Carl Jung

Originally Posted by Functianalyst

Like I said, INTJs try to read something into what he said, but he was quite clear. that he capitalizes with thinking. That should give some indication that he uses it first and foremost. Otherwise he would have said he capitlizes with intuition, but instead he said he uses it a great deal too (as in an addition). He says that he has a great deal of problem with feeling. Now the man wrote an entire theory on the subject, do you really think that he would not know his own type? As I have always said, whether you call me an ISTP, ISTj or whatever, the question remains which cognitive functions do I prefer? I prefer Ti-Se and Jung just said he prefers Ti-Ne based his own principle. As for your assertion that in Jung’s theory it’s possible to have both Ti and Ni as dominant processes is ludicrous. He said himself there can be one and only one dominant function and everything else must take a subordinate or inferior role. Where did you come up with such a silly notion? The man is INTP by MBTI standards, INTj by Socionics standards and by his own he is Ti-Ne. These notions you claim are laughable Haruhi.

It was an alternate interpretation of Jungs's work - a PhD thesis - with a rather convincing assertion. I would search for it as a reference, but it would take a while when it was evidently obscure material. Jung's theory is brilliant, but there are other sources which alter the fundamentals of his original theory to develop it.

I certainly think it's feasible that Jung was erroneous in his thinking when the cognitive processes have since been elaborated upon extensively in comparison to his original conceptions of them. There are both extensions and modifications, but which specific interpretation to apply is individual preference. Maybe I should have faith in Jung's perception, and perhaps it is appropriate to consider his opinion correct for solely his interpretation, but I would prefer to consider alternatives.

Jung established cognitive processes, I admit, yet I refuse to accept he completely dictates the direction which other people take with his theory. Frankly, no MBTI type is certain when everyone has varying notions regarding cognitive processes. Maybe everyone's only correct when applying their own interpretation to themselves.

I am hesistant to continue our discussion futher due to I was offended with the blunt usages of, 'silly', 'ludicrous', and 'laughable'. The approach I took was an independnet one for mere entertainment, to be honest.

To second post:

As I stated previously, numerous people have wrote their own interpretations of his definitions. Applying each definition will understandably result in different results.

"What are you talking about? Jung coined his functions Ti, Te, Fe, Fi, etc. Why are you wanting to redefine his work? MB did not redefine his work, she merely claimed that introverts are noticed by there extraverted function (auxiliary). She used the same defintions as Jung did."

You misinterpreted me. I was inquiring if people thought he was either Ti or Ni dominant. If Ti dominant, he'd have to be Ne or Se next to coincide with the MBTI framework (ISTP or INTP). For Ni dominant, he'd have to possess Te or Fe for auxiliary (INFJ or INTJ).

The implication that we disregard his opinion was merely to encourage people to develop independent theories which define Jung. Approaching Jung to analyze him when he's already done it is vain, hence people dismissing his own analysis to do it with their own thoughts. There's a fun in flexibility, for it enables interpretative thinking.



Perhaps I should submit to Jung's opinion of himself or significantly integrate it into my reasoning. I also apologize for the incorrect information regarding Jung - certainly contradictory or false (most probable). Although, it would not surprise me if Jung was indecisive with his type at times.

As I initially thought, Jung is likely an INTP, but I was articulating a contradictory statement (for him being INTP) to provoke a reasoned argument which supports him being INTP. Oh, and I apologize for the mistakes. Would you please explain your personal reasons for believing Jung is INTP (eager to read them through interest)?

PS: I acknowledge Jung has the best insight and knowledge to judge himself, but I think people should suggest other possibilities.

Oh, and I never watched the video. :) I was theorizing for fun prior to such.

Originally Posted by Haruhi Suzumiya

PS: I acknowledge Jung has the best insight and knowledge to judge himself, but I think people should suggest other possibilities.

Before we start bouncing off topic on whether his theory is correct, the question is what was Jung's type. I think you have conceded that he claims to be INTP, but we should consider him something otherwise. On what basis? Anything thrown out will be purely speculative and a waste of time since no one can claim to have known him personally. I think we debate alot of things, but debating whether the man who invented Pschological Type was in error of knowing his own type is not debatable anymore than me claiming without a doubt that you could not be INTJ.

So based on the film, are you still saying that he is something other than Ti-Ne? Whether we should call it INTP, INTj Designer Theorizer is a moot point since they all use Ti-Ne.

Originally Posted by Functianalyst

Before we start bouncing off topic on whether his theory is correct, the question is what was Jung's type. I think you have conceded that he claims to be INTP, but we should consider him something otherwise. On what basis? Anything thrown out will be purely speculative and a waste of time since no one can claim to have known him personally. I think we debate alot of things, but debating whether the man who invented Pschological Type was in error of knowing his own type is not debatable anymore than me claiming without a doubt that you could not be INTJ.

So based on the film, are you still saying that he is something other than Ti-Ne? Whether we should call it INTP, INTj Designer Theorizer is a moot point since they all use Ti-Ne.

This is reasonable on a practical basis. :) I admit it's entertaining for me to speculate, futile or not.

Addition: No one ever knows their type. They only think they do with speculation.

Originally Posted by claire

Ok so there is this Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test, right? My question is what personality type was the person who created the test (Carl Jung). If any one knows please tell me, thank u.

Go to post #7, the 8:45 mark and he tells you what his type is. Of course he does not say that he is INTP, since it was not invented yet. He does say that he is T-N-S-F, and the narrator in the other films remarks about his being introverted. Based on Jung's own theory, he would be Ti-Ne. Depending on which system you are alluding to, he is INTP under MBTI. Speculating whether he is not is just wasted energy.

Originally Posted by Functianalyst

Go to post #7, the 8:45 mark and he tells you what his type is. Of course he does not say that he is INTP, since it was not invented yet. He does say that he is T-N-S-F, and the narrator in the other films remarks about his being introverted. Based on Jung's own theory, he would be Ti-Ne. Depending on which system you are alluding to, he is INTP under MBTI. Speculating whether he is not is just wasted energy.

This is just dumb. He didnt claim to be extraverted thinking or intraverted thinking. He says he thinks he is a thinker, but he doesnt speculate what type. Your logic is flawed. You have not eliminate a degree of freedom which points at ENTJ. And don't go messing up the definition of what introvert and extravert means in Jung/MBTI typology with the dictionary meaning of the word introvert. Also note that in the video he says that in his opinion people move through types. He does not claim to be one type for that explicit reason; so you are breaking the grounds upon which he made his judgement and as a result have decided to interpret the video to a solve a problem that it was never intended to solve.

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

This is just dumb. He didnt claim to be extraverted thinking or intraverted thinking. He says he thinks he is a thinker, but he doesnt speculate what type. Your logic is flawed. You have not eliminate a degree of freedom which points at ENTJ. And don't go messing up the definition of what introvert and extravert means in Jung/MBTI typology with the dictionary meaning of the word introvert. Also note that in the video he says that in his opinion people move through types. He does not claim to be one type for that explicit reason; so you are breaking the grounds upon which he made his judgement and as a result have decided to interpret the video to a solve a problem that it was never intended to solve.

Now that was a faux pas on so many levels. Have you noticed that the question of his being introverted has never been raised? It's because it's common knowledge. What an idiotic thing to say. Go take in some information about the man.

Somewhere Jung said that he had to sacrifice some of his "superior thinking" to flex his intuition more (again, don't ask me for the source - I remember gists not details ). This suggests T dom with aux N, and he seems clearly introverted, so Ti Ne is most likely. His introversion is also supported by his contrast with Freud, an extrovert. Jung took a much more positive view to a person's internal world with his concept of introversion, and I suspect this is because he was an introvert and valued his own inner world.

Based on his writings and knowledge of his life in general, I'd go with INTP.

Jung reportedly considered himself to be an Introverted Thinking type, and has consequently often been typed an INTP. But there are differences to consider in his description of the Ti function and the later revisions. In MBTI books INTPs (the “architects”) are said to be primarily motivated by the “quest for logical purity”, which hardly seems to have been Jung’s prime directive; though I suppose you could call him an architect of the psyche, as INTP Einstein was an architect of spacetime. Neo-Jungian (if that’s the right term) Lenore Thomson, author of Personality Type: an Owner’s Manuel, describes Ti as governing situational, structural and perceptual logic. Logic is perhaps the key word in post-Jung descriptions of Ti; in fact, Data from Star Trek would probably be a stereotype example of the “pure” Ti. (On an amusing side note, I once worked with an INTP who was a fan of Data and often seemed to immitate him; that’s the Ti of contemporary MBTI books.)

Jung, on the other hand, didn’t use the word “logic” at all in his Ti descriptions. Rather, he saw Ti as governing subjective thinking and ideas, which gives it a different flavor altogether. For instance, in his General Description of the Types, Jung wrote:

“The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images. But as their connections with objective experience become more and more tenuous, they take on a mythological colouring and no longer hold true for the contemporary situation. Hence his thinking is of value for his contemporaries only so long as it is manifestly and intelligibly related to the known facts of the time. Once it has become mythological, it ceases to be relevant and runs on in itself.”

Going by current versions of Ni and Ti, Jung looks more Ni, which is more similar to his original description of Ti than the logic obsessed Ti of Lenore Thomson and other type authors. Thomson, who sees Ni as a left-brain conceptual function, writes:

“INJs are often frustrated by the limits of the language they’re using to test the freight of their Intuitions—whether their means of expression involves the written word, mathematics, musical or scientific notation, metapsychology, or art. As they shift vantage points, they’re obliged to invent new terms, reinterpret old ones, or use words like ‘post-modern’ to avail themselves of the categories their Intuitions are pointing beyond.

"One can see in Jung’s body of work, for example, his long struggle to invent terms for what he Intuited about archaic levels of the human mind. Even when he had settled on words like ‘archetype’ and ‘collective unconscious’, he spent the better part of his life attempting to work out their coneptual limits.”