Carl Jung

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.

I'm not sure anyone actually know that for sure. I've heard both "INTJ" and "INFP" I think...

Welcome to the forum

To be honest, unless he took the test himself, we can't be sure, but I do agree that he was an IN.

The Myers-Briggs family (Daughter and Mother) created the test after Jung - I've heard, however, that he could've been INTJ, INTP, or INFP. I suppose welcome, then.

I think Carl Jung was INTP. I've read this in numerous places, but don't ask me to quote a source .

Isabel Myers, who created the MBTI system, was INFP. Her mother, Katharine Biggs was INFJ.

David Keirsey, creator of the temperament classifications (SJ, SP, NT, NF), is INTP.

Carl Jung gave his specific type, in this interview. [/b]Go to the 8:45 mark and he says that he is capitalized by thinking, uses intuition a great deal also, very little feeling is not practical. He never says, but it’s quite apparent from the narrator’s remarks through the entire interview that he prefers introversion. Thus, he is INTP, but many INTJs say that he claims to be their type. You be the judge.

His work is highly Ni, fixating on symbolic representations which are interlaced to form functional frameworks. The structure manifests as Ti, the overall premise logically cohering with defined principles. It seems that he establishes an overall premise with Ni, an impression of a concept, and defines the elements of it with Ti.

You should acknowledge that Jung is referring to his conceptions of cognitive processes, not those which the Briggs' envisaged. In Jung's theory, it's possible to have Ti and Ni as dominant processes, collaborating to achieve a specific result. According to an article I recall viewing, Jung believed himself to be dominant Ti and Ni, which create two possibilities viable for the MBTI system:

INTP
INTJ

Both are logical, I think, and I personally believe it is difficult to categorize a genius if they require brilliance with various processes to produce exceptional results. For example, a genius who's an INTP will certainly have incredible Si, potentially appearing to be dominant Si due to their brilliant usage of it.

You have to contrast the evident processes in a brilliant man's work and identify which processes are commonly utilized best. I think Jung's a dominant XNXX instead of dominant XXTX, with his second process being XXTX. If Jung's a dominant Introverted iNtuitive, he cannot be NiTi, and requires a thinking process; perhaps it is appropriate for us to substitute Ti with Te, creating NiTe, ordinary for the INTJ classification.

The differences between cognitive processes are in interpretation. I think that for us to view him coherently with the MBTI behaviour, we have to interpret his behaviour according to the sequences which the MBTI describes. It narrows our comprehension of him, which is the reason for my disdain towards the MBTI.

We have to define his introverted thinking as extroverted thinking or his introverted intuition as extroverted intuition for there to be no contradiction to the MBTI system. Which one of the two is ideal? Should we view the following processes to decide? If I have to decide which one of the two is strongest, Ni or Ti, I would certainly select Ni.

Fi or Si as Jung's tertiary? Se or Fe as his inferior? I think the decision for Fi or Si has a value of 3 and Se or Fe a value of 1. I'd choose Fi as Jung's tertiary and Se as his probable inferior. These two combined, 4 towards INTJ, but this is my interpretation. Let's assign a value of 10 the dominant and 6 for the auxiliary.

Originally Posted by Haruhi Suzumiya

His work is highly Ni, fixating on symbolic representations which are interlaced to form functional frameworks. The structure manifests as Ti, the overall premise logically cohering with defined principles. It seems that he establishes an overall premise with Ni, an impression of a concept, and defines the elements of it with Ti.

You should acknowledge that Jung is referring to his conceptions of cognitive processes, not those which the Briggs' envisaged. In Jung's theory, it's possible to have Ti and Ni as dominant processes, collaborating to achieve a specific result. According to an article I recall viewing, Jung believed himself to be dominant Ti and Ni, which create two possibilities viable for the MBTI system:

INTP
INTJ

Both are logical, I think, and I personally believe it is difficult to categorize a genius if they require brilliance with various processes to produce exceptional results. For example, a genius who's an INTP will certainly have incredible Si, potentially appearing to be dominant Si due to their brilliant usage of it.

You have to contrast the evident processes in a brilliant man's work and identify which processes are commonly utilized best. I think Jung's a dominant XNXX instead of dominant XXTX, with his second process being XXTX. If Jung's a dominant Introverted iNtuitive, he cannot be NiTi, and requires a thinking process; perhaps it is appropriate for us to substitute Ti with Te, creating NiTe, ordinary for the INTJ classification.

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.

Originally Posted by Haruhi Suzumiya

The differences between cognitive processes are in interpretation. I think that for us to view him coherently with the MBTI behaviour, we have to interpret his behaviour according to the sequences which the MBTI describes. It narrows our comprehension of him, which is the reason for my disdain towards the MBTI.

No there not, he was quite specific about them. I would post them but they are extremely long and detailed.

Originally Posted by Haruhi Suzumiya

We have to define his introverted thinking as extroverted thinking or his introverted intuition as extroverted intuition for there to be no contradiction to the MBTI system. Which one of the two is ideal? Should we view the following processes to decide? If I have to decide which one of the two is strongest, Ni or Ti, I would certainly select Ni.

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.

Originally Posted by Haruhi Suzumiya

Fi or Si as Jung's tertiary? Se or Fe as his inferior? I think the decision for Fi or Si has a value of 3 and Se or Fe a value of 1. I'd choose Fi as Jung's tertiary and Se as his probable inferior. These two combined, 4 towards INTJ, but this is my interpretation. Let's assign a value of 10 the dominant and 6 for the auxiliary.

Listen again, he said that thinking was his dominant, followed by intuition. His weakest is feeling and he struggles with sensing. Are you serious here?