[dilletante]

Pff I dont think, thinking is for morons!

Actually i'll tell you what I really think based upon what ive learnt and what I know. I think that people too often try to catagorise the persona of a person rather than their cognition. I think that people are often completely clueless on the nature of Jung's actual descriptions of his functions.

I think that the concept of typological behaviours as put forward by theorists such as Keirsey and Briggs + Myers, are too often filtered down into simplistic interpretations that rigidly enforce blindly stereotypical mindsets that do nothing but ignore projection and reinforce prejudice.

I think that the current type statistics are worthless and do nothing but further the problem mentioned above. I think they would read that Jung himself mentioned that his types are equally divided amongst the population. I think any arguments pointing out the lack of empericism in such a statment should take a look at the statistics brought about through MBTI, how any test which does nothing but measure a person's persona has nothing to do with cognition.

I think that if people knew more about Jung's actual work they would realise that religious beliefs and faith in the paranormal are actually the result of dominant intuition not inferior intuition in sensates. Since sensors trust the factual realities of their environment they are more likely to distrust such information and in fact they often project a fear of the unknown through the sub-conscious not through belief in the paranormal or spiritual.

I think they would start to realise that ideas such as concrete or abstract are to be taken less literally, they refer to the relation of perception, not the relation of ideas or actions. A sensor may take in information based upon the facts of his physical senses, but this does not mean he cannot be imaginative, or speculative or creative, in fact it has no bearing on such things, which are really the realm of Ego and Persona.



I think people would realise that being down to earth is about persona, social obligations are about persona and yes, even adherence to tradition is about persona. The measurement of outward behaviours as the foremost indication of cognition is false and needs to be carefully considered.

That is what I currently think.

Yes, I agree. I would add that percentages that the tests give you are not meant to be a quantitative measure of a given function, but rather are a way of sorting preferences. If you test 50/50 on a function that does not mean that you use each function equally but that there is no clear result-the test does not measure, it sorts. By ascribing traits to various functions we are only looking at the persona. While the traits may be products of the function, the two may not be related.

Jung believed that the first perceiving function to develop in an individual is intuition, which happens in the womb. The infant does not yet have the ability to use all of her senses, but in the world the senses come alive, and the child has a new way of receiving information. They are opposites which cannot be used at the same time, but one then the other. The preference indicates the order that the functions are used, not the inherent strength or weakness of the function.

[Sayonara]

The preference indicates the order that the functions are used, not the inherent strength or weakness of the function.

I think I love you. :)

[Reicheru]

Jung typed himself was an ISTP

where did you hear this? in an interview i saw, he only went as far as to describe himself as 'an intuitive' and 'a thinker.'

[JungyesMBTIno]

But intuition is a sense.

You sound like you have a sensing inferiority complex. I see this a ton in Ne dom/aux types around the internet for some reason (I'm not sure why with them, necessarily), where they generate possibilities via Ne that Ne can be a "sense," but at the same time, get on their lecturns about how "reality is a delusion" or whatever.