# Characteristics Frequently Associated with Myers Briggs Personality Types



## WinterFox (Sep 19, 2013)

ISTJ - Most Responsible 

ISFJ - Most Loyal 

INFJ - Most Contemplative 

INTJ - Most Independent

ISTP - Most Pragmatic 

ISFP - Most Artistic 

INFP - Most Idealistic 

INTP - Most Conceptual 

ESTP - Most Spontaneous 

ESFP - Most Generous 

ENFP - Most Optimistic 

ENTP - Most Inventive 

ESTJ - Most Hard Charging 

ESFJ - Most Harmonizing 

ENFJ - Most Persuasive 

ENTJ - Most Commanding 




I took this from a website. Do you find this accurate? Does your myers briggs personality type fit those characteristics listed above?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

With one big exception (see my next post), that seems like a reasonably OK list to me, assuming someone's OK with the idea of using _single words_ (that can be subject to different interpretations) and then choosing a single type as the "most" in that department.

I'd say INTJs may deserve our reputation as most independent but, if so, INTPs aren't far behind.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I think Keirsey had a lot of insightful things to say about the MBTI types, but I also think he made a big mistake when he decided to label ISFPs the "Artists." In going from Please Understand Me to Please Understand Me II, he actually changed Artist to "Composer," but I'm afraid that correction wasn't sufficiently wide in its scope. To his credit, Keirsey also said, right from the start, that NFs were by far the most common types in the arts that involved "verbal and written communication," but the fact is that N's are more common in most of the other arts, too.

My understanding is that, if you distinguish _art_ from _crafts_ — to use a familiar distinction — then, statistically speaking, most types of creative artists (using that term broadly) are disproportionately populated by N's — and it doesn't much matter whether the art you're talking about involves physical stuff (like painting) or incorporeal stuff (like poetry). Browsing the statistics in the MBTI Manual, it looks like maybe a P preference has the second-biggest influence on artistic interests, with F in third place.

Of the 114 professional fine artists in one study shown in the second edition of the MBTI Manual, 91% of them were N's (65% NF and 26% NT). More specifically, 25 were INFP and only one was ISFP.

The list of occupational rankings along the SN dimension at the back of the MBTI Manual (based on a variety of studies in the MBTI database) includes the following entries:


Photographers: 73% N
Teachers of art, drama & music: 71% N
Artists & entertainers (broad category): 69% N
Musicians & composers: 65% N
Designers: 58% N
There are _no_ artistic occupations that are majority-S.

The correlation between N and creativity isn't limited to the arts, either. An entire section of the MBTI Manual is devoted to "Studies of Creativity," and they include a series of studies conducted by the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research (at UC Berkeley) that looked at people who both worked in creative professions and were "selected by peer nomination" as "highly creative." Out of the resulting 107 "highly creative" mathematicians, architects, research scientists and writers, _only three_ were S's. A 2½-page table presents the results of multiple other studies correlating various measures of creativity (from students majoring in the arts to people working in creative fields), and N's are _always_ in the majority (and often quite overwhelmingly).

And all these N majorities are particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that N's are typically reported to make up only around 25-30% of the general population.

It's widely accepted (and I agree) that the Big Five Openness to Experience factor is essentially tapping into the same underlying human temperament dimension as MBTI S/N, and being high on Openness (the Big Five equivalent of an N preference) is associated with aesthetic interests of all kinds (involving both the verbal and non-verbal arts). The Big Five Inventory is one of the more well-regarded (and academically sanctioned) Big Five tests, and its 44 items include the following three (all of which test for Openness to Experience):


"Has few artistic interests" [_reverse-scored_]
"Values artistic, aesthetic experiences"
"Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature"
I'd say that, if there's a single type that deserves to be viewed as the quintessential "creative artist" type, it's probably the INFP.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

I can be a passive-agressive little shit that eviscerates emotions at times or can be quite amicable and kind.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

reckful said:


> I think Keirsey had a lot of insightful things to say about the MBTI types, but I also think he made a big mistake when he decided to label ISFPs the "Artists." In going from Please Understand Me to Please Understand Me II, he actually changed Artist to "Composer," but I'm afraid that correction wasn't sufficiently wide in its scope. To his credit, Keirsey also said, right from the start, that NFs were by far the most common types in the arts that involved "verbal and written communication," but the fact is that N's are more common in most of the other arts, too.
> 
> My understanding is that, if you distinguish _art_ from _crafts_ — to use a familiar distinction — then, statistically speaking, most types of creative artists (using that term broadly) are disproportionately populated by N's — and it doesn't much matter whether the art you're talking about involves physical stuff (like painting) or incorporeal stuff (like poetry). Browsing the statistics in the MBTI Manual, it looks like maybe a P preference has the second-biggest influence on artistic interests, with F in third place.
> 
> ...


and here's the proof:

Dawn mix 2 by DonutsGalacticos on SoundCloud - Hear the worldâ€™s sounds


----------



## UhClionaish (Apr 7, 2014)

I'm an ENFP and I don't think I'm that optimistic, I may be slightly idealistic but I'm quite a realist in general


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> I think Keirsey had a lot of insightful things to say about the MBTI types, but I also think he made a big mistake when he decided to label ISFPs the "Artists." In going from Please Understand Me to Please Understand Me II, he actually changed Artist to "Composer," but I'm afraid that correction wasn't sufficiently wide in its scope. To his credit, Keirsey also said, right from the start, that NFs were by far the most common types in the arts that involved "verbal and written communication," but the fact is that N's are more common in most of the other arts, too.
> 
> My understanding is that, if you distinguish _art_ from _crafts_ — to use a familiar distinction — then, statistically speaking, most types of creative artists (using that term broadly) are disproportionately populated by N's — and it doesn't much matter whether the art you're talking about involves physical stuff (like painting) or incorporeal stuff (like poetry). Browsing the statistics in the MBTI Manual, it looks like maybe a P preference has the second-biggest influence on artistic interests, with F in third place.
> 
> ...


I think this wins the award for "most ridiculous thing I've read on the forums."
First of all, "openness" has NOTHING to do with S/N... that already shows you have a huge lack of understanding of MBTI (shame you have so many posts). 

Second of all... one of the DEFINING characteristics of Si is LITERALLY "great eye for aesthetic appeal." ...N types are typically thought of being BAD at doing that, so when you say "N's are better than S's at aesthetic appeal" it makes no sense.

Thirdly, I went to a performing arts high school, and the people who excelled were SP's... really. My best friend is/was ISFP and she was one of the most musically-inclined people I've met. She is now studying music performance at university. 
Additionally, a large number of the visual arts students were pretty stereotypical xSFP's. 

The dance students seemed to be S's as well - SJ's or SP's.

and I wasn't friends with very many drama students so I couldn't tell you what types were common there.

There were a lot of N's in the literary arts program, though... 


The amount of incorrect/biased S vs N descriptions out there make it sound as if "S = boring, uncreative" "N = spontaneous, creative" and so artists are probably biased and incorrectly think of themselves as N's.



Look at the musical RENT - it's all about "starving artists" and nearly everyone in the story is an S.



You're just trying to have your cake and eat it too.
How devastated will you be if you ever find our you're actually an S? Would you break down and cry? 
...


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> and here's the proof:
> 
> Dawn mix 2 by DonutsGalacticos on SoundCloud - Hear the worldâ€™s sounds



_"LOOK AT ME!! LOOK HOW CREATIVE I AM!!1!11!!"_
_"AN S COULD *NEVER* THINK UP THIS MAGIC!"_


Jesus Christ.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Fuck you man, i never tried to say that, asshole. Of course Ss can be musicians too, but maybe the 80% of them are just uncreative individuals that achieve success by ripping off other well known bands. Wolfmother is a great example of this. You called for it, you have it. FFS.
See i was just trying to give some proof for my case. I don't care 'bout nor for anyone here. Furthermore that's just my ego spitting, do whatever you want with it, swallow it or matrix it.
OH STOP... generation z.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> Fuck you man, i never tried to say that, asshole.


Oh sorry if I was assuming to much... let's see what else you have to say~



DonutsGalacticos said:


> 80% of them are just uncreative individuals that achieve success by ripping off other well known bands.


oh...
LOL
turns out I was right about your intentions all along. <3






DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that





DonutsGalacticos said:


> i never tried to say that




Lol.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

I told you what you were wishing to read, not my actual opinion.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> I think this wins the award for "most ridiculous thing I've read on the forums."
> First of all, "openness" has NOTHING to do with S/N...


McCrae and Costa (probably the leading Big Five psychologists) certainly disagree with you there.

And in any case, as described in my first post, the correlations in _MBTI data_ between artistic interests and an N preference have been quite strong and consistent.

But here's some more cake for you, if you're hungry...

The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 3,230 ISFPs.

Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" (= scores above 60) for ISFPs:

*Health Care Support* [100]
—Nurse's aide, veterinary assistant, pharmacy aide, physical therapy aide
*Architecture and Engineering* [91]
—Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
*Food Preparation and Service* [78]
—Chef, food service manager, bartender, host/hostess
*Office and Administrative Support* [78]
—Bank teller, receptionist, clerical services, legal secretary
*Building and Grounds Maintenance* [75]
—Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor
*Transportation and Materials Moving* [66]
—Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
*Personal Care and Service* [64]
—Lodging manager, personal trainer, hairdresser, child care provider

In 19th place (out of 22) for the ISFPs (with a job satisfaction score of 30 out of 100) is the category that includes arts, design, entertainment and media:

*Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media*
— Artist, coach, musician, reporter

By contrast, for INFPs, jobs involving creative work and music are on the short list of "occupations that INFPs are attracted to."

Don't get me wrong, though. I understand that data like this, involving thousands of people, is no match for your personal experience. :tongue:


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> I told you what you were wishing to read, not my actual opinion.


You obviously have such an eloquent way with words~
I mean, INFP's are said to be good writers so I shouldn't expect anything less, right hun?


I wonder how funny your reaction would be if someone typed you as an SJ.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

I don't even speak english in real life, i just use it for internet. You seem to know nothing about life. Furthermore writting eloquently has nothing to do with types, go do some search and look some INFPs artist interviews and make up your own conclusions.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> McCrae and Costa (probably the leading Big Five psychologists) certainly disagree with you there.


Was the Big 5 test not created because MBTI was viewed as insufficient? To say, "O I SCORED HIGH ON OPEN-MINDED SO I MUST BE AN N" is the most idiotic thing I could even imagine anyone doing.





reckful said:


> But here's some more cake for you, if you're hungry...


You're not doing it right.






reckful said:


> Here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" (= scores above 60) for ISFPs:
> 
> *Health Care Support* [100]
> —Nurse's aide, veterinary assistant, pharmacy aide, physical therapy aide
> ...


This just in - Architecture/engineering takes 0 creativity!
And I hadn't realized that a person can't pursue artistic interests outside of their careers... how *close-minded* of you. _That means you're 100% an S!_




reckful said:


> By contrast, for INFPs, jobs involving creative work and music are on the short list of "occupations that INFPs are attracted to."


INFPs are at the very top (WAAAAAY above any other type) of my list for "Special snowflake syndrome"
it validates them SO MUCH to be seen as "unique" and "creative" that they'll risk anything to pursue careers in those fields even if they're not the most inclined.

ISFP's have a little more sense in them and don't always do so.





reckful said:


> Don't get me wrong, though. I understand that data like this, involving thousands of people, is no match for your personal experience. :tongue:


MBTI is pseudo-psychology. Don't pretend like these "studies" hold much ground


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> MBTI is pseudo-psychology. Don't pretend like these "studies" hold much ground


On hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and where the MBTI stands in that regard, see this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.



UglierBetty said:


> This just in - Architecture/engineering takes 0 creativity!


What on earth is that supposed to be a response to? Neither I — nor any respectable source — has ever made anything remotely resembling a claim that S's have no creative abilities.

Did your recent OP claim that _only_ SJs had any interest in music? Of course not. The MBTI is about _tendencies and probabilities_. So-called "N characteristics" are characteristics that, _on average_, N's tend to exhibit to a greater degree than S's. Anybody who says things like "all N's are this" or "all S's are that" or "S's can't do this" is seriously confused about what the underlying personality dimensions are about.

I hope you're not one of those.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> McCrae and Costa (probably the leading Big Five psychologists) certainly disagree with you there.
> 
> And in any case, as described in my first post, the correlations in _MBTI data_ between artistic interests and an N preference have been quite strong and consistent.
> 
> ...


But they made the test! The system, the requirements. They ask, "Do you like menial tasks?" fifteen different ways and then come back with stats that show that SJs do menial tasks as if they discovered something or it is meaningful or reflective of some psychological truth.

No, it is an arbitrary made up system from which you get out precisely what you put in. 

You list these occupations and say that if you are an SJ you probably fit into X menial task job... but you aren't saying that at all. You are saying that if you enjoy humdrum menial tasks you are bound to probably do humdrum menial tasks.

So, yes, in that case MBTI and these stats and studies are absolutely correct. Nailed it. 

That was exciting. Can we all go home now? We learned that (probably) creative people are, get this!, (probably) creative. And we know it is true because we can TEST IT! 

Yes, that is right. Empirical proof that people who report themselves as being creative have jobs involving creativity. That is iron clad. 

MBTI and these studies are all a perfectly legitimate self-contained system... and y'all are welcome to it. For whatever in the world it could possibly be worth. 

These arguments back and forth are constant conflations of one specific system with what people perceive as a theory of cognition. The arguments needn't continue for a second longer, because it is nothing but a misunderstanding. 

An apple telling an orange that it is being an apple wrong. 

If MBTI wants N to be the creative artistic type, then fabulous. Self contained system doing its thing. It's just a shame they chose to co-opt Jung's terminology... since it is not vaguely reflective of it. Not vaguely. It absolutely and openly contradicts him. Expanding on Jung is one thing, but they just did something else entirely 'inspired by' Jung, but it isn't the same thing at all. 

So, now that a renaissance back to Jung (building from there, not from Myers) has happened, there is a confusion. Like a Christian arguing with a Muslim that his view of Redemption is wrong because he doesn't understand 'religious principles' but really he is just arguing something altogether different, though it confuses the mind by using the same or similar words to similar ends. 

I am trying to discipline myself into saying stuff like 'If you mean MBTI, then X... but if you mean JCF, then Y.."

Then, of course, we can rip each other up over which viewpoint is better. And in doing so will expose in ourselves certain cognitive lenses. The same lenses that a long long time ago prompted Carl Jung to consider at length the problem of types. Which was a question of cognition... and thus answered by a study of cognition. 

MBTI is something else entirely. Such a pursuit is hardly even a pretense of that system.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> On hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and where the MBTI stands in that regard, see this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.


Stop linking to your own posts.
You can't just throw around posts you've made as "evidence".... and besides, the ignorance in each and every on of them is making me more and more annoyed.




reckful said:


> What on earth is that supposed to be a response to? Neither I — nor any respectable source — has ever made anything remotely resembling a claim that S's have no creative abilities.


You said ISFP's weren't drawn to any artistic careers until their 22nd one or something like that even though Architecture was #2.



reckful said:


> Did your recent OP claim that _only_ SJs had any interest in music?


I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for the way you keep derailing and skewing what you actually said.




reckful said:


> Of course not. The MBTI is about _tendencies and probabilities_. So-called "N characteristics" are characteristics that, _on average_, N's tend to exhibit to a greater degree than S's.


The grass outside of my house is green.



reckful said:


> Anybody who says things like "all N's are this" or "all S's are that" or "S's can't do this" is seriously confused about what the underlying personality dimensions are about.


who said that?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> Stop linking to your own posts.
> You can't just throw around posts you've made as "evidence".... and besides, the ignorance in each and every on of them is making me more and more annoyed.


The "evidence" in the posts I'm linking to isn't _my evidence_, and the only reason I link to my posts is to avoid repeating their contents unnecessarily by pasting them into a second post. If you can't be bothered to click on them and find that out, I'm afraid I don't see that as my problem — or my loss.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

reckful said:


> The "evidence" in the posts I'm linking to isn't _my evidence_, and the only reason I link to my posts is to avoid repeating their contents unnecessarily by pasting them into a second post. If you can't be bothered to click on them and find that out, I'm afraid I don't see that as my problem — or my loss.


You're forcing yourself to be *SUCH* a Te user.
Links to posts that are links to posts....



Will you stop derailing if I give you your special snowflake points?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> At the end of the day, Jung's typology and the MBTI both deal, at their core, with _internal_ temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested _both_ internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior). And anyone who's interested can read more about that here.


Except this isn't quite true. This is what you want to believe because this is how you want to align the systems, but just because you want to believe it, it doesn't make it true. Yes, Jung cites behavior in PT, but he also does a lot of other things in PT completely unrelated to behavior. Did it ever occur to you to question *why* he spends time describing behavior, typical manifestations of the types and provide with type examples at all?

Jung also spent a lot of his time during his life lamenting the fact that in order to even make his idea somewhat acceptable within his current sphere of influence he had to adhere to the scientific principle which is fundamentally an ST thing because it's empirical. If Jung had been a part of a field of science where empirical logic is heavily rejected e.g. cultural anthropology, I think Jung would never have stressed all these behavioral traits as much as he did. The behavior is not really the meat and juice of Jungian theory but it's his delineation of the categories he's describing that are. 

You keep always citing sources that support your case. That's cherrypicking to the finest degree. You lack overall scope and focus and you aren't reviewing PT in its totality. You need to stop look at the pages and you need to look at how the pages actually link together into a more wholesome thing. 

It's not a false internet meme that is being passed around that Jung was not interested in traits. The man fucking explicitly states so himself. He was not happy with the fact that he had to focus on things measurable such as traits in order for people to accept his theory as something else than mere quackery. 

No, you just lack reading comprehension pretty much, and I wholeheartedly agree with @blue street news that if Jung was around and knew what his theory has become aka MBTI and it even abuses his name in order to promote it even though it's so far removed anything Jungian, he would likely distance himself very far from it. MBTI does not capture the Jungian reality of type. It simplifies and makes it concrete. Jung's idea of type is not concrete.

While I'm at this very point, I might as well address this too:



reckful said:


> Are you saying those Jung quotes aren't inconsistent with your assertion that, from Jung's perspective, in your words, "outgoingness [and] shyness and reclusion ... have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion"?


I fail to see how the two quotes you provided actually genuinely correspond to "outgoingness" and "shyness" though reclusion may be somewhat apt though it still doesn't quite capture the reality in which Jung was actually trying to get at. 

Another and very important facet when it comes to Jung's descriptions and when it comes to MBTI is the difference between observation of self from the self and from the outside. Also, even modern neuroscience today has moved beyond traits as an attempt to measure introversion-extroversion and tends to try to understand it through the notion of limbic energy which means that an introvert can indeed appear highly energized but will as a whole still have a greater time dealing with too much external stimulus which is actually what Jung is implying here too, though he did not mean that so much in terms of physiological as much as psychic character.

Also, when it comes to the idea that Big 5/OCEAN/SLOAN, the MBTI and modern neuroscience would somehow tap into the same temperamental idea of I/E that Jung did seems almost oddly redundant, since introversion and extroversion are in their origin Jungian constructs. 

If modern science is staying true to Jung's observations, of course they will tap into the same temperamental idea. Whether this is actually something we are born with or not is however at this point, quite questionable. Some science suggests we are and some science suggests we don't. Furthermore, there is to my knowledge, no science done to test if there is a genuine correlation between Jungian introversion and extroversion and the way introversion and extroversion are defined in neuroscience today. I entirely dismiss the SLOAN/Big 5/OCEAN and MBTI definitions unless they at least admit it has to do with energy, not personality traits in themselves.

As you are likely aware, Susan Cain is perhaps the most prominent author right now when it comes to debunking the idea that introversion has actually something to do with the way the word is usually conflated to be understood i.e. someone who is socially withdrawn regardless of the causes of that.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

If you mean spontaneous as in doing things on the fly and rarely ever planning for things, yes that's true. At least for me.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Jung also spent a lot of his time during his life lamenting the fact that in order to even make his idea somewhat acceptable within his current sphere of influence he had to adhere to the scientific principle which is fundamentally an ST thing because it's empirical.


Here's Jung, "cherrypicked" just for you, from the 1928 article added to the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> As for the astrological type theory, to the astonishment of the enlightened it still remains intact today, and is even enjoying a new vogue.
> 
> This historical retrospect may serve to assure us that our modern attempts to formulate a theory of types are by no means new and unprecedented, even though our scientific conscience does not permit us to revert to these old, intuitive ways of thinking. We must find our own answer to this problem, an answer which satisfies the need of science.


I don't disagree that Jung thought there were limits on how far "quantitative measurement" could take you in studying the human psyche — although he noted that "I believe I have shown in my [word-]assocation studies that extremely complicated psychological facts are accessible to quantitative measurement."

But he certainly didn't subscribe to the idea that, to the extent that "quantitative measurement" could _and did_ falsify any aspect of a theoretical model, the theorist should feel free to shrug his shoulders and ignore it. He was a strong believer in the scientific method, and broke with Freud largely because of what he viewed as Freud's shortcomings in that department. As Jung described it:



Jung said:


> There was no mistaking the fact that Freud was emotionally involved in his sexual theory to an extraordinary degree. When he spoke of it, his tone became urgent, almost anxious, and all signs of his normally critical and skeptical manner vanished. ...
> 
> I can still recall vividly how Freud said to me, "My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. That is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakeable bulwark." ... First of all, it was the words "bulwark" and "dogma" that alarmed me; for a dogma, that is to say, an indisputable confession of faith, is set up only when the aim is to suppress doubts once and for all. But that no longer has anything to do with scientific judgment; only with a personal power drive.
> 
> ...


Jung's original concepts of extraversion and introversion involved multiple personality characteristics that Jung's model said would co-vary — and that, as I already explained to arkigos, is an aspect of Jung's model that is susceptible to testing by quantitative scientific means. And Myers put that model to the test and discovered, as McCrae and Costa rightly note, that various aspects of extraversion (and introversion) that Jung's model grouped together did _not_ co-vary.

Faced with those facts, I believe Jung would have accepted Myers' adjustments to his typology, rather than telling her that her studies were "an ST thing" and he was going to stick with his original model.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No, you just lack reading comprehension pretty much. ...
> 
> I fail to see how the two quotes you provided actually genuinely correspond to "outgoingness" and "shyness" though reclusion may be somewhat apt though it still doesn't quite capture the reality in which Jung was actually trying to get at.


It was four quotes, not two, and I'd say anyone who reads them and then posts that they "fail to see how [they] correspond to 'outgoingness' and 'shyness'" is probably committing a sin less forgivable than a "lack of reading comprehension."

Here's a recap of a few excerpts from those same quotes:



Jung said:


> [Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those *reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people* who form the strongest possible contrast to the *open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way* and in turn are affected by them.





Jung said:


> [The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. ... His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...
> 
> *His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot*, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.





Jung said:


> *The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited*, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only *a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people*, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...
> 
> They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as* a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them*. ... This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.





Jung said:


> Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, ...* a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," ... the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself*. ...
> 
> *He lives in and through others*; all self-communings give him the creeps. ... If he should ever have a "complex," *he finds refuge in the social whirl* and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@reckful "seems inhibited" is not the same as "shyness". You are making leaps that aren't there. Similarly, "a desire to influence events" does not mean the same as being outgoing. If you think that, you are simplifying.

Another thing is that Jung is talking about two dimensions in these extracts, one of them has to do with psychic orientation. I do relate to his introverted description here, but anyone who knows me can definitely tell I'm not a shy person, or lacking in outgoing-ness. 

Seemingly inhibited would for example be much better translated into being or appearing somewhat withdrawn. Being withdrawn in this case is partially a mental disposition that is shown as a disinterest in the external world or object, which goes perfectly in line with the rest of his theory. Saying it's equal to shyness is not.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> @reckful "seems inhibited" is not the same as "shyness". You are making leaps that aren't there. Similarly, "a desire to influence events" does not mean the same as being outgoing. If you think that, you are simplifying.


What I said the quotes showed was that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts — in response to @blues street news's claim that, from a Jungian perspective, shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion."

Those quotes include Jung specifically describing introverts as "rather shy people" with "a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people"; and describing extraverts as "sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters" who "live in and through others" and are characterized by "a need to join in, ... the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and ... a strong tendency to make a show of oneself."

I didn't point to any one phrase or sentence in Jung's descriptions and say that that one characteristic was "the same as" shyness or "the same as" being outgoing.

As you know.

And those quotes I posted, taken as a whole, certainly show that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts.

As I'm confident you also know.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> What I said the quotes showed was that Jung "associated" "outgoingness" with extraverts and "shyness and reclusiveness" with introverts — in response to @blues street news's claim that, from a Jungian perspective, shyness/reclusion and outgoingness "have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion."
> 
> Those quotes include Jung specifically describing introverts as "rather shy people" with "a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people"; and describing extraverts as "sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters" who "live in and through others" and are characterized by "a need to join in, ... the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and ... a strong tendency to make a show of oneself."
> 
> ...


The only quote you provided that supports this is the first one but it appears to me that Jung is not necessarily associating the traits as much as he's making an exaggerated point in order to make the reader understand what he is talking about, since he later in fact abstracts this far removed from actual behavior in such a sense.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'd say that, if there's a single type that deserves to be viewed as the quintessential "creative artist" type, it's probably the INFP.


I agree with this.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

@Oprah you are so annoying man with your S vs N vendetta :dry:.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

WinterFox said:


> ISTJ - Most Responsible
> 
> ISFJ - Most Loyal
> 
> ...


I fit more than one of these. I feel so special


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

So, I'm an INFP with INFJ-like tendencies who comes off as an ESTP to strangers in desperate times.


----------

