Am I an ISFJ or INFJ?

Am I an ISFJ or INFJ?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 159
Thank Tree75Thanks

This is a discussion on Am I an ISFJ or INFJ? within the What's my personality type? forums, part of the Personality Cafe category; Okay, I'm sure there are a million of these, but I really need to know if I'm an INFJ or ...

  1. #1

    Am I an ISFJ or INFJ?

    Okay, I'm sure there are a million of these, but I really need to know if I'm an INFJ or an ISFJ. I see so many aspects of myself in both. My sister and mother are probably the epitomes of ISFJ's, and we are so very different in some ways. I'm going to list some things about me and even how I am the same and different from my mom and sister. I think the differences are subtle, but all in all we have a different way of viewing the world and how we want our lives. When I test, Se and Si usually come very close within one another, it's strange.

    1) I'm very prudent. I don't take big risks. BUT I am a lot more inclined to take them than my sister and mother, especially my mother. For example, my sister and I traveling to my horse shows. My mom is VERY concerned about every little detail. "Where are you staying? How much money does gas cost there? Is the hotel any good? What are it's rates? How far are you going to have to travel from home to the motel?" Little minutia that drives me CRAZY. Like seriously, mom, don't worry about it. You can't know every little detail! Now, I'm NOT one to take off without any sort of planning (which tells me I'm not IxFP like I used to think I was.) I will make sure that we have the money, a place to stay, and a reliable way to get there. I DO like to have a plan. Also, in the example of my mother once again, she would always bombard me with questions when I said I was going to a friend's house. "Who's their parents? Where do they live? What are they going to feed you? Is their house nice? What do their parents do for a living? What's you friend like?" UGH. Now, I have vague interest in these things, but not for the same reasons my mother does. I want to know about the person on a deeper level. I might think "Since your mom is a teacher, what does that mean for you, my friend?" rather than the sake of knowing alone. One time I was talking about how my friends' mom wanted to take us just to go get some frozen yogurt at the family owned parlor in the next town over. I began telling my mom about how much fun it was, how funny her mom was, how we laughed, how my french vanilla bean frozen yogurt tasted like a cloud from Heaven. What did she want to know? "What car did her mom drive? What does she look like? Where was the parlor at? What did it look like?" UGH. I don't remember because, ya know, I was too busy enjoying my time with my friend and my ice cream that I didn't notice what route we took to get to place. I might remember what color her car was maybe? So I might respond to her with "Just a little red car." I'm not familiar with car models. On a rare occasion, I might remember it being a Chevy because I saw the logo on her steering wheel or something. My sister doesn't do this, but rather, she wants to know every little detail of the conversations I had with them. Like, for example, I might say "My friend was telling me she wants to become a nurse! Isn't that cool? I think she'd be so good at that." and my sister would agree but then proceed to say, "Where does she want to work as a nurse? Is she going to move away or stay in this area?" to which I respond, "Oh... I don't know. I didn't ask. I assume she's going to move away maybe because she complains about how boring it is here." and my sister just kind of looks at me in bewilderment. I've often got remarks from her along the lines of, "What do you and your friends even talk about?" to which I respond "Uhhh.. I don't know." but in truth we will discuss something weird like our opinions on ghosts... LOL! My friends have to be just as strange as me
    I can become disinterested when people talk about the little details of their current lives. I'd much rather hear about what you want for your future because I see potential in everyone.

    2) I can be somewhat scared about sudden change in my life. Like, right now, if I got a random invite to be whisked away to a lovely college dedicated to equestrians, I would be somewhat hesitant. But not really because it would disrupt my comfortable but oh-so BORING life now, but because I would miss my family dearly. I don't care about leaving my lifestyle behind. In fact, I despise my lifestyle now. But that's a rant for another time. When I was little my sister, myself, and a family very close to us went on an out-of-country vacation. I was SO excited... Until I got there. Then I started missing my mom, dad, and pets A LOT. I cried. I wanted to go back home so I could see them. I couldn't even call them. If I could have done that, I would've been right as rain. (After the first day I was perfectly fine and even kind of forgot about home. Lol!) In fact, I went on many smaller vacations after that and as long as I had my sister with me and could call my mother, I never thought twice about going back home. IN FACT I OFTEN DIDN'T WANT TO. Haha.

    3) I've always loved abstract theory. I had the biggest imagination when I was little. Still do. I was disinterested in ANYTHING that was non-fiction or didn't have some sort of fantastical element to it. It was a chore to get me to read stories that were "realistic." The only way was maybe if it had some sort of science or historic element to it. Otherwise, I would complain of being bored through the whole thing. I would daydream ALL the time. It was hard to get me to concentrate unless the subject was something of interest. Even then, I'd ask unusual questions about whatever I was learning and was always a step ahead sometimes. I'd learn something to what I felt was it's full potential and want to move on. That's why I excelled in science but SUCKED in mathematics because that was something that was not only boring but required practicing one concept over and over and that made me want to rip my hair out. I was REALLY good at English. I was home schooled, and my sister said that she barely had to teach me to read (it was her who taught me.) I just magically started doing it with little instruction. Same with learning to write.

    4) I'm incredibly drawn to mysticism. Ever since I was a little girl I always wanted a deeper understanding of the world on a spiritual level. I was never happy with things as they are. For example, I had a wild imagination. I was the little girl who collected rocks because I thought there was something special about them. I couldn't tell you what that special was, but I just KNEW it was and if you tell me it's just a rock, like my sister often did, I'm gonna fight you. :) :) :)
    (What's funny is I still do this. Sister tells me I can't accept anything at face value. I collect crystals, dream catchers, and objects that have symbolism to me like keys)

    5) I'm always thinking forward. I was one of the few children who KNEW what she wanted to be when she grew up: a veterinarian. Guess what? I'm in college studying to get into the veterinary technology program. I was torn between a couple other careers like game design and acting, but I wanted to go with the one that had a higher purpose, was stable, and is something I'm sure I would never ever get "bored" of. I also got lots of people around me saying that they always knew that working with animals was my true calling and I have not diverted my course since. My mind is set, though for awhile I wavered because the others satisfied my need to have art in my life. But the truth is: I suck at art. I can never get what's in my head into real life when it comes to art. At least not the way I want it.

    6) I'm a hopeless romantic at heart. While I never voice this outwardly to anyone, I've always had dreams of meeting my "prince charming" and living this ever-so perfect life. When it comes to any sort of relationship, I see through rose-colored lenses. I have high standards for people and am often disappointed when they aren't what I envisioned them to be.

    7) My sister has a habit of letting people take advantage of her. She can be somewhat of a doormat. Oh, I can be too, but I can tell when someone is trying to take advantage of me but I go along with them anyway because I don't want conflict. My sister lacks that ability and when I try to tell her what people are doing she doesn't believe me. Ugh. Like one time, at my 15th birthday party, she gave one of her friends some money to hold on to in case my friends and I wanted to play some arcade games at the bowling alley. I tried to warn her that she shouldn't do that, because I just knew she would steal it or something, despite there being no prior evidence to say she would. My sister basically told me whatever. Welp, sure as anything, she never gave my sister back the money and said we spent it. Didn't surprise me at all and I had an "I told you so" moment. What really irritates me is that she's still friends with her. Me? I would've kicked her to the curb for that.

    8) I do have an inability to live in the moment, I think. In fact, if I had one wish to go back to the past, it would be to go back to times where I was too worried about what's going on next to enjoy myself. I do this all the time. BUT sometimes I get panicked and overwhelmed with how things are NOW. Like one time I could've swore my instructor was going to fail me on a paper so I was more inclined to just drop the class altogether despite it being a required course. My sister tries to talk sense into me when that happened but I was hellbent on my insight despite not being able to present any evidence that I would be failed on it. I didn't see the big picture that one little paper or even class wasn't going to extremely affect my future. I didn't end up dropping the course and I actually got a B+ on the paper. But it was causing me so much stress that I didn't care.

    9) This is a little thing, but I tend to have a habit of not eating anything at all or EATING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. If I'm really busy I won't even realize how hungry I am but if I'm bored I get really hungry and then I get moody. I have "hanger" issues, meaning I get angry when I'm hungry BUT my mom and sister don't do this. Also, when they eat, they stop totally when they're full. I don't. If something tastes good to me I keep eating it despite my body's protests. I hear that Introverted Sensors are very aware of their bodies. Me? I'm either totally unaware of my body or hyper-aware of it. I'm a bit of a hypochondriac. My sister and mom aren't. They're fully aware of what's normal for their bodies and what's not. They're able to sit here and say, "Okay, this has happened with my body once before and I was fine." I don't have that. At all. I'm the person who suddenly becomes aware of my heartbeat and thinks I'm having a heart attack or something. LOL.

    10) I experience some sort of "disembodiment" at times where I'm neither connected to my environment or my body. It's like I'm stuck in some sort of "haze" and the only way I can break out of it is by interacting with my environment. This happens especially when I awake from a dream. My dreams are VERY bizarre too. I won't even elaborate because they're so strange.

    11) I get overwhelmed with too much sensory information. I CANNOT have a face-paced job. I once worked at a movie theater and it was actually hell on earth for me. It was loud and I was expected to multitask ALL the time. I also have trouble remember tedious processes. There was a special way we had to process loyalty cards and I could never remember it and even got chastised for it once. I would get pounding headaches and would get sick at my stomach because it was too much for me. I quit. I couldn't take it. I had a job at a small little dollar store for some time. Much better. Allowed me to think while I worked. My sister is easily able to remember how to do processes and tedious work. I can't. Not at all. We both get overwhelmed by too much going on and prefer the quiet, but she is able to at least REMEMBER how to do the job. LOL. I hate jobs that are overly structured. It stressed me out.

    12) When my father died, it was extremely hard for my mother to move on. It's understandable, but she was fixated. Her health even declined. I'm not saying I don't miss my father, I think about him every single day, but my mom is still coming to grips about living without him. When my mother had her stroke, my sister became very fearful and hasn't behaved the same around my mother as she did before. Me? I'm not saying I wasn't affected, because it did have some psychological damage on me, but they cannot move on whatsoever. My mother has an extremely detailed memory and talks about them frequently. I have a somewhat detailed memory in the sense that I can remember certain sights and impressions I had. I remember the layout of my beloved childhood home BUT when I was little I made a little "vow" to myself that I'd never forget the homes I lived in. I don't know why. But I still don't dwell on my past much.

    13) This is where I start to think I have Si. One time I was kind of forced to jump in the pool and ended up hitting my back on the side, winding myself, and going under water. I broke my tail bone and winded myself badly. Wouldn't jump in the pool again for a LONG time. However, one time I fell off a horse and got winded as well as it hitting my head to the point of dizziness and ear-ringing. I didn't have a concussion or anything. However, as soon as I recovered, I was back to riding without a second thought. In fact, I kind of forgot this happened until just now as I wrote it. Hm. My sister and mom did NOT want me to get back on that horse, ever. Lol.

    Okay, I can't think of much else. Please respond. :) Thanks.



  2. #2

    I would say you are an IFNJ :)

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitty23 View Post
    I would say you are an IFNJ :)
    Hm. Interesting. Perhaps I keep confusing the fact I do have a vivid memory for Si? I don't think I'm constantly comparing past situations to the present, which is what Si does.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    INTP - The Thinkers

    I go with INFJ also. I remember your Enneagram questionnaire, the answers seemed very INFXish.

  6. #5

    Yes, that's what it looks like.

    INFJ vs ISFJ

    In theory, INFJs’ emotional expressiveness should be fairly similar to that of ISFJs. After all, both types are Introverts and both use Fe as their auxiliary function. The primary difference is that ISFJs, as Si dominants, are wired to function as guardians and conservators of culture and tradition. INFJs, by contrast, function more like societal prophets and diagnosticians, sensitive to what they perceive as the faults and falsities of their environs. This, along with their strong idealism, can contribute to their critical stance toward the world.

    Difference between Si and Ni:

    Ni vs Si - Funky MBTI in Fiction

    Difference between Si and Se:

    What would you say is the difference between si... - Confessions of a Myers Briggs-aholic

    Difference between INFJ and ISFJ:

    Am I an INFJ? 3 Ways to Know if You’re Not – INFJ Blog

    Am I an INFJ or an ISFJ



    Childhood struggles of each myers briggs type:

    The Childhood Struggles of Every Myers Briggs Type - Psychology Junkie

    What each function looks like in real life:

    How To Recognize Each Myers-Briggs Personality Type In Real Life | Thought Catalog
    zosio913 thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitty23 View Post
    Yes, that's what it looks like.

    INFJ vs ISFJ

    In theory, INFJs’ emotional expressiveness should be fairly similar to that of ISFJs. After all, both types are Introverts and both use Fe as their auxiliary function. The primary difference is that ISFJs, as Si dominants, are wired to function as guardians and conservators of culture and tradition. INFJs, by contrast, function more like societal prophets and diagnosticians, sensitive to what they perceive as the faults and falsities of their environs. This, along with their strong idealism, can contribute to their critical stance toward the world.

    Difference between Si and Ni:

    Ni vs Si - Funky MBTI in Fiction

    Difference between Si and Se:

    What would you say is the difference between si... - Confessions of a Myers Briggs-aholic

    Difference between INFJ and ISFJ:

    Am I an INFJ? 3 Ways to Know if You’re Not – INFJ Blog

    Am I an INFJ or an ISFJ



    Childhood struggles of each myers briggs type:

    The Childhood Struggles of Every Myers Briggs Type - Psychology Junkie

    What each function looks like in real life:

    How To Recognize Each Myers-Briggs Personality Type In Real Life | Thought Catalog
    Funky MBTI in Fiction, I ADORE that blog. It's what finally helped me understand cognitive functions.

    The thing about my memory is this: I can remember impressions and imagery and feeling a well but not specifics. Example, when I brought my dog home. I love my dog dearly and I remember how she reacted when she first got home. I remember a vision of being in my brother's truck sitting in the back with my dad driving and my brother in the passenger seat and it was sunny when we traveled to pick her up. But that's about it. I remember when I laid eyes on her for the first time, how I cried because we bonded so instantly. But for the life of me, I don't remember what year it was or what day or anything. I know it was in August because I have a memory of asking my father when we did. My dad was an ISFJ, his memory was impeccable. But I can't tell you more than that.
    What's even worse? I don't even remember what day it was that my father passed. I know it was around the 20th of July? I have no concept of time. I think it's only been three years since he passed. My mom and sister however know exactly how long it has been and what day it was. I can't remember dates to save my life and I can literally do things like forget where I set my keys. I swear I had them in my hand just five minutes ago.....

    Lol!

  8. #7

    Yeah...I still don't see Si. All I see is INFJ :) Si likes/prefers specifics. Ni tends not to.

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Hm. Interesting. Perhaps I keep confusing the fact I do have a vivid memory for Si? I don't think I'm constantly comparing past situations to the present, which is what Si does.
    Correction: people do that. Referencing memory to understand the present; Jung's theories are concerned with our higher thinking. A function is not a process or something that someone does to achieve a certain outcome, like a math equation, but instead is a mental perspective or outlook; the cognitive 'assumptions' you brain makes while thinking. Your dominant function affects where your focus is, what information you focus on and how you focus on it. It can be reduced to something as simple as "Si remembers the past."

    Below is a response I wrote for a different thread on this same issue:

    In Jung's work, intuition is abstract perception and sensation is concrete perception. The essential difference between these two is that intuition always goes beyond the details of experience and perceives abstractions derived from experience (patterns, connection, possibilities, all of that stuff usually attributed to intuition), and sensation focuses on drinking in the experience and absorbing every minute detail.

    The terms abstract and concrete can be a bit misleading with respect to introverted sensation, though, because concrete implies 'realness' or earthiness, and while Si-preferring types are indeed earthy, the nature of this function is such that their focus is on the concrete perceptions of the inner experience. Jung spend more than a few words describing the introverted sensate's focus on bodily experience, but their realm of perception extends beyond their physical form; any sort of inner event (bodily or otherwise) is subject to Si's perceptions. If a person becomes suddenly sullen, the ISxJ will find themselves arrested by the mood, attempting to absorb as much of it as possible. Compare this to the INxJ, whose focus is much less on the mood itself than it is diving the impetus of the mood or the possible actions they might take as a result of the mood. This of course doesn't mean that INxJs won't wallow in their moods and ISxJs won't try to figure out what's wrong with them, but that in general, all other things being equal, this is the general frame of thought that each type holds.

    Based on all of this, the best way to define Ni and Si (if we are aiming to be close to Jung, that is), would be "abstract perception via the inner world" for Ni (which echoes Jung's definition of 'perception via the unconscious') and "concrete perception via the inner world" for Si. One common misconception about the introverted irrational functions is that their sole focus is on perceiving the inner world, and, while this is not untrue, it does forget that the orientation of a function does not limit its machination solely to that world, but instead provides the frame of reference through which the function processes information. For example, introverted thinking is introverted, but it is entirely capable of evaluating the external reality. The difference between Ti and, say, Te, then, is not what it evaluates (inner/outer reality), but from where its standard of evaluation comes. The same is true for the perceiving functions. Ni and Si are not limited solely to perception of the inner reality, but their perceptions will always be referred back to the inner world, so as to further the introverted goal of venturing deeper into the psyche. The concept of impressions is a good illustration of this dynamic: the Pi functions perceive the impact external reality has on the psyche, what the outer world releases in the subject. Of course, like any introverted function, their preference will always be to stay within the inner reality (since interacting with the outer reality takes some elbow grease).

    If these functions perceive by the inner world, that begs the question of what that means. Jung spent a great deal of lip on the introverted functions' relationship to the images of the collective unconscious (hence the 'perception via the unconscious' from earlier). The most prevalent example of this relationship is with Ni; much of its perception are located around these primordial images and the abstract perception thereof (if you can image abstraction abstractions further)--it perceives the possibilities and patterns within the unconscious, which is where Ni gets its propensity for symbolism and metaphor. It is my estimation that Si's relationship to the unconscious is a little less distinctive; these images are by nature elusive and difficult to grasp, which goes against Si's focus on the concrete aspects of inner experience. While I'm sure there is a relationship, I imagine that ISxJs are only tangentially aware of it (as an Ni-dom I can attest to the fact that even I am only somewhat aware of Ni's unconscious machinations).

    Any sort of attempt to define the cognitive processes is somewhat futile. We might apprehend some aspects of their nature, but they are a lot larger than mere processes that can be reduced to x + y = z. The functions are frames of mind, fields of consciousness, whatever you want to call it. They are best defined by their limits, thus any definition can only be partial. Of course, if the definitions of the functions were even slightly clear, I doubt we'd still be discussing it today. The human psyche is a complicated thing, and this is only one tool in understanding it.
    (Here's a link to the original thread in case you want to read that: Ni vs Si test?)

    I'll my definitions of the functions here to further help you out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

    There are two ways I see to define the functions: one way looks at them rather clinically, says that "Extraverted intuition does x, y, z", the other, more personal way, actually looks at the functions as people (Jung's original technique), and more assigns them characteristics and qualities more becoming of a character sketch than anything else. First I will give you the clinical definitions, interspersed with reduced character descriptions, and then I'll put into spoiler's Jung's verbatim descriptions of all the functions from Psychological Types, Chapter X.

    Definitions

    • Extraverted Sensation: concrete perception (details, sensations, experience) via the external world.
    • Introverted Sensation: concrete perception (details, sensations, experience) via the internal world.


    Sensation as a function is focused on perceiving concrete things. When it is preferred, it creates a very earthy sort of person, in touch with reality and pragmatic; not one to lose themselves from the present moment (even introverted sensors). While I did say earlier that all people reference the past to some extent (it is important to remember, here and going forward, that these descriptions of 'pure' types, in a vacuum of an auxiliary and tertiary function), this is exacerbated in the sensation types. The past is concrete, set in stone. Thus, sensors prefer it as means for understanding their present moment. They find the future to be ever-changing and unreliable when making their decisions and do not consider what might happen in their machinations. Again, the concreteness of the sensation type must be emphasized. If it is not solid, then in general they don't want to worry about it.

    When sensation is preferred in the mind of an extravert (one who orients herself towards the external reality), then their sensation (remember to think about the function as a person here) takes on an extraverted character in of itself; otherwise known as the function Se, extraverted sensation. Sensation becomes focused outward, her desire for perceptions broad and expansive. She is life-affirming and risk taking; she desires to take in as much of the concrete external as possible. She perceives the world sharply and is acutely aware of everything going on around her, and easily gets in sync physically with the rest of it. She orients her life towards the pursuit of new experience.

    When sensation is preferred in the mind of an introvert (one who orients himself towards his inner reality), sensation takes on an introverted character, creating the phenomenon known as Si, introverted sensation. Focused inward, sensation is focused on depth, taking in the inner concrete experience (which is by its own nature a fairly abstract thing, so Si is something of a paradoxical function) meticulously as fastidiously. He experiences his inner sensations and perceptions very vividly, and it is not uncommon for this type to be very aware of their own bodies. The introverted sensor is something of a connoisseur of the inner experience in this regard.

    • Extraverted Intuition: abstract perception (patterns, possibilities, connections) via the external world.
    • Introverted Intuition: abstract perception (patterns, possibilities, connections) via the internal world.


    Intuition is the function focused perceiving abstractly. It is the process that perceives through the contents of the unconscious, thus it is itself unconscious. In the mind of the intuitive, any perception causes images to rise forth from the unconscious. These are commonly called possibilities or patterns, but this is the core thrust of the function: any sort of abstract image. Intuitives live inside their heads to a certain extent, regardless of extraversion or introversion. They repress their perception of reality as it is in order to perceive reality through a lens of fuzziness. Thus, for the intuitive, the past is obsolete and irrelevant (and intuitive doms often have an unusual gift for seeing situations with totally new eyes, regardless of whether they have experienced it before). Their point of reference for the present is the future--what might be. They will make their decisions based around this idea (although in modern Western society such actions as usually deemed neurotic and deserving of clinical treatment).

    When extraverted, intuition takes on the extraverted character, hence Ne. Like Se, extraverted intuition is focused on the pursuit of the new, but instead of experience she pursues new possibilities. This pursuit might prompt her to experience new things, but her focus is never in reality, always on the possible. She is like a wildfire, burning through new ideas and concepts. These types often have great passion for the ideas they fall in love with, although they are somewhat predisposed to flightiness or seeming ungrounded (although between the two intuitive types, extraverted intuitives are the more grounded, although in their own strange, dreamy way). I would say that the concept of 'dreamer' is a bit inappropriate for this type, though they are often called such. Rather, they are explorers, conquerors of uncharted territory, much in the same way that extraverted sensates are explorers of the physical.

    (I apologize if my description of Ne is a bit lackluster; being Ni-dom makes it rather difficult to understand and explain.)

    When introverted, intuition takes on (you guessed it) an introverted character. Introverted intuition is perhaps one of the more misunderstood functions, mostly because of its highly abstract nature. The inner experience is already abstract, but introverted intuitives use this as the reference point for their already-abstract perceptions. Jung writes that this type is frequently artistic as a means of expressing his intuitions, and that his art often far-off and strange, a direct product of his alien function. He is frequently a dreamy and mystical person, focused on the meaning behind events in the world and may have a bit of a propensity for appearing psychic at times. Of course he is not; he is just rather perceptive. Introverted intuitives focus their attention upon their mental imagery, perceiving connections and patterns within the realm of the unconscious (which, in its own paradox, means that introverted intuitives perceive via the unconscious and their direct those perceptions back towards the unconscious).

    • Extraverted Thinking: impersonal evaluation (definitions, use, logic) via the external world.
    • Introverted Thinking: impersonal evaluation (definitions, use, logic) via the internal world.


    Regardless of attitude, the psychology of thinkers tends to make them fairly intense people, both in thought and in their relationships. The process of thinking lends itself to a measuring person, one who is constantly evaluating and reevaluating information. They can come across as rather cold at times, and they are often unaware of the emotional aspect of reality (they always repress feeling), but they have a gift for logic and reason, which lends thinking a certain mixture of inhumanity masking an actual person.

    When extraverted, thinking takes on the extraverted character. This form of thinking can be incredibly dogmatic and bulldozing if unchecked. Reason and logic become firmly rooted in the external reality, and the thinker herself only concerns herself with making her logic work "out there". These types are factual and constantly check their thoughts against the facts. She is somewhat like an extraverted sensor in this regard; external reality holds supreme, and she is dogged in achieving her thinking goals in the external reality.

    When introverted, thinking takes the introverted character. These are precise and meticulous people, deep thinkers striving towards logical consistency. He is skeptical of facts and the external reality, and thus thinking for him is largely comprised of the logical relationships between concepts and principles as opposed to the facts themselves. This gives introverted thinking a more rationalist approach where extraverted thinking is empirical.

    • Extraverted Feeling: personal evaluation (meaning, value, ethics) via the external world.
    • Introverted Feeling: personal evaluation (meaning, value, ethics) via the internal world.


    Feeling's first and foremost concern is on evaluating information based on personal criteria. The feeler is by and large an amicable person, accommodating of most information and able to see the value in everything. They are not ones to cause disquiet and in general are loving people. They are in touch with emotions in one way or another.

    When extraverted, feeling takes the extraverted attitude. Extraverted feelers are characteristically warm and jovial people, rather gregarious and accommodating of most people. She keenly aware of the emotions of others, and is almost cursed with the ability to absorb their emotions. She is aware of societal values and generally clings to those as her touchstone.

    When introverted, feeling takes the introverted attitude. Like introverted intuition, introverted feeling is rather misunderstood; with his focus on his own emotions and values over those of others, he can come across as cold, but this is not true. Like all introverts, he recoils from external reality, he does not wish that his emotions be tainted by the influence of others. He will feel quite deeply about things (whereas extraverted feeling feels rather broadly), and is generally concerned about his own identity as an individual, apart from others.

    (Quick note about my use of pronouns, in case anyone is offended: extraversion is female and introversion is male in my brain. Don't really know why; it's just how I understand them.)

    Following are quotes directly from Psychological Types.

    The Extraverted Sensation Type

     
    No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced his type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name "experience" at all. What he experiences serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends. Since one is inclined to regard a highly developed reality-sense as a sign of rationality, such people will be esteemed as very rational. But in actual fact this is not the case, since they are just as much at the mercy of their sensations in the face of irrational, chance happenings as they are in the face of rational ones. This type—the majority appear to be men—naturally does not think he is at the "mercy" of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life-it is simply real life lived to the full. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. Indeed, true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and willingness to make sacrifices. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract his sensations may be. Wulfen's Der Genussmensch: ein Cicerone im rücksichtslosen Lebensgenuss is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort, and the book seems to me worth reading on that account alone.

    On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete. In the former case the great problems of life hang on a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, it's all a question of good taste. Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it. It cannot be anything except concrete and real; conjectures that go beyond the concrete are admitted only on condition that they enhance sensation. The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside. What comes from inside seems to him morbid and suspect. He always reduces his thoughts and feelings to objective causes, to influences emanating from objects, quite unperturbed by the most glaring violations of logic. Once he can get back to tangible reality in any form he can breathe again. In this respect he is surprisingly credulous. He will unhesitatingly connect a psychogenic symptom with a drop in the barometer, while on the other hand the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him morbid imagination. His love is unquestionably rooted in the physical attractions of its object. If normal, he is conspicuously well adjusted to reality. That is his ideal, and it even makes him considerate of others. As he has no ideals connected with ideas, he has no reason to act in any way contrary to the reality of things as they are. This manifests itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles him to make a few demands of them. He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.

    The more sensation predominates, however, so that the subject disappears behind the sensation, the less agreeable does this type become. He develops into a crude pleasure-seeker, or else degenerates into an unscrupulous, effete aesthete. Although the object has become quite indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in its own right, it is none the less devalued. It is ruthlessly exploited and squeezed dry, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation. The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit. In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition. Above all, the repressed intuitions begin to assert themselves in the form of projections. The wildest suspicions arise; if the object is a sexual one, jealous fantasies and anxiety states gain the upper hand. More acute cases develop every sort of phobia, and, in particular, compulsion symptoms. The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, "magical" superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude, and they appear in a guise that is all the more striking because they rest on the most absurd assumptions, in complete contrast to the conscious sense of reality. The whole structure of thought and feeling seems, in this second personality, to be twisted into a pathological parody: reason turns into hair-splitting pedantry, morality into dreary moralizing and blatant Pharisaism, religion into ridiculous superstition, and intuition, the noblest gift of man, into meddlesome officiousness, poking into every corner; instead of gazing into the far distance, it descends to the lowest level of human meanness.

    The specifically compulsive character of the neurotic symptoms is the unconscious counterpart of the easy-going attitude of the pure sensation type, who, from the standpoint of rational judgment, accepts indiscriminately everything that happens. Although this does not by any means imply an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it nevertheless deprives him of the essential restraining power of judgment. But rational judgment is a conscious coercion which the rational type appears to impose on himself of his own free will. This coercion overtakes the sensation type from the unconscious, in the form of compulsion. Moreover, the very existence of a judgment means that the rational type's relation to the object will never become an absolute tie, as it is in the case of the sensation type. When his attitude attains an abnormal degree of one-sidedness, therefore, he is in danger of being overpowered by the unconscious in the same measure as he is consciously in the grip of the object. If he should become neurotic, it is much harder to treat him by rational means because the functions which the analyst must turn to are in a relatively undifferentiated state, and little or no reliance can be placed on them. Special techniques for bringing emotional pressure to bear are often needed in order to make him at all conscious.



    The Introverted Sensation Type

     
    The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert's characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.

    Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality alienating subjectivity of this type. But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula-all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.

    If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.

    Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If he has any aptitude for objective reason, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is ready to grant his sensations reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-believe and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule he re-signs himself to his isolation and the banality of the world, which he has unconsciously made archaic.

    His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. The real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality that contrasts glaringly with the well-meaning innocuousness of the conscious attitude. So long as the individual does not hold too aloof from the object, his unconscious intuition has a salutary compensating effect on the rather fantastic and overcredulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic, the archaic intuitions come to the surface and exert their pernicious influence, forcing themselves on the individual and producing compulsive ideas of the most perverse kind. The result is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion.



    The Extraverted Intuitive Type

     
    Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type. The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation. He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them. As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling. How- [p. 465] ever reasonable and opportune it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks in favour of stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison, the self-same situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly. Neither reason nor feeling can restrain or discourage him from a new possibility, even though it may run counter to convictions hitherto unquestioned. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are, with him, inferior functions, possessing no decisive weight; hence they lack the power to offer any lasting. resistance to the force of intuition. And yet these are the only functions that are capable of creating any effectual compensation to the supremacy of intuition, since they can provide the intuitive with that judgment in which his type is altogether lacking. The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.

    Apparently this type is more prone to favour women than men; in which case, however, the intuitive activity reveals itself not so much in the professional as in the social sphere. Such women understand the art of utilizing every social opportunity; they establish right social con- [p. 466] nections; they seek out lovers with possibilities only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility.

    It is at once clear, both from the standpoint of political economy and on grounds of general culture, that such a type is uncommonly important. If well-intentioned, with an orientation to life not purely egoistical, he may render exceptional service as the promoter, if not the initiator of every kind of promising enterprise. He is the natural advocate of every minority that holds the seed of future promise. Because of his capacity, when orientated more towards men than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and range of usefulness, he can also 'make' men. His capacity to inspire his fellow-men with courage, or to kindle enthusiasm for something new, is unrivalled, although he may have forsworn it by the morrow. The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate.

    This attitude has immense dangers -- all too easily the intuitive may squander his life. He spends himself animating men and things, spreading around him an abundance of life -- a life, however, which others live, not he. Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest. In the end he goes empty away. But when the intuitive lets things reach such a pitch, he also has the unconscious against him. The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other's mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation.



    The Introverted Intuitive Type

     
    The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]

    If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

    Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely ęsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its ęsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its ęsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further ęsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

    The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects.



    The Extraverted Thinking Type

     
    It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

    In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

    If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rōle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.

    We have now outlined two extreme figures, between which terminals the majority of these types may be graduated.

    In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence. The further we penetrate into their own province, the more do the unfavourable results of their tyranny impress us. Another life still pulses at the periphery, where the truth of the formula can be sensed as an estimable adjunct to the rest. But the further we probe into the special sphere where the formula operates, the more do we find life ebbing away from all that fails to coincide with its dictates. Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the most disagreeable results of an extraverted formula, since they are the first to be unmercifully blessed with it. But above all the subject himself is the one who suffers most -- which brings us to the other side of the psychology of this type.

    The fact that an intellectual formula never has been and never will be discovered which could embrace the [p. 437] abundant possibilities of life in a fitting expression must lead -- where such a formula is accepted -- to an inhibition, or total exclusion, of other highly important forms and activities of life. In the first place, all those vital forms dependent upon feeling will become repressed in such a type, as, for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, the art of friendship, etc. Irrational forms, such as religious experiences, passions and the like, are often obliterated even to the point of complete unconsciousness. These, conditionally quite important, forms of life have to support an existence that is largely unconscious. Doubtless there are exceptional men who are able to sacrifice their entire life to one definite formula; but for most of us a permanent life of such exclusiveness is impossible. Sooner or later -- in accordance with outer circumstances and inner gifts -- the forms of life repressed by the intellectual attitude become indirectly perceptible, through a gradual disturbance of the conscious conduct of life. Whenever disturbances of this kind reach a definite intensity, one speaks of a neurosis. In most cases, however, it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself some preventive extenuations of his formula, worded, of course, in a suitable and reasonable way. In this way a safety-valve is created.

    The relative or total unconsciousness of such tendencies or functions as are excluded from any participation in the conscious attitude keeps them in a relatively undeveloped state. As compared with the conscious function they are inferior. To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the remaining contents of the unconscious, from which they acquire a bizarre character. To the extent that they are conscious, they only play a secondary rōle, although one of considerable importance for the whole psychological picture.

    Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

    The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated -- they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer -- all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand-in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice [p. 440] to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.

    Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

    The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than [p. 441] a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counter-position, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.

    In my experience, this type, which is doubtless familiar to my readers, is chiefly found among men, since thinking tends to be a much more dominant function in men than in women. As a rule, when thinking achieves the mastery in women, it is, in my experience, a kind of thinking which results from a prevailingly intuitive activity of mind. [p. 442]
    The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there.

    The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective [p. 443]data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it -- I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame.

    But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.

    The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions.



    The Introverted Thinking Type

     
    Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

    The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486] disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.

    With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.

    The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.



    The Extraverted Feeling Type

     
    In so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling. As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution. One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.

    But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.

    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 [p. 452] 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.

    Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis.

    Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type.



    The Introverted Feeling Type

     
    It is principally among women that I have found the predominance of introverted feeling. 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and their temperament is inclined to melancholy. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. As they are mainly guided by their subjective feelings, their true motives generally remain hidden. Their outward demeanor is harmonious and inconspicuous, giving an impression of pleasing repose, or of sympathetic response, with no desire to affect others, to impress, influence, or change them in any way.

    If this outward aspect is more pronounced, it arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness, which may actually turn into a disregard for the comfort and well-being of others. One is distinctly aware then of the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, this happens only when the influence of the object is too strong. The feeling of harmony, therefore, lasts only so long as the object goes its own moderate way and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to respond to the real emotions of the other person, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative value judgment. Although there is a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious co-existence, strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness. Often they are made to feel entirely superfluousness.

    Faced with anything that might carry her away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent though critical neutrality, coupled with a faint trace of superiority that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive person. Any stormy emotion, however, will be struck down with murderous coldness, unless it happens to catch the woman on her unconscious side - that is, unless it hits her feelings by arousing a primordial image. In that case, she simply feels paralyzed for the moment, and this in due course invariably produces an even more obstinate resistance which will hit the other person in his most vulnerable spot. As far as possible, the relation of feeling to the object is kept to the safe middle path, where passion and its intemperateness are resolutely tabooed. Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly, and the other person has a permanent sense of being undervalued once he becomes conscious of it. Such, however, is not always the case, because very he remains unconscious of the lack of feeling shown to him, in which case the unconscious demands of feeling will produce symptoms designed to compel a more serious attention.

    Since this type appears rather cold and reserved, it might seem on a superficial view that such women have no feelings at all. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, their feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop in depth. While an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in appropriate words and deeds, and thus quickly gets back to normal again, an intensive sympathy, being shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that comprises a whole world of misery and is simply benumbed. It may, perhaps, break out in some extravagant form, leading to some astounding act of an almost heroic character, quite unrelated to either the subject herself or to the object that provoked the outburst. To the outside world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this intensive sympathy looks like coldness, because it usually does nothing visible, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.

    Such a misunderstanding is a common occurrence in the life of this type, and is used as a weighty argument against the possibility of any deeper feeling relation with the object. But the underlying, real object of this feeling is only dimly divined by the normal type herself. It may express itself in a secret religiosity anxiously shielded from profane eyes, or in intimate poetic forms that are kept equally safeguarded from profane eyes, not without the secret ambition of displaying some superiority over the other person by this means. Women often express a good deal of their feelings their children, letting their passion flow secretly into them.

    Although, in the normal type, the tendency to overpower or coerce the other person with her secret feelings rarely plays a disturbing role, and never leads to a serious attempt of this kind, some trace of it nonetheless seeps through into the personal effect they have on him, in the form of a domineering influence often difficult to define. It is sensed as a sort of stifling or oppressive feeling which holds everybody around her under a spell. It gives a woman of this type a mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.

    [From here on, it mostly discusses neurosis, not the normal type]

    This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images, but consciously she is apt to relate it to the ego, whereupon her influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. Whenever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of intensive feeling turns into a banal and arrogant desire to dominate, a vanity, and a petty bossiness. This produces a type of woman most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But it is a change, however, that also leads to neurosis.

    So long as the ego feels subordinate to the unconscious subject, and feeling is aware of something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. Although the unconscious thinking is archaic, its reductive tendencies help to compensate the occasional inclination to exalt the ego into the subject. If this does take place as a result of complete suppression of the counterbalancing subliminal processes, the unconscious thinking goes over into open opposition and gets projected onto objects. The now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the devalued object. She begins consciously to feel 'what other people think'. Naturally, other people are thinking all sorts of mean things, scheming evil, contriving plots, secrecy intrigues, etc. To prevent this, she must carry out counter-intrigues, to suspect and sound out others, and weave counter plots. Beset by rumors, she must make frantic efforts to convert a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Endless secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles she will shrink from no baseness or evil means, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card. Such a development must end in exhaustion. The form of neurosis is neurasthenic rather than hysterical, often with severe physical complications, such as anemia and sequelae.
    Last edited by KalimofDaybreak; 01-19-2016 at 04:50 PM.
    frayonka and SheWolf thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by KalimofDaybreak View Post
    Correction: people do that. Referencing memory to understand the present; Jung's theories are concerned with our higher thinking. A function is not a process or something that someone does to achieve a certain outcome, like a math equation, but instead is a mental perspective or outlook; the cognitive 'assumptions' you brain makes while thinking. Your dominant function affects where your focus is, what information you focus on and how you focus on it. It can be reduced to something as simple as "Si remembers the past."

    Below is a response I wrote for a different thread on this same issue:



    (Here's a link to the original thread in case you want to read that: Ni vs Si test?)

    I'll my definitions of the functions here to further help you out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

    There are two ways I see to define the functions: one way looks at them rather clinically, says that "Extraverted intuition does x, y, z", the other, more personal way, actually looks at the functions as people (Jung's original technique), and more assigns them characteristics and qualities more becoming of a character sketch than anything else. First I will give you the clinical definitions, interspersed with reduced character descriptions, and then I'll put into spoiler's Jung's verbatim descriptions of all the functions from Psychological Types, Chapter X.

    Definitions

    • Extraverted Sensation: concrete perception (details, sensations, experience) via the external world.
    • Introverted Sensation: concrete perception (details, sensations, experience) via the internal world.


    Sensation as a function is focused on perceiving concrete things. When it is preferred, it creates a very earthy sort of person, in touch with reality and pragmatic; not one to lose themselves from the present moment (even introverted sensors). While I did say earlier that all people reference the past to some extent (it is important to remember, here and going forward, that these descriptions of 'pure' types, in a vacuum of an auxiliary and tertiary function), this is exacerbated in the sensation types. The past is concrete, set in stone. Thus, sensors prefer it as means for understanding their present moment. They find the future to be ever-changing and unreliable when making their decisions and do not consider what might happen in their machinations. Again, the concreteness of the sensation type must be emphasized. If it is not solid, then in general they don't want to worry about it.

    When sensation is preferred in the mind of an extravert (one who orients herself towards the external reality), then their sensation (remember to think about the function as a person here) takes on an extraverted character in of itself; otherwise known as the function Se, extraverted sensation. Sensation becomes focused outward, her desire for perceptions broad and expansive. She is life-affirming and risk taking; she desires to take in as much of the concrete external as possible. She perceives the world sharply and is acutely aware of everything going on around her, and easily gets in sync physically with the rest of it. She orients her life towards the pursuit of new experience.

    When sensation is preferred in the mind of an introvert (one who orients himself towards his inner reality), sensation takes on an introverted character, creating the phenomenon known as Si, introverted sensation. Focused inward, sensation is focused on depth, taking in the inner concrete experience (which is by its own nature a fairly abstract thing, so Si is something of a paradoxical function) meticulously as fastidiously. He experiences his inner sensations and perceptions very vividly, and it is not uncommon for this type to be very aware of their own bodies. The introverted sensor is something of a connoisseur of the inner experience in this regard.

    • Extraverted Intuition: abstract perception (patterns, possibilities, connections) via the external world.
    • Introverted Intuition: abstract perception (patterns, possibilities, connections) via the internal world.


    Intuition is the function focused perceiving abstractly. It is the process that perceives through the contents of the unconscious, thus it is itself unconscious. In the mind of the intuitive, any perception causes images to rise forth from the unconscious. These are commonly called possibilities or patterns, but this is the core thrust of the function: any sort of abstract image. Intuitives live inside their heads to a certain extent, regardless of extraversion or introversion. They repress their perception of reality as it is in order to perceive reality through a lens of fuzziness. Thus, for the intuitive, the past is obsolete and irrelevant (and intuitive doms often have an unusual gift for seeing situations with totally new eyes, regardless of whether they have experienced it before). Their point of reference for the present is the future--what might be. They will make their decisions based around this idea (although in modern Western society such actions as usually deemed neurotic and deserving of clinical treatment).

    When extraverted, intuition takes on the extraverted character, hence Ne. Like Se, extraverted intuition is focused on the pursuit of the new, but instead of experience she pursues new possibilities. This pursuit might prompt her to experience new things, but her focus is never in reality, always on the possible. She is like a wildfire, burning through new ideas and concepts. These types often have great passion for the ideas they fall in love with, although they are somewhat predisposed to flightiness or seeming ungrounded (although between the two intuitive types, extraverted intuitives are the more grounded, although in their own strange, dreamy way). I would say that the concept of 'dreamer' is a bit inappropriate for this type, though they are often called such. Rather, they are explorers, conquerors of uncharted territory, much in the same way that extraverted sensates are explorers of the physical.

    (I apologize if my description of Ne is a bit lackluster; being Ni-dom makes it rather difficult to understand and explain.)

    When introverted, intuition takes on (you guessed it) an introverted character. Introverted intuition is perhaps one of the more misunderstood functions, mostly because of its highly abstract nature. The inner experience is already abstract, but introverted intuitives use this as the reference point for their already-abstract perceptions. Jung writes that this type is frequently artistic as a means of expressing his intuitions, and that his art often far-off and strange, a direct product of his alien function. He is frequently a dreamy and mystical person, focused on the meaning behind events in the world and may have a bit of a propensity for appearing psychic at times. Of course he is not; he is just rather perceptive. Introverted intuitives focus their attention upon their mental imagery, perceiving connections and patterns within the realm of the unconscious (which, in its own paradox, means that introverted intuitives perceive via the unconscious and their direct those perceptions back towards the unconscious).

    • Extraverted Thinking: impersonal evaluation (definitions, use, logic) via the external world.
    • Introverted Thinking: impersonal evaluation (definitions, use, logic) via the internal world.


    Regardless of attitude, the psychology of thinkers tends to make them fairly intense people, both in thought and in their relationships. The process of thinking lends itself to a measuring person, one who is constantly evaluating and reevaluating information. They can come across as rather cold at times, and they are often unaware of the emotional aspect of reality (they always repress feeling), but they have a gift for logic and reason, which lends thinking a certain mixture of inhumanity masking an actual person.

    When extraverted, thinking takes on the extraverted character. This form of thinking can be incredibly dogmatic and bulldozing if unchecked. Reason and logic become firmly rooted in the external reality, and the thinker herself only concerns herself with making her logic work "out there". These types are factual and constantly check their thoughts against the facts. She is somewhat like an extraverted sensor in this regard; external reality holds supreme, and she is dogged in achieving her thinking goals in the external reality.

    When introverted, thinking takes the introverted character. These are precise and meticulous people, deep thinkers striving towards logical consistency. He is skeptical of facts and the external reality, and thus thinking for him is largely comprised of the logical relationships between concepts and principles as opposed to the facts themselves. This gives introverted thinking a more rationalist approach where extraverted thinking is empirical.

    • Extraverted Feeling: personal evaluation (meaning, value, ethics) via the external world.
    • Introverted Feeling: personal evaluation (meaning, value, ethics) via the internal world.


    Feeling's first and foremost concern is on evaluating information based on personal criteria. The feeler is by and large an amicable person, accommodating of most information and able to see the value in everything. They are not ones to cause disquiet and in general are loving people. They are in touch with emotions in one way or another.

    When extraverted, feeling takes the extraverted attitude. Extraverted feelers are characteristically warm and jovial people, rather gregarious and accommodating of most people. She keenly aware of the emotions of others, and is almost cursed with the ability to absorb their emotions. She is aware of societal values and generally clings to those as her touchstone.

    When introverted, feeling takes the introverted attitude. Like introverted intuition, introverted feeling is rather misunderstood; with his focus on his own emotions and values over those of others, he can come across as cold, but this is not true. Like all introverts, he recoils from external reality, he does not wish that his emotions be tainted by the influence of others. He will feel quite deeply about things (whereas extraverted feeling feels rather broadly), and is generally concerned about his own identity as an individual, apart from others.

    (Quick note about my use of pronouns, in case anyone is offended: extraversion is female and introversion is male in my brain. Don't really know why; it's just how I understand them.)

    Following are quotes directly from Psychological Types.

    The Extraverted Sensation Type




    The Introverted Sensation Type




    The Extraverted Intuitive Type




    The Introverted Intuitive Type




    The Extraverted Thinking Type




    The Introverted Thinking Type




    The Extraverted Feeling Type




    The Introverted Feeling Type
    You had me until I got to the personified examples at the end. Extraverted Sensing was very easy for me to grasp.

    A lot to respond to here and I have no idea how to do that "multi-quote" thing. But, it does seem like Ni describes me well. I read the original thread you linked. I have to say, I relate A LOT to applying symbols, colors, etc. to words and objects or people. This was especially true when I was a young girl. I swear, I pictured people with "auras" of color. And I had a habit of applying strange things, like gender, to symbols. For some reason when I see the letter Z I think its a female. I'm definitely a mystic and a dreamer. I also saw how you said I could be confused because I could have been influenced by S-doms. Well guess what, my family, who I clung to especially since I was homeschooled, ALL ARE SENSORS. All of them. My mother, my father, my sister, and MAYBE my brother are Introverted Sensors. I think my other sister is an Extraverted Sensor. I have always felt like a black sheep in my family.

    When I used to play piano, I somehow gave the notes "colors" in my head and even personalities. I never told this to anyone, as I didn't expect them to understand it, because I didn't even totally understand it sometimes. This isn't just it either. Someone says the word "January" and the colors black and red flash in my head. I don't know why, either. I'm always inside my head. I NEVER stop thinking. I don't know how my brain doesn't crash like a computer that has been running a video game nonstop. I have a habit of getting SO LOST in my head that I literally feel like I disconnect from reality, like I'm in a spiritual haze. This especially happens when I wake up from a dream, which are always intense and bizarre. The only way for me to "break" it by directly interacting with the real world and stop and think about the things directly in front of me. I experience so many things in my head that I cannot hope to explain to people. Come to think of it, when I look back on my past memories, they're more like a vivid dream than a concrete thing.
    My sister frequently tells me that the quote, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" should be tattooed on my forehead. Lol.

  11. #10

     
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] ISFJ- INFJ Conflict and Suggestions (INFJ Forum Edition)
    By The_Mighty_Spooge in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2015, 10:58 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-03-2013, 07:53 PM
  3. ISFJ or INFJ
    By HollyGolightly in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 06:10 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ or ISFJ? INFJ or INTJ?
    By caffeinecalls in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2010, 01:15 PM
  5. ISFJ?? or INFJ??
    By DayLightSun in forum Guess the type
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 04:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0