Why is INFJ the rarest type?

@ExhumedMorrison @o2b

I'm afraid you guys seem to be misunderstanding Ni: it is to our inner world what sight is to our outer world. People with dominant Ni have been born with a tendency to look inside rather than outside as their first level response.

There are lots of people who have suffered trauma of various sorts, and it's quite possible that some of these are living in their shadow Ni, but they are not INFJs. I suspect that some olf these think they are INFJs. A true INFJ living with trauma is going to look like an out of control Se dominant, and it wouldn't be easy to identify their correct type.
 
@ExhumedMorrison @o2b

I'm afraid you guys seem to be misunderstanding Ni: it is to our inner world what sight is to our outer world. People with dominant Ni have been born with a tendency to look inside rather than outside as their first level response.

There are lots of people who have suffered trauma of various sorts, and it's quite possible that some of these are living in their shadow Ni, but they are not INFJs. I suspect that some olf these think they are INFJs. A true INFJ living with trauma is going to look like an out of control Se dominant, and it wouldn't be easy to identify their correct type.
@John K I'm gonna have to chew on this for a bit!
 
Yeah.

I tend to think the same. That some % of folks morph into introversion and intuition as maladaptive responses to trauma. I also tend to think an introvert /intuitive would generally be a thinker, but for the cases it is trauma-driven, intuition gets paired with F more so than T.

After all, trauma is a highly personal, human experience. It's not like being lost in the clouds over some physics problem.

I don’t disagree. It’s helpful to explain the mode of thinking when people disagree. Not easy in practice or simple in concept, but necessary.
 
The rarest personality type is often referred to as the “Counselor” type because of the INFJ personality traits. INFJs are very moral and persistent, and they usually see the glass half full. They prefer to be open with only a select few people and are very good listeners themselves. The only one explanation is that there're not so many people like that.
 
@ExhumedMorrison @o2b

I'm afraid you guys seem to be misunderstanding Ni: it is to our inner world what sight is to our outer world. People with dominant Ni have been born with a tendency to look inside rather than outside as their first level response.

There are lots of people who have suffered trauma of various sorts, and it's quite possible that some of these are living in their shadow Ni, but they are not INFJs. I suspect that some olf these think they are INFJs. A true INFJ living with trauma is going to look like an out of control Se dominant, and it wouldn't be easy to identify their correct type.
I would say this is only somewhat accurate. You utilize all 8 functions constantly, but your shadow is unconscious to you unless you get feedback from others when you are transitioning or not, or if you spend an inordinate amount of time facing your shadow and what your gateway is to trigger the transition.

Here is a good example: Jordan Peterson is an ENTP. In his older videos, his cognitive function use is apparent and consistent (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si). However, in his newer videos where he has experienced traumas of illness (of self and family), longterm bouts of depression (since he was in his late teens), benzodiazapine addiction and withdrawal, akathisia, etc., he often transitions to INTJ shadow functions far more frequently ((sometimes within minutes of demonstrating ENTP function use. However, the shadow is in a more negative or pessimistic usage-- Ni nemesis (he has a pessimistic view of the future, consistently saying that where we are leading is not good), Te critical parent (highly critical of other's thinking- calling out inconsistencies, poking holes in other's thinking/judgements, Fi trickster (pushing boundaries of his own value judgements/morals, ascribing to that which is unorthodox, enjoying dark human elements), Se demon- feels limited/angry regarding present reality (unforseen necessities prior to carrying out an idea. Feeling trapped by the routine/mundane/neccessary drugery of life)). This doesn't mean that he's not an ENTP anymore. It only means that he accesses the gateway more frequently to his shadow, and it is why there is so much confusion on identifying type when someone experiences the gamut of human suffering.

Jung believed that the shadow forms in childhood, and is carried into adulthood (in the unconscious) as a way to deal with life's various problems. Every type has a shadow, which is the transverse of your ego functions, but in a pessimistic usage. For an INFJ, it is Ne nemesis, Fi critical parent, Te trickster, Si demon (i.e.: ENFP).
 
I would say this is only somewhat accurate. You utilize all 8 functions constantly, but your shadow is unconscious to you unless you get feedback from others when you are transitioning or not, or if you spend an inordinate amount of time facing your shadow and what your gateway is to trigger the transition.

Here is a good example: Jordan Peterson is an ENTP. In his older videos, his cognitive function use is apparent and consistent (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si). However, in his newer videos where he has experienced traumas of illness (of self and family), longterm bouts of depression (since he was in his late teens), benzodiazapine addiction and withdrawal, akathisia, etc., he often transitions to INTJ shadow functions far more frequently ((sometimes within minutes of demonstrating ENTP function use. However, the shadow is in a more negative or pessimistic usage-- Ni nemesis (he has a pessimistic view of the future, consistently saying that where we are leading is not good), Te critical parent (highly critical of other's thinking- calling out inconsistencies, poking holes in other's thinking/judgements, Fi trickster (pushing boundaries of his own value judgements/morals, ascribing to that which is unorthodox, enjoying dark human elements), Se demon- feels limited/angry regarding present reality (unforseen necessities prior to carrying out an idea. Feeling trapped by the routine/mundane/neccessary drugery of life)). This doesn't mean that he's not an ENTP anymore. It only means that he accesses the gateway more frequently to his shadow, and it is why there is so much confusion on identifying type when someone experiences the gamut of human suffering.

Jung believed that the shadow forms in childhood, and is carried into adulthood (in the unconscious) as a way to deal with life's various problems. Every type has a shadow, which is the transverse of your ego functions, but in a pessimistic usage. For an INFJ, it is Ne nemesis, Fi critical parent, Te trickster, Si demon (i.e.: ENFP).
Hi and welcome to the forum Anomaly. I see you are an @Ren follower - he’s a pretty wise guy!

I think you may be looking at the same thing as myself here, but changing angle slightly.

Where I’m coming from …..

I was responding to the specific idea that a dominant function could be developed and established as such in response to trauma. This is not what Jung envisaged. It’s quite possible that one of our less preferred functions becomes our habitual go-to of choice as a stress response and we can get stuck there, but it would always have a neurotic flavour, and would keep slipping away into unconscious shadow behaviours. It would never be our true dominant. I used Ti a lot this way in my adolescence and early adulthood.

It sounds like you have looked into Jung quite deeply. You might be interested in this that I posted a while back.
https://www.infjs.com/threads/nightspore.35972/page-169#post-1354527

I tend to have fairly purist views on the functions and don’t really hold with the idea that our unpreferred functions are differentiated to the point of being distinct unless and until they are consciously developed in the process Jung called individuation. This doesn’t mean we don’t use them all of course - but it reflects the degree to which we use them deliberately and consciously, rather than in a blend of only partially conscious behaviours and attitudes. For example everyone uses Te and Se to park a car, but not everyone lives in either of those functions, and most of us just do it fairly instinctively once we have learned how to drive ok.
 
Hi and welcome to the forum Anomaly. I see you are an @Ren follower - he’s a pretty wise guy!

I think you may be looking at the same thing as myself here, but changing angle slightly.

Where I’m coming from …..

I was responding to the specific idea that a dominant function could be developed and established as such in response to trauma. This is not what Jung envisaged. It’s quite possible that one of our less preferred functions becomes our habitual go-to of choice as a stress response and we can get stuck there, but it would always have a neurotic flavour, and would keep slipping away into unconscious shadow behaviours. It would never be our true dominant. I used Ti a lot this way in my adolescence and early adulthood.

It sounds like you have looked into Jung quite deeply. You might be interested in this that I posted a while back.
https://www.infjs.com/threads/nightspore.35972/page-169#post-1354527

I tend to have fairly purist views on the functions and don’t really hold with the idea that our unpreferred functions are differentiated to the point of being distinct unless and until they are consciously developed in the process Jung called individuation. This doesn’t mean we don’t use them all of course - but it reflects the degree to which we use them deliberately and consciously, rather than in a blend of only partially conscious behaviours and attitudes. For example everyone uses Te and Se to park a car, but not everyone lives in either of those functions, and most of us just do it fairly instinctively once we have learned how to drive ok.
Unsurprisingly, I had already read your linked post in the forums as one of the few things I read within minutes of joining the site yesterday. Either it is Ni congruence, or mere coincidence; the latter the least likely of the two. Haha.

I appreciate your perspective. As someone who prefers a more simplistic approach to Jungian theory (taking that which works, which is observable in human-nature/behavior, and is accurate and discarding the rest as mere fodder for my curiosity), I cannot help but agree with you on most points. I don't adhere to the notion that our functions are used in isolation, on the contrary, in tandem with others in our preferntial 'stack'. Your point about driving is a good one, and I'll keep it in mind when considering Se and Te in the future. However, I would note that at least one of those functions would be subservient to the other in preference, and likely (at least in most cases) in need of further development in the shadow. So, while the car may get parked correctly, the Te in shadow might forget to consider that the particular parkinglot is meter-only and grow irritated at such illogical systems, or on the other hand, the Se in shadow might park a bit sideways outside of the lane. Haha.

I think we are of similar understanding on the topic, but I'd enjoy discussing with you further whenever you are able. As for me, it's past 2 am, so I really should get some sleep for now. Take care.
 
Unsurprisingly, I had already read your linked post in the forums as one of the few things I read within minutes of joining the site yesterday. Either it is Ni congruence, or mere coincidence; the latter the least likely of the two. Haha.
Probably meaningful coincidence lol.

However, I would note that at least one of those functions would be subservient to the other in preference, and likely (at least in most cases) in need of further development in the shadow. So, while the car may get parked correctly, the Te in shadow might forget to consider that the particular parkinglot is meter-only and grow irritated at such illogical systems, or on the other hand, the Se in shadow might park a bit sideways outside of the lane. Haha.
Absolutely!! My parking is an inferior Se-fest, and God help any lamppost on the sidewalk that gets too close :sweatsmile:. Thank goodness for reversing cameras! I did get one that crept up in the camera's blind spot a couple of years ago though .....

As for me, it's past 2 am, so I really should get some sleep for now. Take care.
Take care Anomaly, and good night - it's now just coming up to 9am here in the UK, so the day is just getting going for me.
 
I would say this is only somewhat accurate. You utilize all 8 functions constantly, but your shadow is unconscious to you unless you get feedback from others when you are transitioning or not, or if you spend an inordinate amount of time facing your shadow and what your gateway is to trigger the transition.

The problem with too differentiated an interpretation of the shadow is that it ends up sounding not like a manifestation of the unconscious, but like an alternate conscious self which one might (with effort) be able to 'transition' into.

I think a simple argument can be offered to show that this is impossible. By definition, the unconscious is outside the grasp of the conscious. Sure, you can deliberately knock yourself unconscious, so to speak; or you can consciously put yourself in a situation that is so stressful that you will be likely to act without conscious intent part of the time. But this is more like deliberately manipulating your external environment, which, in turn, will cause the emergence of the unconscious mode. You cannot consciously make yourself act unconsciously. An Ni-dom who pretends to be able to consciously transition from Ni to Ne is just consciously using Ne, not transitioning from conscious Ni to unconscious Ne. In theory, they should not be able to sustain conscious Ne usage for extended periods of time. They will simply go back to conscious Ni, with its unconscious Ne correlate.

"Fi critical parent", "Si demon", etc... Are those concepts that Jung himself developed? My problem with it is that unconscious content is largely not individuated, whereas to create a precise hierarchy of relations between nemesis, critical parent, demon and so on, implies a fairly large degree of individuation, which again is paradoxical and points to an alternate conscious self rather than an unconscious self.

Unless these names are just designed to emphasise the negativity/pessimism inherent in the shadow mode, as a method to confirm that we are 'in the presence' of the shadow (as in Peterson). This raises an interesting question, though: are we okay with the idea that the unconscious is inherently negative/pessimistic, or are we willing to confront the legacy of psychoanalysis?

PS. I'm a bit of a philosopher, so I tend to see problems everywhere. Don't mind me. :p
 
"Fi critical parent", "Si demon", etc... Are those concepts that Jung himself developed? My problem with it is that unconscious content is largely not individuated, whereas to create a precise hierarchy of relations between nemesis, critical parent, demon and so on, implies a fairly large degree of individuation, which again is paradoxical and points to an alternate conscious self rather than an unconscious self.
I too think these concepts are over-differentiated in a lot of the ways that people have developed MBTI, and they simply don't exist as distinct functions but more as colourations on our behaviour. Something that does confuse though is that people often manifest their less preferred functions without realising it and others can pick up on this and assume we are conscious of them when we are not. I think this is a particular issue for sensitive intuitives who often see into others' shadows and react to the hidden drives and motives that they perceive there - but which, unacknowledged by the intuitive, the poor victim is actually unaware of, or only partially aware of. A problem is that it seems to be much easier for an intuitive to see what's in there than it is for them to see the boundary between ego and shadow. We seem to be much better at seeing the boundary between persona and ego, but less so between ego and shadow, probably because it gets clouded with our own value judgements and shadow attitudes.

Unless these names are just designed to emphasise the negativity/pessimism inherent in the shadow mode, as a method to confirm that we are 'in the presence' of the shadow (as in Peterson). This raises an interesting question, though: are we okay with the idea that the unconscious is inherently negative/pessimistic, or are we willing to confront the legacy of psychoanalysis?
I guess this could be explored by avoiding the usual judgmental attitude towards the shadow, and consider it to contain whatever we have rejected about our personality. This is much more neutral in terms of value judgement, and can encompass good, bad or indifferent attitudes. An extreme example - it could well be that the shadow of an evil tyrant is akin to a saint.
 
I too think these concepts are over-differentiated in a lot of the ways that people have developed MBTI, and they simply don't exist as distinct functions but more as colourations on our behaviour. Something that does confuse though is that people often manifest their less preferred functions without realising it and others can pick up on this and assume we are conscious of them when we are not. I think this is a particular issue for sensitive intuitives who often see into others' shadows and react to the hidden drives and motives that they perceive there - but which, unacknowledged by the intuitive, the poor victim is actually unaware of, or only partially aware of. A problem is that it seems to be much easier for an intuitive to see what's in there than it is for them to see the boundary between ego and shadow. We seem to be much better at seeing the boundary between persona and ego, but less so between ego and shadow, probably because it gets clouded with our own value judgements and shadow attitudes.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything. Let's see what @Anomaly comes up with. :wink:

I guess this could be explored by avoiding the usual judgmental attitude towards the shadow, and consider it to contain whatever we have rejected about our personality. This is much more neutral in terms of value judgement, and can encompass good, bad or indifferent attitudes. An extreme example - it could well be that the shadow of an evil tyrant is akin to a saint.

I was thinking of something like that. I understand that the ego would have a judgmental attitude towards the shadow, but in the unconscious mode it should not be a matter of the ego's dispositions. If the attitude is consistently negative, this might be a sign that the ego is still in the driver's seat.
 
I've seen you post a fair amount about the 'shadow', @Anomaly, and I have to say that what you've written so far doesn't quite align with what I know of either the Jungian concept or its various corruptions and dilutions (which is also to say that it's lost an enormous amount of meaning).

Originally, the shadow was to be understood as a kind of unconscious vessel for all that was repressed or suppressed by the conscious ego, formed largely of insecurities and, especially, of projections (the subject's insecurities projected onto others). It is emotional, not rational or 'cognitive'.

As such it makes little sense to speak of 'cognitive functions' as somehow forming part of the Jungian 'shadow', since we would have to hold powerful emotional instincts about certain kinds of information processing. This is possible, of course, if the ego becomes overly attached to an explicitly 'non-rational' image of itself, and consequently casts out certain ways of thinking into its shadow (or vice-versa), but it's rarer (and we must note the signifier/signified distinction here).

Jung, however, also developed the notion that things (such as personalities) would ultimately transform into their opposites through a process of 'enantiodromia' (and this is relevant to another thread in which you've posted about this), which was incorporated into his personality typology and translated into MBTI as the 'inferior'.

That is, the 'inferior' functions of types are supposed to be understood as the binary polar 'shadow functions' of one's dominant function. If a function is dominant, its polar opposite is necessarily suppressed, and thus becomes the key to unlocking the 'shadow'. In the case of INxJs, this polarity lies on the Ni-Se axis - Ni is embraced, Se suppressed and typically regarded as something loathesome. The 'shadow personality' of a typical INFJ, therefore, would be a dominant Se user if we're attempting to translate Jung's usage rather than, say, create something different.

You should be able to recognise the 'truth' here by reflecting on the fact that 'Ne' is not regarded with the same level of distaste as is 'Se'; that is, 'Ne' is simply not part of the 'shadow' of INFJs; it is not an insecurity, it is not typically powering projections. In fact Ne users are most often viewed as allies by INxJs. 'Se', on the other hand, generates feelings of revulsion and otherness, as it would, being suppressed by Ni.


Jung provides a very short and digestible explanation of 'the shadow' in Aion, which I'll reproduce here:

From C.G. Jung, Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (London, 1959), pp. 8-9:

II
THE SHADOW​

Whereas the contents of the personal unconscious are acquired during the individual's lifetime, the contents of the collective unconscious are invariably archetypes that were present from the beginning. Their relation to the instincts has been discussed elsewhere. The archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical point of view are those which are those which have the most frequent and most disturbing influence on the ego. These are the shadow, the anima, and the animus. The most accessible of these, and the easiest to experience, is the shadow, for its nature can in large measure be inferred from the contents of the personal unconscious. The only exceptions to this rule are those rather rare cases where the positive qualities of the personality are repressed, and the ego in consequence plays an essentially negative or unfavourable role.

The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance. Indeed, self-knowledge as a psychotherapeutic measure frequently requires much painstaking work extending over a long period.

Closer examination of the dark characteristics - that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow - reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Emotion, incidentally, is not an activity of the individual but something that happens to him. Affects occur usually where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral judgement.

Although, with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. While some traits peculiar to the shadow can be recognized without too much difficulty as one's own personal qualities, in this case both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of doubt, in the other person. No matter how obvious it may be to the neutral observer that it is a matter of projections, there is little hope that the subject will perceive this himself. He must be convinced that he throws a very long shadow before he is willing to withdraw his emotionally-toned projections from their object.

EDIT: Also:

The problem with too differentiated an interpretation of the shadow is that it ends up sounding not like a manifestation of the unconscious, but like an alternate conscious self which one might (with effort) be able to 'transition' into.
This

"Fi critical parent", "Si demon", etc... Are those concepts that Jung himself developed? My problem with it is that unconscious content is largely not individuated, whereas to create a precise hierarchy of relations between nemesis, critical parent, demon and so on, implies a fairly large degree of individuation, which again is paradoxical and points to an alternate conscious self rather than an unconscious self.
And this

What Beebe did with that hierarchy, as you point out, makes a mockery of the shadow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is, the 'inferior' functions of types are supposed to be understood as the binary polar 'shadow functions' of one's dominant function. If a function is dominant, its polar opposite is necessarily suppressed, and thus becomes the key to unlocking the 'shadow'. In the case of INxJs, this polarity lies on the Ni-Se axis - Ni is embraced, Se suppressed and typically regarded as something loathesome. The 'shadow personality' of a typical INFJ, therefore, would be a dominant Se user if we're attempting to translate Jung's usage rather than, say, create something different.

The following quote from Jung himself seems to corroborate that view. It is from a section called 'the extraverted feeling type' (i.e. ENFJ/ESFJ).

Clearly here the unconscious of the ExFJ is associated with Ti. Not saying I agree with everything Jung says, but that seems to be his position. Note here he doesn't mention the shadow (a concept he maybe developed later in his career?)

"We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object."

— C.G. Jung, Psychological Types, Chapter X

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Oh wait, what if he's talking about Te? *gasps*
Well, either way, it would be a T function not Fi.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me if I just jump in here like this.
Whenever I hear or read the word sub- or unconscious, everything in me resists it.
And I know by now that I am not the only one.
But go ahead with your discussion. I don't want to interrupt your flow.
 
The following quote from Jung himself seems to corroborate that view. It is from a section called 'the extraverted feeling type' (i.e. ENFJ/ESFJ).

Clearly here the unconscious of the ExFJ is associated with Ti. Not saying I agree with everything Jung says, but that seems to be his position. Note here he doesn't mention the shadow (a concept he maybe developed later in his career?)

"We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.

So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object."

— C.G. Jung, Psychological Types, Chapter X

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Oh wait, what if he's talking about Te? *gasps*
Well, either way, it would be a T function not Se.
Yeah, it seems consistent.

That part in Aion is taken from a 1948 lecture, and Psychological Types is a work of the 1920s according to Google.

Either we're mixing up concepts, or the Shadow is a later elaboration (or the concepts themselves aren't particularly differentiated), but I'm no Jung scholar so I couldn't say with any confidence what the order was.

In any case, there is always the quality of polarity in Jung's thinking here, in that the polar opposite of whatever is dominant in the ego becomes suppressed into the unconscious.
 
Yeah, it seems consistent.

That part in Aion is taken from a 1948 lecture, and Psychological Types is a work of the 1920s according to Google.

Either we're mixing up concepts, or the Shadow is a later elaboration (or the concepts themselves aren't particularly differentiated), but I'm no Jung scholar so I couldn't say with any confidence what the order was.

In any case, there is always the quality of polarity in Jung's thinking here, in that the polar opposite of whatever is dominant in the ego becomes suppressed into the unconscious.
Good quotes from Jung on this topic. He will have developed his ideas on the Unconscious before his typology - he was a protégé of Freud's in the early 1900s and was very familiar with Freud's ideas. Jung wrote his Psychology of the Unconscious in 1912, which was divergent from Freud's psychology and lead to a break between them. His typology came later, and I'm pretty sure that this developed out of his wider psychology - it's important to place his typology as just one component of his overall psychological model.

I think that Jung's concept of psychological energy is very important, and is a key element in the development of his typology. He used analogies such as negative and positive electric charge, and the energy they create between them, to model the way that tensions between the functions, or between our ego and our unconscious minds provide the energy that drive our psychological processes. When these polarities are in balance then we are psychologically healthy, when they are not, we are disturbed. If they stop existing then so do our psyches stop working.
 
Good quotes from Jung on this topic. He will have developed his ideas on the Unconscious before his typology - he was a protégé of Freud's in the early 1900s and was very familiar with Freud's ideas. Jung wrote his Psychology of the Unconscious in 1912, which was divergent from Freud's psychology and lead to a break between them. His typology came later, and I'm pretty sure that this developed out of his wider psychology - it's important to place his typology as just one component of his overall psychological model.

I think that Jung's concept of psychological energy is very important, and is a key element in the development of his typology. He used analogies such as negative and positive electric charge, and the energy they create between them, to model the way that tensions between the functions, or between our ego and our unconscious minds provide the energy that drive our psychological processes. When these polarities are in balance then we are psychologically healthy, when they are not, we are disturbed. If they stop existing then so do our psyches stop working.
I wondered if you'd know, John.
 
Good quotes from Jung on this topic. He will have developed his ideas on the Unconscious before his typology - he was a protoge of Freud's in the early 1900s and was very familiar with Freud's ideas. Jung wrote his Psychology of the Unconscious in 1912, which was divergent from Freud's psychology and lead to a break between them. His typology came later, and I'm pretty sure that this developed out of his wider psychology - it's important to place his typology as just one component of his overall psychological model.

I think that Jung's concept of psychological energy is very important, and is a key element in the development of his typology. He used analogies such as negative and positive electric charge, and the energy they create between them, to model the way that tensions between the functions, or between our ego and our unconscious minds provide the energy that drive our psychological processes. When these polarities are in balance then we are psychologically healthy, when they are not, we are disturbed. If they stop existing then so do our psyches stop working.

I appreciate your thoughts and input. I suppose this is where the disconnect is, as I utilize my own "system" in typology based in Jungian archetypes/totems, Freud's original works, Jung's psychological perspective (including those of the influence of chakras as one example), components of MBTI, 4 sides theory, and Cognitive Type. I suppose I should note this in my responses, so as not to confuse the concepts. As I've gotten older, I've refined my own internal framework of typological systems in order to arrive at a congruent and accurate representation of an individual as a whole. While, I am constantly refining this process as new information is introduced, dismantling what was once my framework and then rebuilding it to include that which is understood as logically correct, I arrive at an ideological idea that is similar, but not exact. Perhaps, this is the trouble with Ti, in that I don't much care about the systems themselves. I only care about that which works and is accurate according to experience and observation. If it fits my internal framework, then it is analyzed, dismantled, and that which is deemed 'accurate' is kept, and that which doesn't fit is discarded.

I find that conflict occurs when someone who prefers Te sees it as an inefficient process, or perhaps even a bastardization of the original systems which appeared 'fine' to begin with. I should be more clear moving forward. I am working from my own internal framework and understanding of Jungian theory, in conjunction with my own.
 
Back
Top