# 32 Types



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

RK LK said:


> I've only read the 'General Descriptions' chapter of _Psychological Types_ so I'm not clear on the context of the quote exactly, but he seems to be saying something similar in this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I specifically focus on the exact sentence you've bolded in that first Te post I linked you to. Again: what Jung is saying in that sentence is actually _emphasizing_ how concretistic the Te-dom's thinking tends to be (in Jung's view), because Jung is saying that if you find a Te-dom subscribing to a "purely ideal" thought, you should expect to find that, _rather than coming up with that thought himself_, he "borrowed" it from others.

As Jung noted in Chapter 8 (as quoted in my last post), Jung thought that, when it came to higher-level abstractions, Te tend to be sufficiently "feeble and ineffective" that it "hardly rises above the level of a purely classifying or descriptive activity."

And I'm not endorsing Jung's descriptions (which partly misfire because of Jung's conflation of the concrete/abstract facet of S/N with E/I); just pointing out that that was his view of Te.


----------



## RK LK (Sep 19, 2013)

@reckful I guess I just agree with Jung then. I don't see ENTJs as highly abstract thinkers or very original.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

RK LK said:


> @reckful I guess I just agree with Jung then. I don't see ENTJs as highly abstract thinkers or very original.


The only thing I'm moved to add at this point is that Jung arguably didn't really tell us what he thought about MBTI ENTJs.

As I explained in this post (which I already linked to earlier in this thread, in a reply to Ksara):



reckful said:


> As a final wonkish note, and as discussed at some length in this post, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "introvert," he was almost assuredly looking at someone who'd be typed IN under the MBTI (and ditto for Jungian "extraverts" and ES). So... a final caveat with respect to those Jungian function stacks is that it's fair to say that, to a significant degree, Jung's typology didn't really have neat slots for MBTI ENs and ISs, but the function-stack assignments in the list above basically _ignore_ that complication and match Jung's types to MBTI types as if Jung's S/N and MBTI S/N were the same.


----------

