# Jung's original function and type descriptions.



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think a big part of the problem is that people don't view this stuff mechanically enough and instead seem to believe that it defines their entire existence, which it doesn't. It's not at all surprising that people would resist viewing the psyche as mechanical, even to just understand this stuff. I've found viewing this stuff in an almost sensor-like way to be the most helpful for me, interestingly enough, considering how abstract it is. Just observing simple reactions under pressure, for instance, and seeing which inferior function characteristics your behavioral alteration aligns most closely with. For instance, I consistently lose my train of thought when thinking if external sensory stimuli bombard me too much. This aligns very closely to the descriptions of inferior Se overriding my dominant Ni processes. I've even found that when my clothes are uncomfortable in any ways, I cannot bring myself to focus on my thoughts at all without great effort. Too much involvement in menial tasks does this to me also. I've found that my twin sister (INTP) is rarely ever as distracted by the external environment as I am (she's able to ignore it rather easily, to her detriment at times, which aligns with INTP observations quite well). I can be stomping really loud behind her while she's writing an essay, for instance, and she's able to think as if this didn't distract her at all. The CF correlations are stunning, I've come to find (through "twin studies" ;P)! I'm not a strict adherent to any one theory though. I just approach this stuff with a very scientific frame of mind.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

to me a lot of what the type dynamics (what i know of it) does make sense. the idea of dominant functions within the psyche (unconscious and conscious) opposing each other--i notice this in myself and in my general approach to life and problems. 

what i don't like about it is that it claims certain experiences or changes are _impossible_ without giving evidence that it is. type changes? i would agree that it wouldn't be healthy for one portray a significantly different personality on a day-to-day basis, but what about over a span of 30 years? i can think of an argument that would support MBTI's stance on static personality: 

--let's say that a young ENTP was rather abrasive and unaware of, or didn't notice a significance, in other's feelings/well-being. as they grew and matured they developed a deeper understanding of either the effects of their behavior on others or identified with another's pain (latter is Fi-ish i know, but is irrelevant for now). let's say this happened in a combination through both interactions--they mistreated others which led to them suffering alienation from their peers and family and this caused hurt and confusion with the individual which in turn sparked introspection (in whatever form would be necessary), and through a number of years, they developed Fe, filling out their "cognitive frame". in this case, it would fit that a noticeable change in their personality/demeanor/behavior was due to realizing the contribution of healthy human interaction due to a "growth" (of preference) in their tertiary, instead of changing from a T to an F. 

--a part of growing up is a growth or "addition" of the ego/self (right?). we are born with "something" and it is molded to a degree by our surroundings? but what if our "base", what we're born with isn't really directed in any way; what if it's waiting to be directed, to be shaped? if we suffer a change in ego, could we not suffer a change in direction (S/N, T/F)? could life experience not take what we initially saw as "correct" and force us to take what we've built into consideration, and to then augment it, to push what "was" lower in the mental spectrum in order to accommodate new needs and views--and could these new views not change the direction of our psychic energy? what i've heard says that it can't happen, but they provide as much proof for this as they do their own theories.

anything that defines human behavior so cut and dry with no room for variance just has to be incorrect, unless it's something that is fundamentally proven to be true, such as the fact that we need oxygen, water, nutrients, etc. in order to live long enough to exhibit behavior in the first place. with this i'm in no way "nay-saying" established type theory. it's interesting as hell, and to an extent, it makes sense--everything works together and circles back on itself--you can see real-life examples as you interact with others that corroborate it's validity, but doesn't explain the differences between types. one can say, "well, that's due to life experience", and yeah, it probably is, but what life experiences caused that 'difference', and why did it manifest this way in this individual and not the same in the other--what "psychic energy" caused this facet of behavior in one while it didn't cause the same in another? what's the difference between the "energies", how is the flow of a cognitive function different from that of the component that caused the change (if it is different)?

(disclaimer this is just speculation, feel free to make your own point, or to inform me. 

p.s., i think the greatest thing MBTI and the like has done was to give others a frame, or basis of thought on which further knowledge can spring from (like any theory really; many are constantly in a state on change).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

MBTI is like math.

It is nothing more than a language, a useful model which distinguishes various events in space and time into various categories and assigns them various symbols and concepts for ease of reference and understanding.

It's utility lies in its application. It's value is derived from its reliability. It's reliability is dependent upon the mastery of the user.

Your mileage may vary.

Jung was like Issac Newton in a sense, he contributed to psychology what Newton contributed to mathematics.

Formulas.

I have found Jung's formulas to be... most useful. Often where I might struggle with MBTI concepts and authors, I quickly absorb and connect with Jung intuitively. I have also found Socionics to be a better system than MBTI in general, a much better interpretation of Jung, but I digress...


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

celticstained said:


> to me a lot of what the type dynamics (what i know of it) does make sense. the idea of dominant functions within the psyche (unconscious and conscious) opposing each other--i notice this in myself and in my general approach to life and problems.
> 
> what i don't like about it is that it claims certain experiences or changes are _impossible_ without giving evidence that it is. type changes? i would agree that it wouldn't be healthy for one portray a significantly different personality on a day-to-day basis, but what about over a span of 30 years? i can think of an argument that would support MBTI's stance on static personality:
> 
> ...


This actually fits with Jung's thinking. He claimed that people tend to become more conscious of their Tertiary as they enter middle-age (he used his own tertiary N as an example). For Jung this was the mid-life crisis he had after breaking with Freud.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

TaylorS said:


> Interestingly enough, Jung typed himself as an ISTP ("introverted thinking with sensation" in his own words) in a series of lectures he did in 1925 that I'm reading. He typed Darwin as ESTJ and contrasts him with Immanuel Kant, which he describes as an INTP. He seems to imply that you cannot be an N and have an empirical attitude.


Taylor, can you refer us to where he mentioned this? Like Orange, the only documented information that I know of was his saying he was capitalized by thinking, had a great deal of intuition, had difficulty with feeling, and that his relationship to reality was not brilliant, being at variance with the reality of things. In fact there was a video placed on the forum somewhere. It would not surprise me that he claimed to be what MBTI would call ISTP since Jung could be referring to his use of Ti and Ni, and lack of use of Se.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is why I wonder if he was an INTJ over ISTP...I remember reading about his early childhood observations of his own mind on Wikipedia, which seemed to possess the subtle nature of one who is able to observe their conscious mental processes very closely and accurately, which I've heard accociated with how Ni works, although I've been hearing that Ti works a bit like this also, in deconstructing thoughts and whatnot, so it certainly seems fathomable that he could've had both functions as an ISTP, which would be quite interesting. I also read that others found him to present himself in a dogmatic fashion, which seems to be associated with Te more, although if you're a famous person with ideas you take pride in, I suppose this is possible regardless of type...


This argument was discussed somewhere on the forum years ago. He did not say he was capitalized by intuition, and used thinking. He said the different. I truly don't think Jung considered himself a dominant Ni user just based on how he described the type.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

saffron said:


> This: _Jung: Well, you see the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. _ I find it ironic that if a PerC user suggested this, he/she would explicitly be told "wrong." When did it become it become dogma that it was inflexible?


It's actually what I have been saying all along, although I don't agree that our cognitive functions can change. They're dynamic and fluid, and we are capable of using all cognitive functions as circumstances arise. But Jung pretty much implied that we do have a most differentiated function and from everything I have read, he never implied they can change over the course of time. We merely develop other functions as we use them. This seems quite apparent in his insistence on individuation.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Taylor, can you refer us to where he mentioned this? Like Orange, the only documented information that I know of was his saying he was capitalized by thinking, had a great deal of intuition, had difficulty with feeling, and that his relationship to reality was not brilliant, being at variance with the reality of things. In fact there was a video placed on the forum somewhere. It would not surprise me that he claimed to be what MBTI would call ISTP since Jung could be referring to his use of Ti and Ni, and lack of use of Se.


He mentioned in his autobiography that he was a Introverted Thinking type and that he was really not in tune with his Intuition until later in his life (after his break with Freud). The way he emphasized how empiricaly-oriented his ideas were also suggests Auxiliary Se.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Someone on another site dug this up from _Analytical Psychology_ Amazon.com: Analytical Psychology (9780691019185): C. G. Jung, William McGuire: Books



> As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.
> 
> Looking at it the other way around, if you are an intuitive type, you can't get to your sensations directly. They are full of monsters, and so you have to go by way of your intellect or feeling, whichever is the auxiliary in the conscious. it needs very cool reasoning for such a man to keep himself down to reality. To sum up then, the way is from the superior to the auxiliary, from the latter to the function opposite to the auxiliary. Usually this first conflict that is aroused between the auxiliary function in the conscious and its opposite function in the unconscious is the fight that takes place in analysis. This may be called the preliminary conflict. The knock-down battle between the superior and inferior functions only takes place in life. In the example of the intellectual sensation type, I suggested the preliminary conflict would be between sensation and intuition, and the final fight between intellect and feeling.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious.


I've never been sure if Jung meant this literally in terms of his type being T-S first, then N-F last, or if he meant that uppermost = extroverted and unconscious = introverted...? Probably the former, but...o.0 ?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

TaylorS said:


> He mentioned in his autobiography that he was a Introverted Thinking type and that he was really not in tune with his Intuition until later in his life (after his break with Freud). The way he emphasized how empiricaly-oriented his ideas were also suggests Auxiliary Se.


Then it makes sense that he may have been referring to his Ni, not Ne. Jung's first principle was to attitude (E/I), then the functions. Thanks.


----------

