have hunches and claims to have Ni, but from his dreams. He derived meaning, connections, and significance in his dreams that helped progress certain parts of his research that lead to some of his theories.

 

[Limit]

What are you trying to do? To test me?

No offense, but honestly I find that most of the people on the internet are full of crap.

If you know, then you can tell me and we can progress this discussion.

 

[Majesty]

No offense, but honestly I find that most of the people on the internet are full of crap.

If you know, then you can tell me and we can progress this discussion.

I barely know anything about Freud.
IIRC Jung typed him as INTP when he was ENTJ, maybe the opposite.
This is only something I read somewhere and used it to think about some possibilities.
I'm a Ne dom after all.

Yes you know more about Jung's theory than most people, but shouldn't you help people learning instead of trying to prove your superiority? I know this is what you're trying to achieve with PerN but as Peppermint said sometimes you're just contradicting yourself.

 

[Limit]

I barely know anything about Freud.
IIRC Jung typed him as INTP when he was ENTJ, maybe the opposite.
This is only something I read somewhere and used it to think about some possibilities.
I'm a Ne dom after all.

Yes you know more about Jung's theory than most people, but shouldn't you help people learning instead of trying to prove your superiority? I know this is what you're trying to achieve with PerN but as Peppermint said sometimes you're just contradicting yourself.

You perceive that I

 

[Majesty]

I

 

[Limit]

I want to stipulate that I believe he’s Ti dom. He may BE INTP, ISTP, and MAYBE we’re thinking of it too relative to MBTI.

Maybe in reality, what was proposed by Pure types is true.

He may have been a Ti, Ni, Se, Fe. Especially when we look over how he describes the functions and their relation to the conscious and unconscious.

However, there’s the possibility that he has is Ti, Se, Ni, Fe at one point, Ti, Si, Ne, Fe at another, and Ti, Ne, Se, Fe, etc.

The conscious attitudes, from what I’ve read, remain that of the superior, and aux/tertiary can not only change via their attitudes, but also their position to support the dominant.

I want to point out how several people could be right about INTP and ISTP in a sense, but also wrong.

He could have gone from one point to another.

So during time, the superior and inferior function and attitude remains the same; however, the the auxilary and tertiary can change through the transcendental function.

 

[Arsal]

Ni-dom because Liber Novus.

/thread

Didn't Jung said at one point that he was an Ni and Ti user? I forget where I read that.

 

[Zero Angel]

Oh? Who did he mistype by his own system?

How can someone who developed the system mistype themselves? O.O

It's quite possible to be strong in the theory and yet weak in implementation. Think of a game developer, for example. They are actually rarely good players, and likelwise the good players are rarely good at development.

If Carl Jung was highly introverted, it could be likely that his extraverted functions which would pick up on environmental cues would be lower, and thus while he could explain the internal nuances behind an action he would have a hard time back tracing an external nuance (ie: somewhat like a 'tell' in poker terms) to determine type just from interacting.

This of course, is an area where an extraverted perceptive type like an ENTP would likely excel, because their non-linear way of thinking allows them to hold several possibilities and test/explore them all while a more internal perceptive type would be more interested in exploring one thing deeply.

That said, I don't have a strong enough knowledge of Jung's life/personal beliefs to accurately determine his type.

*ahem*

Carry on, gentlemen

 

[VH]

Didn't Jung said at one point that he was an Ni and Ti user? I forget where I read that.

Yes. He maintained that he was a Ti > Ni (> S > F) most of his life, and that anyone can have any pair of J and P funtions as their dominant/secondary set. There are videos (on youtube) where he talks about this. His English is pretty good (despite all rumors to the contrary).

The MBTI types came later, and the assumptions of which functions make them up and in what order came after that. However if these theories are correct, then Jung was wrong about his own type. It's just as possible as the MBTI being wrong. Personally, I think they're both wrong.