# Jung's REAL stack



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

What was the right stack for Jung?

For example Ti-Ni-Se-Fe or Ti-Ne-Se-Fe?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Dothraki said:


> What was the right stack for Jung?
> 
> For example Ti-Ni-Se-Fe or Ti-Ne-Se-Fe?


Ti-N-S-Fe

He seemed to change his mind on what the middle two were. He wasn't even consistent on whether the auxiliary is weak or strong. Jung was far more focused on the functions than the attitudes of them.

Makes sense why Socionics has a practically ambiverted auxiliary.


----------



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> Ti-N-S-Fe
> 
> He seemed to change his mind on what the middle two were. He wasn't even consistent on whether the auxiliary is weak or strong. Jung was far more focused on the functions than the attitudes of them.
> 
> Makes sense why Socionics has a practically ambiverted auxiliary.


But why do all the people use Grant's stack if it contradicts Jung? I know he changed his mind, but I still think that the dude knew better than Berens, Keirsey, Grant and Nardi.

During his lifetime, what did his ideas suggest about the function order? What was his final conclusion?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Dothraki said:


> But why do all the people use Grant's stack if it contradicts Jung? I know he changed his mind, but I still think that the dude knew better than Berens, Keirsey, Grant and Nardi.
> 
> During his lifetime, what did his ideas suggest about the function order? What was his final conclusion?


In what way do you think it contradicts Jung?

Jung really didn't talk about the auxiliary or inferior-auxiliary (AKA Tertiary) much. He was primarily concerned about people being introverted or extroverted, not their individual function attitudes.

To put it into perspective, when Jung released his book, the majority who originally read Jung believed that the auxiliary had the same attitude as the dominant (E.G. Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) but Jung's only given stack was Ti-dominant with weak Ne/Se/Fe.


----------



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> In what way do you think it contradicts Jung?
> 
> Jung really didn't talk about the auxiliary or inferior-auxiliary (AKA Tertiary) much. He was primarily concerned about people being introverted or extroverted, not their individual function attitudes.
> 
> To put it into perspective, when Jung released his book, the majority who originally read Jung believed that auxiliary had the same attitude as the dominant (E.G. Ni-Ti-Fe-Se) but Jung's only given stack was Ti-dominant with weak Ne/Se/Fe.


It contradicts, because from what I've read, Jung never talked about tertiary introverted functions for introverts.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Dothraki said:


> It contradicts, because from what I've read, Jung never talked about tertiary introverted functions for introverts.


He didn't. Jung barely made any mention of the Inferior-Auxiliary (Tertiary). That's not a contradiction because he never assigned a clear-cut attitude to the inferior-auxiliary.

Have you considered reading Jung's book and forming your own opinion?


----------



## Kimchi (Jul 22, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> He didn't. Jung barely made any mention of the Inferior-Auxiliary (Tertiary). That's not a contradiction because he never assigned a clear-cut attitude to the inferior-auxiliary.
> 
> Have you considered reading Jung's book and forming your own opinion?


I've read the book months ago, when I just got into MBTI, but I don't know... I can't really relate it to MBTI. I feel like MBTI got too far away from his work, and the descriptions of the functions that most of the MBTI people use are based on stereotypes. For example the introvert sensing is really different for Jung.

Probably I should have waited a little bit more before reading Jung. Now I'm mixing him with MBTI. Oh, and socionics too :/
I'm trying to make sense of this stuff, but I'm currently failing.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Dothraki said:


> I've read the book months ago, when I just got into MBTI, but I don't know... I can't really relate it to MBTI. I feel like MBTI got too far away from his work, and the descriptions of the functions that most of the MBTI people use are based on stereotypes. For example the introvert sensing is really different for Jung.
> 
> Probably I should have waited a little bit more before reading Jung. Now I'm mixing him with MBTI. Oh, and socionics too :/
> I'm trying to make sense of this stuff, but I'm currently failing.


You're not alone. A lot of people bring MBTI assumptions into Jung's work. At least you're aware of it.

MBTI has practically abandoned Jung these days - David Keirsey even went so far as to renounce functions altogether.

Socionics is a lot more loyal to Jung. It's basically Jung's work with a huge expansion pack and endless clarifications.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Dothraki said:


> But why do all the people use Grant's stack if it contradicts Jung? I know he changed his mind, but I still think that the dude knew better than Berens, Keirsey, Grant and Nardi.
> 
> During his lifetime, what did his ideas suggest about the function order? What was his final conclusion?


Jung was foremost a Psychologist, it would been non ideal to say people had "XXXX" Type. For him and his line of work I am sure he meet many IIIE IIEI and so on.

As far as Function stacking and PT's, Nietzsche was probably close's he tried to narrow down or allure to someone with a clear Dom, Aux, Ter, and Inferior. By claiming he was an Intuitive Thinker with Feeling - whiich is 3 different Function pairing.

But Jung made no real claim on how Function stack or Type's would be, he left that up for others and encouraged people to do so.

He did later in his life , about 60, give clue's to his Type 

""I most certainly was characterized by Thinking … and I had a great deal of Intuition, too. And I had a definite difficulty with Feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. … I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for diagnosis"

Carl Jung himself made many claims, even in PT if read close enough, that he had Ti, Ne, Fe.
But many people make claims they are better than Jung and say he was "xxxx" usually INTJ or INFJ.

Jung's real stack? depend's and varies by who you ask


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Jung was foremost a Psychologist, it would been non ideal to say people had "XXXX" Type. For him and his line of work I am sure he meet many IIIE IIEI and so on.
> 
> As far as Function stacking and PT's, Nietzsche was probably close's he tried to narrow down or allure to someone with a clear Dom, Aux, Ter, and Inferior. By claiming he was an Intuitive Thinker with Feeling - whiich is 3 different Function pairing.
> 
> ...


In the section on the auxiliary, Jung wrote the following. I tried to cut and paste, but I think it's best to leave it in its entirety, and bold the important parts:



> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a—relatively determining factor.
> 
> 
> For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: *The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.* The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. *This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.*
> ...


I think it can be seen from the above, that the XYXY stack (aka the Grant stack) is certainly within reason as an option. Also, I hope it was observed that Jung certainly thought someone could have "equal" functions, but in such a case, he considered a person, not developed, but primitive, and undeveloped. 

In any case, I think this pretty much sums up Jung's perspective. From all I've read, he said many things through the years, but he never really contradicted the above--just speculation over specifics. I think it was less that he was disinterested in further observation, but more that he kept it as a "trade secret," for whatever purposes he had in mind (his guru status, I'm sure), but it seems that the vast bulk of what he wrote and left behind is locked behind closed doors, never to see the light of day, so it's all speculation on our part. 

And such speculation was both foreseen and welcomed by Jung:



> No one, I trust, will draw the conclusion from my description of the types that I believe the four or eight types which I describe to be the only ones that might ever occur. That would be a grave misconception, for I have no sort of doubt that the various attitudes one meets with can also be considered. and classified from other points of view. Indeed, this actual investigation contains not a few indications of such other possibilities, as, for instance, a division according to the factor of activity. But, whatever may serve as a criterion for the establishment of types, a comparison of various forms of habitual attitudes will invariably lead to the setting up of an equal number of psychological types. (pp621-622)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@Dothraki —

Notwithstanding the misinformation that Fried Eggz has been depositing in your thread, Jung's stack for a Ti-dom with an N-aux was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. And the Grant stack — together with its its associated "function axes" — contradicts Jung (not to mention Myers) in _multiple ways_.

You can find a long discussion of Jung's stack here:

Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary

And for more on the bogosity of the Grant function stack, see this post and the posts it links to.

As a final note, and as you'll see if you look at either of those linked posts, it is _not_ my position that the Jung stack was correct. Neither it nor the Grant stack is really the proper way to frame Jungian/MBTI type, and that issue (along with what I call the Real MBTI Model) is further discussed in the second linked post.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> In the section on the auxiliary, Jung wrote the following. I tried to cut and paste, but I think it's best to leave it in its entirety, and bold the important parts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree Type's in general is within reason MBTI or Grant stack and the rest. Jung did mention Dom, Aux, Tert, and Inferior. Jung wanted other's to pick up where he left off

I personally believe that the Type's is well established, even though there is a lot of fuss within different fields. As well as there being a possible offset of Type's for some people due to Psychological reason's....real Psychological issue's though not just drama situations.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Dothraki said:


> But why do all the people use Grant's stack if it contradicts Jung? I know he changed his mind, but I still think that the dude knew better than Berens, Keirsey, Grant and Nardi.


Well, in the end, Jung's theory is just a theory just like the following guys. He didn't have actual possibility of seeing the function stack and seeing when exactly functions are used and for what.
If Jung thinks that auxilary function isn't in opposite attitude to primary and tertiary the same as primary then he is wrong.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

This one:


----------



## supermountainlion (Feb 9, 2017)

He was INFJ.


----------



## FDT (Feb 22, 2017)

supermountainlion said:


> He was INFJ.


I too have access to celebritytypes.com

But that wasn't the question anyway.


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

Idk, reading some of his work and his life experiences I get the impression that he was too withdrawn and mystically inclined to not be an INFJ.

Granted I want to claim William James for my type, too, so maybe I just think that everyone that I identify with or whom represents my intellectual interests is the same type as me.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FDT said:


> I too have access to celebritytypes.com
> 
> But that wasn't the question anyway.


Have you read the latest article there (I think it's behind the paywall)? It's about what Jung said his own type was (not Ni-dominant). It's interesting, especially as it becomes clear that he was rather cagey in reality. I suspect that he tended to call himself a thinking introverted type, because in his field, it would not have been accepted in that day to admit to being a feeling type, and his own bias against Ni (the wild-haired prophet) is rather humorous, because...



umop 3pisdn said:


> Idk, reading some of his work and his life experiences I get the impression that he was too withdrawn and mystically inclined to not be an INFJ.
> 
> Granted I want to claim William James for my type, too, so maybe I just think that everyone that I identify with or whom represents my intellectual interests is the same type as me.


I'm not an INFJ, and I come away from him with the same impression. My wife is an INTP, I know a few other INTPs, and there are lots of INTP writers out there that one can look at to compare, and Jung—Jung writes nothing like these people. Oh, I get the impression he wants to convince us he's a thinking type, but he absolutely is not a dominant thinking type, nor is he a sensing type (which I suspect he also wished to imagine). And since he admitted, it seems, in his latter years, to have changed to a feeling type, I suspect that INFJ is certainly not out of the range of possibilities, and in my mind, is the front-runner among options. But try as I might, I just can't see INTP for him. The fact that he thought he became a god or some such, certainly doesn't help (interpret the literalness of what he meant as you will, the fact that he would _say_ something like this says much).


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

supermountainlion said:


> He was INFJ.


No.His style of writing was very INTP.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

I think he would have called himself an Introverted Thinker with Intuition = Ti-N-S-Fe, maybe with differenciated auxiliary function in later yeas: Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think the fact that there there is so much room for interpretation with regards to Jung and his works (and that he actively encouraged it) says a lot about Jung's own cognition than it does his theory. I am also one to think he's an INFJ precisely because I think that a Ti dom would have been much more consistent and fleshed out their ideas in a much clearer way, not leaving things so ambiguous and up for interpretation.

With that said, I agree with @Fried Eggz that Jung never made any real definitive statements nor was he interested in that. Mostly because defining his ideas was not his goal, nor was he necessarily that great at it imo.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> And since he admitted, it seems, in his latter years, to have changed to a feeling type


That's news to me. What's your source for that?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FDT said:


> I too have access to celebritytypes.com
> 
> But that wasn't the question anyway.





reckful said:


> That's news to me. What's your source for that?


You are the researcher...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> You are the researcher...


I am _a_ researcher, but I'm not the poster who said that Jung "admitted, it seems, in his latter years, to have changed to a feeling type."

So I asked you what your source for that was.

Are you saying that you don't have a source, or misremembered what a source said, or just don't want to tell us what your source is, or....?


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

He doesn't write like an INTP
I thought he was an INFJ


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> I am _a_ researcher, but I'm not the poster who said that Jung "admitted, it seems, in his latter years, to have changed to a feeling type."
> 
> So I asked you what your source for that was.
> 
> Are you saying that you don't have a source, or misremembered what a source said, or just don't want to tell us what your source is, or....?


No. I'm not the one who dismisses functions, and that only the dichotomies matter, and who pretty much rejects Jung. You are, so the real question is, why does it matter to _you_? I have no obligation to you, don't see why I should go back and dig out the article, especially when I already gave my source, and you seem to have missed it. So, do your research, and now, I've given you some clue.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> No. I'm not the one who dismisses functions, and that only the dichotomies matter, and who pretty much rejects Jung. You are, so the real question is, why does it matter to _you_? I have no obligation to you, don't see why I should go back and dig out the article, especially when I already gave my source, and you seem to have missed it. So, do your research, and now, I've given you some clue.


Thanks, ferroequinologist. Your intellectual integrity is a shining example to us all. :dry:

And needless to say (I assume), if it was a behind-the-paywall CelebrityTypes article that purportedly pointed you to a Jung quote where "he admitted, it seems, in his latter years, to have changed to a feeling type" (as you put it), it wouldn't violate any CelebrityTypes copyright for you to point us to the same Jung quote.

As a final note, here's what Jung told John Freeman about his type in a BBC interview in 1959 (two years before he died):

*JF:* Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?

*Jung:* (_chuckling_) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.

*JF:* And reached a conclusion?

*Jung:* Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But *I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on.* And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.​
Just in case you're up for some further "research," here's a link to Part 3 of that BBC interview. Forward to around 8:40 if you want to watch the quoted exchange.

A-a-and believe it or not, and notwithstanding my dichotomy-centric perspective, I've read Psychological Types more than once, and would definitely be interested in looking at any Jung quote in which he "admitted ... to have changed to a feeling type" — just in case you ever change your mind and decide you'd be willing to point me (and my fellow forumites) to it.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

In his own system he would have labeled himself an Introverted Thinker with Intuition (Ti-N-S-Fe or Ti-Ni-Se-Fe). 

In the Myers-Briggs-System he would have scored as INTJ. 

And if he had read the modern definitions of the cognitive functions, he would reasonate especially with the Ni-description, but also with the modern Te&Ti descriptions.


----------

