# How Far Can One Stretch Jung's Theory?



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

*Psychological Types: Leave It Alone, or Expand On It?*

Perhaps this seems like a weird topic, but it seems to be a fundamental difference in ways of understanding the theory, and is at the core of many disagreements between people on here lately. I wanted to further the discussion by bringing it forward. 

In a nutshell, I've noticed that there are two basic philosophies in studying the functions, that I have seen on here: 

First, that Jung's functions are imperfect as with any theory, but that they should be taken entirely at face value, as they are stated in _Psychological Types_ - nothing more, nothing less. It's not always appropriate for every situation, and when it is, it should be taken for exactly how it is written. Anything more than that is an extension of the theory, and therefore not as "precise." Jung's theory should be left as is, and applied to other situations in its purest form. I find that people of this position cite Jung frequently, do a good job at maintaining the "factual" integrity of the theory, and are uncomfortable with extending it too much, or making claims off of it that they don't see as substantive.

The other, sometimes opposing view I'm seeing often is that while Jung did a really good job of describing the functions, the descriptions aren't _themselves _the core of the theory. All _Psychological Types _does is establish observations that have always existed, but were simply never articulated or published. And if one can understand the "inherentness" of brain processes that Jung simply called attention to, then those essences, as opposed to the logical architecture of the system as it stands alone, is good enough to use as the conceptual basis for other, more speculative, sometimes more extensive theories. I find that people of this position use definitions of the functions that are not always purely Jungian, do a good job at applying the theory to real-life behavior and thoughts, and are uncomfortable when their conclusions are met with skepticism because their evidence does not match entirely with the basic Jungian definition from _Psychological Types_. 


So, is there room for both of these views? They seem to treat Jung in entirely different ways. What jumps to mind immediately for me are Ti-Te, Ni-Se squabbles - but it also happens with other types as well. My hope is to find something in between, so as to establish the validity of both. What do you think?


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

I would say, as with any _theory_, Jung's should be open to discussion, interpretation, debate, clarification, speculation, and expansion. Any new theories, variations on a theme, or leaps of insight should _also_ be open to the same poking and critical examination. Jung, though, is the baseline from which we operate, the standard to which all new ideas should be compared against.

For me, it is difficult to see the nuances of humanity within Jung's pure types. Reading others' interpretations and observations helps me see the alternative solutions to the puzzle.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

There's a difference between extending, and re-defining the core.

Nothing is wrong with the former, but the latter?


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry


Quite far.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm definitely in the second school. I haven't actually even read any books on the subject, and my knowledge is completely based on descriptions I've read online. Granted, there's been quite a few of those, but it isn't "pure". 

Redefining the theory? Possibly. I don't see why it matters though, if it works. I think of Jung as a starting point, and then if the true answer is to the side of where Jung originally said something was then its a different theory sure, but that doesn't render his ideas useless.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Jung sat down and drew a map.
It was a good map and he spent quite a lot of time on that map.
Still as with any map you can't fit in everything in the terrain, something might have changed since then,
he might have missed something or added something that wasn't there.

We see the signposts Jung pointed out and try to orient ourself as best we can.
His system is unique in that it highlights the problems of interpretation that plague this very issue.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Why would you take anything at face value?


----------



## Impact Calculus (Mar 29, 2012)

As far as your _*imagination*_ goes.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

isn't MBTI an expansion?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

MrShatter said:


> isn't MBTI an expansion?


Yes. It was one of the systems I was thinking of. Really, my purpose here is to flesh out some of the "guardianship" of Jung's original work, since a lot of criticism seems to occur when people "play around with" the original without concrete facts to back it up. 

I used to assume, without thinking, that Jung had everything right, but I think his theory suffers from its basis in language (like all/most), apprehension to go beyond what it might see as "fundamentals," and eccentric ways of commonalizing types (dominant function types, all together?). I just see it as potentially a problem that a lot of theories, such as cognitive function systems, get shot down in favor of Jung because they aren't "right all the time," and it's "easier" to rely on the pure functions - when they're not really that pure either. 

Maybe it's not as big of a problem on our forum as I thought, but I see it frequently.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

I'm in the former camp, but trying to expand into the latter. I guess my viewpoint right now is that while changing and stretching things around does bring the theory outside the bounds of the original place for it (such as stretching and distorting the relationship between conscious and unconscious), the resulting ideas can still be worthwhile and interesting. It gives you another perspective.

But, on the other hand, I'm still trying to form a base here. If I still can't wrap my head around some things, that means that there is something that is there that I am still missing. How can I be sure that I won't run directly into my blind spot? It doesn't even really matter what theory it's from. There are ways that people think that I do not fully understand. If I tried to make my own personality theory, it would probably tell more of how _I_ think and what _my_ limitations are than those of other people. I have to follow others for some of the way, not exclusively, of course, but I gain more from even those who are closed-minded or self-centered. I know if somebody else omits a way I think. But I don't know if I omit a way other people think.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm in the first camp on the forums. 

It bothers me when everybody is using the same terms to mean different things. It's unpleasantly chaotic, like you're in a room full of people who are all talking and not really understanding what others are saying. How can you discuss such complex issues if you haven't agreed on the basics? 

Maybe I can come up with a silly, simple analogy.

Joe thinks that the sky is red.
Tim thinks that the sky is yellow.

Then they each come up with their explanations for why the sky is that color. Joe thinks that Tim's idea is utterly stupid, and Tim thinks that Joe is way off-track. Then they start squabbling about who's right and why, and it just gets annoying because they'll probably never agree. And why would they? They're not even trying to solve the same problem.

Let's try it a different way.

Joe and Tim agree, for the sake of discussion, that the sky is blue. They each come up with their explanations for the color, and disagree. But instead of hitting a brick wall, they can evaluate each other's claims and see the similarities, differences, strong points, weak points, etc. Eventually they create a pretty kick-ass explanation for the blue sky.

They can only do that because they agree on the definitions.

... Okay, so yeah, it's like a kindergarten example, but the point stands. I have some private theories of my own, but I don't run around throwing them at every type-related problem. Mostly because I'd rather keep them in my private playground, but also because using them in various discussions would create more problems than it solves. 

It's also important that everybody at least _learn_ the basics before trying to come up with alternate theories. ... I think I'll offer another stupid analogy.

Not learning Jung and coming up with own theories = Not learning basic grammar, and then deciding to just make up your own form of English (or whatever language)

vs. 

Learning Jung and coming up with own theories = Learning proper grammar, and then deciding to break those rules when it's acceptable and/or practical

Yeah, it's not perfect, but I think it works to get my point across. I'm too tired for eloquence. :tongue:

(And I apologize if none of that made sense. I admit that it's a very real possibility. :laughing


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

It's a great thread (at least) for the sake of opening a dialogue between different perspectives and acknowledging weaknesses and strengths. Personally, I don't feel like I belong to either camp. I can see some relative value in the different theories and don't even think it's possible to come up with some faultless theory regarding personality or for that matter any subject regarding psychology. People are complex, theories over simplify. People are dynamic, theories lean towards static. 

It doesn't mean the theory is useless (and obviously the variations we're speaking about ring true with enough people that they find it relavant in some meaningful way). My problem always lies with people that buy 100% into any of this and rigidly assert their subjective translations about the subjective like it's dogma. I don't honestly think that's the way it was intended to be used by any of the authors. It's should always be a discussion. There's no empirical right or wrong here.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

It seems to coincide well with most universal laws that follow some sort of mathematical symmetry. As human biology dictates the need for X number of physical components to complete Y task (all relative), I would imagine that this _should_ be true in human psychology. Humans battle with dualities and could have developed rationalizations which are dealt with the "filters" that cognitive functions provide, once again with a symmetrical duality (T vs F) (S vs N). This "approach" to situations might be something advanced evolutionary science might one day explain, much like how we've come to terms with many common dualities such as: night and day, life and death, love and hate, good and evil, woman and man, the polarization of magnetism, and so on and so forth.

Carl Jung noted that humans tend to have "two" personalities, and discussed in depth how his primary personality was one of an inner-focused rational objectivist (Ti), and a secondary persona which was more spontaneous, excitable by possibilities, energetic (Se or Ne). Although not completely dueling personas, these two primary functions were what made the core of the decision making process, and subsequently supplemented his approach at observing how this would appear on the exterior. The "weakness" of said human would be a dueling opposite, evidently the latter two lesser developed functions.

If humans are a byproduct of some grand unfolding from the beginning where an atom split, or where a cell divided, it must be relative to the fundamental basic of separation and it must respect a law that would govern this. A master law of "being", if you must. Considering most natural phenomena regarding dualities, humans should be able to cope with things much like how the universe manages itself. This is the essence of your "he was just the messenger of what already existed" comment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

saffron said:


> It's a great thread (at least) for the sake of opening a dialogue between different perspectives and acknowledging weaknesses and strengths. Personally, I don't feel like I belong to either camp. I can see some relative value in the different theories and don't even think it's possible to come up with some faultless theory regarding personality or for that matter any subject regarding psychology. People are complex, theories over simplify. People are dynamic, theories lean towards static.
> 
> It doesn't mean the theory is useless (and obviously the variations we're speaking about ring true with enough people that they find it relavant in some meaningful way). My problem always lies with people that buy 100% into any of this and rigidly assert their subjective translations about the subjective like it's dogma. I don't honestly think that's the way it was intended to be used by any of the authors. It's should always be a discussion. There's no empirical right or wrong here.


This is exactly how I feel about it too. I respect Jung's original work and I think he has a fine theory but I also see pitfalls in it, and what bothers me the most are people who take it at face value. 

What we must ultimately understand is that whenever we look at any theory and try to apply it to people, we will have to look for general traits but in the end, we're always scratching at surface level. It's like saying that we think there is a statistical correlation in that a lot people in the business world wears suits. This is certainly a correct assessment to make, but when we make this assessment we've already postitulated a framework that inherently assumes that it says something about people wearing business suits, as we look for the most important common denominator among them. When we do this, we also overlook all the other traits that separate these and keep them apart. Just because they all wear business suits it doesn't mean that they are alike in any other way. 

Furthermore, we also assume that everyone will know and understand what business suit itself means. What is a business suit? What does it mean to wear a business suit? How does a business suit look like? Will everyone else understand what a business suit is? This is not to say that we do not apply a general approach when understanding the business suit since we all in the end experience the same sensory detail, but I would argue that in terms of perception it still differs slightly between people. 

So in this case I have to say I do sorely disagree with @Coyote as I personally think true agreement and understanding of definitions between peoples is not entirely possible, because when we look for common denominators, we always overlook the details that do not agree or correlate. In anthropology there's a saying that goes roughly like this: People living in the same country are more different to each other than people living in different countries. 

I am not trying to say here that classification or trying to achieve higher understanding using JCF is a futile endeavor, but we must simply adhere to and understand the limitations of such a framework. It is easy to evoke and fall back on JCF, but ultimately what we must realize is that they can only capture a piece of reality, not reality itself. So for some people, Beebe makes perfect sense to them because they would be one of those people who might fit the model perfectly and they recognize themselves in the model, but this is wherein the problem lies - the model cannot explain those who do not fit. This is why any model will look for generalized common denominators where most people might mostly fit, some will fit perfectly and some will not fit at all.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I'm in the second camp for sure. I try to stick to the general definitions of the functions, but as far as the rigidity of the interpretation of the functional stacks and preferences goes, that's something I really don't agree with. Because a lot of people's functional preferences do not align perfectly with that outlined by the theory, and there are so many differences within people who have the same dominant process at least (it could also have to do with the development of their functions). It's an interesting theory though.

Also as far as theories go I'll say this: Theories were made to be expanded upon or disproven. To treat a theory as if it were absolute would be flawed in my opinion.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LeaT said:


> So in this case I have to say I do sorely disagree with @_Coyote_ as I personally think true agreement and understanding of definitions between peoples is not entirely possible, because when we look for common denominators, we always overlook the details that do not agree or correlate. In anthropology there's a saying that goes roughly like this: People living in the same country are more different to each other than people living in different countries.


Perhaps it's relevant that my background is in international relations, with a specialization in U.S. foreign policy. In that field, you _must_ attain a certain degree of mutual understanding before you can proceed. Obviously, there will be barriers in terms of language, culture, personality, etc. But you need to do the best that you can to bridge the differences from the start, or you're going to get nowhere fast.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Coyote said:


> Perhaps it's relevant that my background is in international relations, with a specialization in U.S. foreign policy. In that field, you _must_ attain a certain degree of mutual understanding before you can proceed. Obviously, there will be barriers in terms of language, culture, personality, etc. But you need to do the best that you can to bridge the differences from the start, or you're going to get nowhere fast.


And my background is in anthropology which is based around the idea about giving those in minority of the dominant discourses a voice  It is thus not about agreement but understanding those who are different. It's not about achieving unity and conformity, but hailing differences.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

LeaT said:


> And my background is in anthropology which is based around the idea about giving those in minority of the dominant discourses a voice  It is thus not about agreement but understanding those who are different. It's not about achieving unity and conformity, but hailing differences.


How in the heck do you get anything _done_? :tongue: 

But to each her own.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Coyote said:


> How in the heck do you get anything _done_? :tongue:
> 
> But to each her own.


What say I do  But generally speaking, it's less about sharing the same idea or definitions but more about conveying theirs to a larger audience. It's about giving their differences a voice. If a minority population is against the public community building a railroad where they happen to live, you study why they are against that. It doesn't mean they have a different perception of the railroad or understanding of say, economic growth. Just that they have a different way of seeing what's important and that perspective should be as respected.


----------

