# Worried CS Joesph is giving out misinformation about Jungian researchers (4 sides of the mind)



## Dscross

CS Joseph seems to get a lot of fans because he says things with conviction. You could argue he is biased and misinformed or whatever, but that's by the way. However, he's dressing up his stuff like it's backed up with real research. But I suspect a lot of it isn't and it's giving people the wrong idea. In particular, his four sides of mind theory, which runs through everything he talks about. Here's his video about it for reference:






As far as I can tell, he implies that he got 4 sides of the mind theory from researchers like John Beebe (as he mentions him a lot - he came up with the eight function model). However, I've seen no reference to the 4 sides of the mind theory in any of his original writings. Beebe analysed his dreams and used them to come up with the EFM model (conscious and shadow) and then matched them to Jung-style archetypes. He used the Harold Grant 4 function model as a basis.

Four sides is not mentioned in Beebe's “Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type” or Mark Hunziker’s book, “Depth Typology” as I've checked through all of those.

I’ve had no success finding this term anywhere on the Internet with any attribution to Beebe. It all seems to point back to CS Joseph.

If the other two sides are part of his own theory, one of his unnamed mentors came up with it, or there was some other more obscure Jung researcher involved I would like to know and I think other people would like to know as well. It's a big thing to make up yourself unless you do some real academic research into it yourself, which he doesn't seem to have.

Do other people think he's making stuff up based on really dodgy research?


----------



## Alea jacta est

Dscross said:


> Do other people think he's making stuff up based on really dodgy research?


I don't know because I'm not an expert of human psychology, after C.S. Joseph describes himself as an ENTP, which means he's Ne dom, so he's much more focused on abstract things than if he was a ESTP. Personnally, I find his conclusions interesting, after it is possible his professional system is supported by strange researchs, who knows?


----------



## Red Panda

As far as I can tell from watching his stuff before he became as popular as he is now, the 4 sides of the mind is his own spin on it which he developed through his own self typing issues. Theres an old vid where he talks about being typed infj and intj and how he later figured out hes actually entp who's mostly in his intj subconscious mode due to how he grew up or whatever he calls it. I disagree that he's anything like an entp but anyways.


----------



## Alea jacta est

Red Panda said:


> I disagree that he's anything like an entp


How would you type him?


----------



## Red Panda

Alea jacta est said:


> How would you type him?


Unsure except some TJ. Most likely ETJ.


----------



## Alea jacta est

Red Panda said:


> Unsure except some TJ. Most likely ETJ.


ExTJ? So he would be an ENTJ?


----------



## Red Panda

Alea jacta est said:


> ExTJ? So he would be an ENTJ?


He could have a bit of an equal N~S not very strongly either. It doesnt stand out the most compared to the other preferences.


----------



## 545769

I just came across C.S. Joseph too. He was annoying (especially when he used the word annoying lol) but I like how clearly he talked. Though I don’t think he understood “the whys” behind a lot of the feeling types. But he’s just so sailsy type and aggressive I often wonder about where he’s getting his information.

But I was intrigued by the 4 sides of the mind. So this is just his personal take on it and has nothing to do with MBTI or Socionics? I don’t know a lot about Socionics etc...I look at the MBTI in a more simpler format (actually, I feel like the more I learn about all the theories the less I know, because I’m too boggled down by information...I used to be more correct with typing when I could assess without too many details to sort through). But I guess what I’m wondering...is would it be true that I am an INFP but I use all my other functions in the pattern of ESTJ, ENFJ, and ISTP? And would really my demon function be the ISTP and the ISTPs demon function would be that of an INFP? It’s super neat to think about and makes sense in my mind (though I haven’t pondered long enough to find loop holes, that might show up later) but is it really researched other than by him? Does the demon function exist in MBTI and Socionics?


----------



## Azmar

Sweet but Psycho said:


> I just came across C.S. Joseph too. He was annoying (especially when he used the word annoying lol) but I like how clearly he talked. Though I don’t think he understood “the whys” behind a lot of the feeling types. But he’s just so sailsy type and aggressive I often wonder about where he’s getting his information.
> 
> But I was intrigued by the 4 sides of the mind. So this is just his personal take on it and has nothing to do with MBTI or Socionics? I don’t know a lot about Socionics etc...I look at the MBTI in a more simpler format (actually, I feel like the more I learn about all the theories the less I know, because I’m too boggled down by information...I used to be more correct with typing when I could assess without too many details to sort through). But I guess what I’m wondering...is would it be true that I am an INFP but I use all my other functions in the pattern of ESTJ, ENFJ, and ISTP? And would really my demon function be the ISTP and the ISTPs demon function would be that of an INFP? It’s super neat to think about and makes sense in my mind (though I haven’t pondered long enough to find loop holes, that might show up later) but is it really researched other than by him? Does the demon function exist in MBTI and Socionics?


yo let me give you a quick answer..first,i'm still new in this community and your my first reply lul so let's get back to point..The demon function is basically just a label for your dark sides basically..it is true that it exist "despite the mbti exist or not"(insert any psychology,religion or any kind of ideology it will still hold true)..it will be activated(or become aware) when you are severely in danger+want to find a quick solution to get the job done that will affects other people or themself severely(depends on which personality),,oh btw that popular 16 personality test is actually based on the big 5 test and not from the actual jungian analytical psychology.


----------



## Azmar

I also want to tell you that if you are a person that focus on the cause rather than the correlation of something(causation AKA cause and effect vs Correlation) you are likely a Ti user just like me an Infj and it seems like you are trying to find loopholes right? sounds like a Ti user to me because you want to verify the knowledege that you obtain right? or do you prefer to take other majority people's truth(what they belief as true) as your own truth and prefer not to verify it? and if you confuse between the two then have you ever tried to verify things that will litteraly have the potential to obliterate your own bias on a certain things AKA your belief(other people's truth)? ..anyway you should know that all humans beings have all cognitive functions just different awareness..I'm not basing it on the 4 sides of the mind or whatever it just the truth


----------



## Azmar

Dscross said:


> CS Joseph seems to get a lot of fans because he says things with conviction. You could argue he is biased and misinformed or whatever, but that's by the way. However, he's dressing up his stuff like it's backed up with real research. But I suspect a lot of it isn't and it's giving people the wrong idea. In particular, his four sides of mind theory, which runs through everything he talks about. Here's his video about it for reference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, he implies that he got 4 sides of the mind theory from researchers like John Beebe (as he mentions him a lot - he came up with the eight function model). However, I've seen no reference to the 4 sides of the mind theory in any of his original writings. Beebe analysed his dreams and used them to come up with the EFM model (conscious and shadow) and then matched them to Jung-style archetypes. He used the Harold Grant 4 function model as a basis.
> 
> Four sides is not mentioned in Beebe's “Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type” or Mark Hunziker’s book, “Depth Typology” as I've checked through all of those.
> 
> I’ve had no success finding this term anywhere on the Internet with any attribution to Beebe. It all seems to point back to CS Joseph.
> 
> If the other two sides are part of his own theory, one of his unnamed mentors came up with it, or there was some other more obscure Jung researcher involved I would like to know and I think other people would like to know as well. It's a big thing to make up yourself unless you do some real academic research into it yourself, which he doesn't seem to have.
> 
> Do other people think he's making stuff up based on really dodgy research?


Here's the thing that you should know..new and better theories of somekind will always occur either inside of academia or outside ...anyway i still hold 4 sides of the mind to be quite accurate because humans contains all cognitive functions..it is more closer to the jungian analytical psychology which involves the conscious,subconscious and the unconsciousi with an addition of freud theory which is the super ego..


----------



## 545769

Azmar said:


> yo let me give you a quick answer..first,i'm still new in this community and your my first reply lul so let's get back to point..The demon function is basically just a label for your dark sides basically..it is true that it exist "despite the mbti exist or not"(insert any psychology,religion or any kind of ideology it will still hold true)..it will be activated(or become aware) when you are severely in danger+want to find a quick solution to get the job done that will affects other people or themself severely(depends on which personality),,oh btw that popular 16 personality test is actually based on the big 5 test and not from the actual jungian analytical psychology.


First off, welcome to the community! I hope you find what you are looking for here. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me! ☺



Azmar said:


> I also want to tell you that if you are a person that focus on the cause rather than the correlation of something(causation AKA cause and effect vs Correlation) you are likely a Ti user just like me an Infj and it seems like you are trying to find loopholes right? sounds like a Ti user to me because you want to verify the knowledege that you obtain right? or do you prefer to take other majority people's truth(what they belief as true) as your own truth and prefer not to verify it? and if you confuse between the two then have you ever tried to verify things that will litteraly have the potential to obliterate your own bias on a certain things AKA your belief(other people's truth)? ..anyway you should know that all humans beings have all cognitive functions just different awareness..I'm not basing it on the 4 sides of the mind or whatever it just the truth


Well, I’ll tell you my thought process of how I reacted to this post. I read it a couple times. I remembered others (over the Internet) have thought of me as a Ti user before. I disagreed and was sure I was an INFP. Then even though I’ve known for years my type, I thought, “Well, what if? And I looked up a couple INFJ vs INFP videos. Then got confused. I thought about it a little while longer, watched a couple videos about Kurt Cobain (teared up ahah) and Johnny Dept and was like, “Nah, I really feel these guys. These are my guys.” Even if I have to research and get distracted by information, in the end it was about how I feel. The creative process of life.

You aren’t the first person to ask me if I was a Ti user though. I do think about cause and effect a lot, especially when it comes to psychology and behaviour. I would say I do like to research. And even if it will contradict my own beliefs, I have to make sure there isn’t more out there that I’m missing. But I also do correlate my_ own _findings a lot. Maybe not anyone else’s data and such, but what I’ve experienced and observed. Though I will agree with other people _if _it feels right, or facts are proven that it is right, but I’m not afraid to change my mind if contradicting facts present itself. I’m always open to possibilities of change though. Except when I’m 💯 sure I’m right and confident, which is rarely ever, I’ll be adamant about it. But I can still be persuaded otherwise. Anyway, I don’t know if I answered your questions properly? Let me know.  I have often wondered if maybe I am an enneagram 5 INFP though, just because of how my mind works and seems to contradict itself.

Ps: And before I sent this message, I decided I had to make sure I understood for sure what you were describing with correlation vs causation. So I watched a utube video. I think my brain naturally “correlates” and can web out very far and _then _my mind goes, “Alright, but now we have to research or experiment to see if this is true.“ And sometimes following my correlation is a way of experimenting.

Unless I was just correlating how the sky/clouds looks like an ocean/islands during sunset, and no one sees it, so after trying to explain it I just sit there and enjoy the ocean in the sky on my own. Feeling like people rarely see my perspective, but I’m used to it by now and I’ll enjoy the view.


----------



## Azmar

Sweet but Psycho said:


> First off, welcome to the community! I hope you find what you are looking for here. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me! ☺
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I’ll tell you my thought process of how I reacted to this post. I read it a couple times. I remembered others (over the Internet) have thought of me as a Ti user before. I disagreed and was sure I was an INFP. Then even though I’ve known for years my type, I thought, “Well, what if? And I looked up a couple INFJ vs INFP videos. Then got confused. I thought about it a little while longer, watched a couple videos about Kurt Cobain (teared up ahah) and Johnny Dept and was like, “Nah, I really feel these guys. These are my guys.” Even if I have to research and get distracted by information, in the end it was about how I feel. The creative process of life.
> 
> You aren’t the first person to ask me if I was a Ti user though. I do think about cause and effect a lot, especially when it comes to psychology and behaviour. I would say I do like to research. And even if it will contradict my own beliefs, I have to make sure there isn’t more out there that I’m missing. But I also do correlate my_ own _findings a lot. Maybe not anyone else’s data and such, but what I’ve experienced and observed. Though I will agree with other people _if _it feels right, or facts are proven that it is right, but I’m not afraid to change my mind if contradicting facts present itself. I’m always open to possibilities of change though. Except when I’m 💯 sure I’m right and confident, which is rarely ever, I’ll be adamant about it. But I can still be persuaded otherwise. Anyway, I don’t know if I answered your questions properly? Let me know.  I have often wondered if maybe I am an enneagram 5 INFP though, just because of how my mind works and seems to contradict itself.
> 
> Ps: And before I sent this message, I decided I had to make sure I understood for sure what you were describing with correlation vs causation. So I watched a utube video. I think my brain naturally “correlates” and can web out very far and _then _my mind goes, “Alright, but now we have to research or experiment to see if this is true.“ And sometimes following my correlation is a way of experimenting.
> 
> Unless I was just correlating how the sky/clouds looks like an ocean/islands during sunset, and no one sees it, so after trying to explain it I just sit there and enjoy the ocean in the sky on my own. Feeling like people rarely see my perspective, but I’m used to it by now and I’ll enjoy the view.


Based on your reply I can tell you several things..first of all Ti is a logical process(The way that you say that you want to tell me your thought process,Ti user are aware of their own thought proceess not so much other,if you notice on yourself do you have difficulty in able to memorize(si) other people thought process?) while Te is rationality or making things general..The way you said that you searched what i meant of correlation vs causation,infp vs infj shows that you want to make sure that you get it right or want to verify if what you think is true or not..besides that, I suggest you to watch infp vs infj video by Cs joseph(just skip the intro if you want the answer fast)..you can correlates yes but you oftenly want to find the cause of something to know all the effects that it can brings because you oftenly as infj just saying wants to solve problems right? solving problems is usually a Ti user thing..anyway I relate to your reply a lot as I have experienced the things that you have experienced like almost 90% of it..seems like you are like a clone of me..here's the thing for infp,infp only values(fi) what people think as truth(Te) not what they think(Ti) as truth..if you care what you think what is true or not more than what other people think is true or not than you are likely a Ti user..moreover,Fi and Te does not mean they cannot produce any thought process but in a way that differs from the Ti thought process..it is in the way that benifits them basically..that's why infp are actually badass in marketing and making business same goes for enfp..
ps: i don't know your life background and so forth so take my reply with a grain of salt,anyway just letting you know that people can be bias and can still be right or wrong.


----------



## ENIGMA2019

I used to watch and promote his channel. His earlier teachings were very helpful(learning functions and stuff) and his overall message seemed to be about helping others(teens/young adults,fatherlessness and anyone struggling). The last time I watched a video(a month+ ago) he was telling people to be fake because, no one likes the real you(something like that- paraphrasing)and appeared to be saying things that were threatening to someone/people. This contradicts what I thought his original stuff was about~ teaching people how to improve their selves and lives while, also teaching about personality and how to understand others better. With a fan base of youth, young adults and older adults looking for guidance or knowledge~ I can not support those messages. That is not helping make the world a better place but, the opposite imo

I may check back into the channel later down the road and see if it got back on track..... I just do not agree with it in it's current state.


----------



## Azmar

ENIGMA2019 said:


> I used to watch and promote his channel. His earlier teachings were very helpful(learning functions and stuff) and his overall message seemed to be about helping others(teens/young adults,fatherlessness and anyone struggling). The last time I watched a video(a month+ ago) he was telling people to be fake because, no one likes the real you(something like that- paraphrasing)and appeared to be saying things that were threatening to someone/people. This contradicts what I thought his original stuff was about~ teaching people how to improve their selves and lives while, also teaching about personality and how to understand others better. With a fan base of youth, young adults and older adults looking for guidance or knowledge~ I can not support those messages. That is not helping make the world a better place but, the opposite imo
> 
> I may check back into the channel later down the road and see if it got back on track..... I just do not agree with it in it's current state.


which vid did he said that..personally,being fake sometime can be a wise thing to do if you have good intentions or need to protect yourself mentally or physically.


----------



## Dscross

545769 said:


> I just came across C.S. Joseph too. He was annoying (especially when he used the word annoying lol) but I like how clearly he talked. Though I don’t think he understood “the whys” behind a lot of the feeling types. But he’s just so sailsy type and aggressive I often wonder about where he’s getting his information.
> 
> But I was intrigued by the 4 sides of the mind. So this is just his personal take on it and has nothing to do with MBTI or Socionics? I don’t know a lot about Socionics etc...I look at the MBTI in a more simpler format (actually, I feel like the more I learn about all the theories the less I know, because I’m too boggled down by information...I used to be more correct with typing when I could assess without too many details to sort through). But I guess what I’m wondering...is would it be true that I am an INFP but I use all my other functions in the pattern of ESTJ, ENFJ, and ISTP? And would really my demon function be the ISTP and the ISTPs demon function would be that of an INFP? It’s super neat to think about and makes sense in my mind (though I haven’t pondered long enough to find loop holes, that might show up later) but is it really researched other than by him? Does the demon function exist in MBTI and Socionics?


Socionics mixes in something akin to Freudian terminology and does have a 'sort-of' four sides model (but it works nothing like CSJ) - It borrows some Freudian concepts and mixes them in with Jung (not sure how much I agree with doing that tbh, which is why I'm not a massive socionics fan). It's ego (1,2) superego (3, 4) super-id (4,5) and id (7,8) in socionics with two functions per block, so still adding up to 8 functions, not a completely different type per side like CSJ. In socionics it's called 'Model A'.

Something that is unique in socionics is that the functions work together in “blocks” rather than as a “stack”. The functions don’t stand by themselves, but are paired together. For example, the leading and creative functions (dominant and auxiliary in MBTI) are in the same block: the “ego”.

One thing that should be mentioned there is a huge difference between what John Beebe describes as the “shadow functions” and the two subdued blocks in socionics; the id and super-ego. “Shadow functions” are described very differently than the id and super-ego are. According to Beebe, they are an actual shadow of the “normal” stack, whereas in socionics, they are merely the subdued, less valued alternative of each function.

Also, after the 'ego' block, socionics doesn't work in the same 'order' as normal stacks so comparing the 8th function doesn't really work in socionics. For example, my 8th slot (Demon Function) is Se in Beebe's stack, but Se is the first slot in my Superego (Role Function) in Socionics which they tend to label as 3rd down when it's listed. So it's a very different system.

I'd mention that CS Joseph never references Socionics as one of his sources. He mentions mainly Linda Berrans and John Beebe who like the 8 function model (based on the Grantian stacks).

CS Joseph also mentions 'mentors' but not by name - so who knows who taught him orginally. Could have been some crazy person for all we know.

I actually asked him in his comments section on YouTube where he got his 4 sides of the mind stuff from and he simply replied 'It's Freud'. OK, except I don't think Jung and Freud's stuff is very compatible, and I really don't think CSJ has the psychological training to be able to mix the two in the way that he has. Freud and Jung strongly disagreed by the time Psychological Types was written.

As for the MBTI side of things, I'm led to believe the MBTI test itself is mainly based on dictomonies in the strictly scientific sense, but many typologists believe in cognitive functions as Jung posited. Some Jungians believe in the stacking system later devised (including shadow - or not), some don't. Depends on who you talk to. The zeitgeist among people who like cognitive functions seems to be in favour of either the eight or four function model, but I have spoken to many on this site who don't believe it for various reasons (mostly based on Jung's original work so they think the stacking system isn't correct - or they believe the MBTI dichotomies are the only way forward as that's more testable).

But the real question is, how did CSJ come to the conclusion he should have a full type per side and why does he believe it a good idea to use his model and dress it up as the correct theory?


----------



## Dscross

ENIGMA2019 said:


> I used to watch and promote his channel. His earlier teachings were very helpful(learning functions and stuff) and his overall message seemed to be about helping others(teens/young adults,fatherlessness and anyone struggling). The last time I watched a video(a month+ ago) he was telling people to be fake because, no one likes the real you(something like that- paraphrasing)and appeared to be saying things that were threatening to someone/people. This contradicts what I thought his original stuff was about~ teaching people how to improve their selves and lives while, also teaching about personality and how to understand others better. With a fan base of youth, young adults and older adults looking for guidance or knowledge~ I can not support those messages. That is not helping make the world a better place but, the opposite imo
> 
> I may check back into the channel later down the road and see if it got back on track..... I just do not agree with it in it's current state.


Why did you choose to believe him in the first place, just out of interest? Was it because he talks authoritatively and has a whiteboard or because you concluded his descriptions and models were correct after looking into it?


----------



## Dscross

Azmar said:


> Here's the thing that you should know..new and better theories of somekind will always occur either inside of academia or outside ...anyway i still hold 4 sides of the mind to be quite accurate because humans contains all cognitive functions..it is more closer to the jungian analytical psychology which involves the conscious,subconscious and the unconsciousi with an addition of freud theory which is the super ego..



Having been in the community for a few months now and, I assume, read more about personality theories and Carl Jung, do you still hold CS Joseph in high esteem?


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil

He said the vast majority of young men want cougars as if that's a thing outside of fucking japan.

He shouldn't even have a channel at this point.


----------



## Functianalyst

I only became aware of C. S. Joseph at the end of last week. I heard one podcast from one of his followers, and one of his own podcast, yesterday. One only has to look at his topic of discussion to ask, is the premise of his discussion even accurate?

This was apparent in his podcast on "how can an ISTP find acceptance" My first thought was what type claiming to use dominant introverted thinking would be seeking social acceptance, unless they are unhealthy or is influenced to a point of the person being confused about their type? The claim of the type needing social acceptance defies most definitions you read about Ti. Social acceptance requires a good use of extraverted feeling. When ISTP types have a decent use of Fe, it's not going to be used for social acceptance, but to do good things. So people may wan to recognize that if you are not questioning the foundation of his discussions, he already has you.


----------

