# Why did Jung forgot?



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Jung described introverts as having the primary function intorverted and the other 3 extraverted. For extraverts the primary extraverted and the other 3 introverted. 

Myers-briggs put the tertiary in the same direction as the primary.

What happened? Did he forgot or this was how he actually saw the types?

Example: 

ESFP (Jung) = Se, Fi, Ti, Ni
ESFP (Myers) = Se, Fi, Te, Ni


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Chest said:


> Jung described introverts as having the primary function intorverted and the other 3 extraverted. For extraverts the primary extraverted and the other 3 introverted.
> 
> Myers-briggs put the tertiary in the same direction as the primary.
> 
> ...


Actually Myers saw it as Se, Fi, Ti, Ni. I'm not really sure where the idea that the tertiary is the same as the dominant came from.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Actually Myers saw it as Se, Fi, Ti, Ni. I'm not really sure where the idea that the tertiary is the same as the dominant came from.


:shocked:


----------



## BleuBlake (Nov 23, 2013)

Interesting, i didn't know it. Hope someone know the answer.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

damn I can't correct the title:laughing:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

As further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — which is how I believe he viewed himself at the time he wrote Psychological Types.

Myers' model, as @PaladinX has noted, was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially (and to her credit) abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. It was a guy named Harold Grant, as I understand it, who came up with the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model that's subscribed to by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't really understand the question. Forget what? Surely forgetting the orientation of the functions - perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the theory - would be like Newton _forgetting_ the apple fell downward.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Jung forgot to add the instructions, that would have solved everything.

Like all theoretical models, his framework was bound to be re-discussed and expanded on.
Initial observations can be partially correct but they're hardly set in stone.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

reckful said:


> As further discussed in this post and the posts it links to, both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, making Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N-aux Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — which is how I believe he viewed himself at the time he wrote Psychological Types.
> 
> Myers' model, as @PaladinX has noted, was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially (and to her credit) abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. It was a guy named Harold Grant, as I understand it, who came up with the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe model that's subscribed to by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists.


thanks!


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Shamy said:


> Jung forgot to add the instructions, that would have solved everything.
> 
> Like all theoretical models, his framework was bound to be re-discussed and expanded on.
> Initial observations can be partially correct but they're hardly set in stone.


lol, this weren't just "initial observations" are you kidding me?


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

he may have been knocking back on too many of those swiss beers


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Chest said:


> lol, this weren't just "initial observations" are you kidding me?


I didn't mean it in a dismissive way, I'm not going to deny the importance of analytical psychology.
His lifelong work had a huge impact on other fields, biology and neurology included.

But Jung was the pioneer of something that keeps evolving. Those weren't initial observations _to him_, however, they might be to us from a modern and more documented perspective.
No matter how competent he was, no one can offer a perfectly finite answer, especially about matters that cannot be measured objectively. This is why it is advised that we integrate consequential adjustments to his vision.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Shamy said:


> I didn't mean it in a dismissive way, I'm not going to deny the importance of analytical psychology.
> His lifelong work had a huge impact on other fields, biology and neurology included.
> 
> But Jung was the pioneer of something that keeps evolving. Those weren't initial observations _to him_, however, they might be to us from a modern and more documented perspective.
> No matter how competent he was, no one can offer a perfectly finite answer, especially about matters that cannot be measured objectively. This is why it's advised that we integrate consequential adjustments to his vision.


you talk exactly like Amy :laughing:


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Jung had a lot on his plate. I'm sure if he had another 20 years, he'd gotten back around to it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Hmm I dunno if he forgot...
First the lead up...



> 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 [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. 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.
> 
> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, _i.e_. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it _serves _the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.


Now the essential stuff.



> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that * besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. *From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.


If it is different in every respect then the attitude must change also eh?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hornet said:


> Hmm I dunno if he forgot...
> First the lead up...
> 
> 
> ...


Is this argument to support Jung's assertion about the tertiary or Myers according to @Chest's depiction above?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> Is this argument to support Jung's assertion about the tertiary or Myers according to @_Chest_'s depiction above?


Such an involved question.
My argument is that 
Dom: Je -> Aux: Pi
Dom Ji -> Aux: Pe
Dom Pe -> Aux: Ji
Dom Pi -> Aux: Je

I can't be bothered tracking who took what side in this debate. :tongue:


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

hornet said:


> Such an involved question.
> My argument is that
> Dom: Je -> Aux: Pi
> Dom Ji -> Aux: Pe
> ...


what about the tertiary?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hornet said:


> Such an involved question.
> My argument is that
> Dom: Je -> Aux: Pi
> Dom Ji -> Aux: Pe
> ...


This is what I thought you were alluding to, but I am confused as to how it relates to the topic. 

Regardless, I'd like to respond with an argument I made in another post:



> Myers said:
> 
> 
> > The operative words are "in every respect." If the auxiliary process differs from the dominant process in every respect, it cannot be introverted where the dominant process is introverted. It has to be extraverted if the dominant process is introverted, and introverted if the dominant process is extraverted. This interpretation is confirmed by Jung in two other sentences, the first about the introvert thinker, the second about the extravert.
> ...


Furthermore, in order to assume that "function" means "Introverted Thinking," for example, then you must assume that Introversion is a property of Thinking. However, Jung also said that the "attitude" was a superordinate category to the functions:



> In two previous contributions upon the theory of types I did not differentiate the thinking and feeling from the introverted and extraverted types, but identified the thinking type with the introverted, and the feeling with the extraverted. But a more complete investigation of the material has shown me that *we must treat the introversion and the extraversion types as superordinated categories to the function types*. Such a division, moreover, entirely corresponds with experience, since, for example, there are, undoubtedly two sorts of feeling-types, the attitude of one being orientated more by his feeling-experience, the other more by the object.


This statement counters the idea that functions have attitude properties as is implied in the "in every respect" argument; which means that the dominant and auxiliary are functionally different in every respect (such as rational vs irrational), but do not necessarily have different attitudes.


----------



## Arsene Lupin (Jun 29, 2014)

Chest said:


> Jung described introverts as having the primary function intorverted and the other 3 extraverted. For extraverts the primary extraverted and the other 3 introverted.
> 
> Myers-briggs put the tertiary in the same direction as the primary.
> 
> ...


And here I ask: if Jung already did the functions and their order, What did Myers?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Chest said:


> what about the tertiary?


Oh sorry about that, I didn't pay enough attention when I answered.
I went and studied what he said about the other stuff.
Regardless, if I can't resolve the question about the aux the tert matters little.
The tert is supposed to mirror the aux as the inf mirrors the dom has always been my take on it.
But if we accept that the attitude of conciousness is superordinate, 
then everything in the unconcious really has no direction.
The answer would then be that the tert is undifferentiated in principle.
At least that is how it seems to me.



> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. 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.


Jung seems to point out here that if the tert is up in conciousness then the person is very primitive.



PaladinX said:


> This is what I thought you were alluding to, but I am confused as to how it relates to the topic.


Oh just one of those days when I don't pay much attention. :laughing:



> Regardless, I'd like to respond with an argument I made in another post:
> 
> 
> 
> > While the logic here is technically valid, the fundamental flaw is that there is an assumption that each function has an attitude property. I believe this assumption to be based on the preceding sections when using terms such as "Introverted Thinking". There is an assumption being drawn that "Introverted Thinking" is the "function" rather than just "Thinking." However, never once does Jung indicate an attachment or property of attitude to a function in this particular section of the book. He always refers to the function as "Thinking" and not "Introverted Thinking."





> The significance of this distinction is such that if the "function" being referred to in the quote is "Thinking," rather than "Introverted Thinking," then the phrase "differs ... in every respect" refers to the auxiliary function as being "Sensation" rather than "Extraverted Sensation," since Introversion and Extraversion are not actually being considered as properties of the Thinking and Sensation functions.


Good point!



> 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.


I would counter that even though the aux have an inferior differentiation, it still has some.
Inferior is not the same as none.
Hence we cannot discount that the half-baked attitude direction that the aux does have
will be included under in every respect different.
Maybe it isn't as strongly clear in direction, and that accounts for Socionics observation that
people have a seemingly strong unconcious understanding of the opposite of their aux.
In other words Se aux as I have will have a leaning towards Si cause it isn't as differentiated as the dom.



> Furthermore, in order to assume that "function" means "Introverted Thinking," for example, then you must assume that Introversion is a property of Thinking. However, Jung also said that the "attitude" was a superordinate category to the functions:
> 
> This statement counters the idea that functions have attitude properties as is implied in the "in every respect" argument; which means that the dominant and auxiliary are functionally different in every respect (such as rational vs irrational), but do not necessarily have different attitudes.


This I have a harder time dealing with.
What does it mean that something is a superordinate category?
Sure I get that every person is set as introverted or extroverted as a goto mode.
Does it really make sense to me that such a being would excist that would have
a totally unconcious take on the opposite attitude?
Maybe so...
Then we would have to ask ourself a lot of hard questions about the orientation of our mind.
Just when the ideas of Socionics started to make sense and all. :-/

I will keep this issue in mind and research the direction I feel this train of thought is leading me.
It does certainly look to me that such a view regardless of the attitude of the aux
would render the attitude of the tert null and void.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hornet said:


> What does it mean that something is a superordinate category?


It's a higher level or overarching category (Red is superodinate of Scarlet, Crimson, etc).

You can even look at the way that Chapter X is laid out:


* *





The Extraverted Type


[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Functions in the Extraverted Attitude
[*=2]Thinking
[*=2]The Extraverted Thinking Type
[*=2]Feeling
[*=2]The Extraverted Feeling Type
[*=2]Sensation
[*=2]The Extraverted Sensation Type
[*=2]Intuition
[*=2]The Extraverted Intuition Type
The Introverted Type



[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Functions in the Introverted Attitude
[*=2]Thinking
[*=2]The Introverted Thinking Type
[*=2]Feeling
[*=2]The Introverted Feeling Type
[*=2]Sensation
[*=2]The Introverted Sensation Type
[*=2]Intuition
[*=2]The Introverted Intuition Type





Rather than:


* *





Thinking



[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Attitudes of the Thinking Function



[*=1]The Extraverted Thinking Type
[*=1]The Introverted Thinking Type
Feeling



[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Attitudes of the Feeling Function



[*=1]The Extraverted Feeling Type
[*=1]The Introverted Feeling Type
Sensation



[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Attitudes of the Sensation Function



[*=2]The Extraverted Sensation Type
[*=2]The Introverted Sensation Type
Intuition



[*=1]The General Attitude of Consciousness
[*=1]The Attitude of the Unconsciousness
[*=1]The Peculiarities of the Basic Psychological Attitudes of the Intuition Function



[*=2]The Extraverted Intuition Type
[*=2]The Introverted Intuition Type


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> It's a higher level or overarching category (Red is superodinate of Scarlet, Crimson, etc).
> 
> You can even look at the way that Chapter X is laid out:


Right thanks.

I've been trying to look at clues that makes this more evident.



> An attitude always has an objective; this can be either con-scious or unconscious, since in the act of apperceiving a new content a prepared combination of contents unfailingly emphasizes those qualities or motives which appear to belong to the subjective content Hence a selection or judgment takes place which excludes the irrelevant. As to what is, and what is not, relevant is decided by the already orientated combination or constellation of contents. Whether the attitude's objective be conscious or unconscious is immaterial to its selective effect, since the choice is already given a priori through the attitude, and therefore follows automatically. *It is useful, however, to distinguish between conscious and unconscious, since the presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, the one conscious and the other unconscious. *Which means to say that the conscious has a preparedness of contents different from that of the unconscious. This duality of attitude is particularly evident in neurosis.


I feel this really underlines it best.
That conciousness have one direction and unconciousness another.

Still there is a lack of definite clarity here
I would love to go trough his books and take extensive notes, but I don't think I have the time... xD
So unless someone have some other thing to add I will have to conclude on the evidence so far that.
The new conclution is.
Dom: Ji -> Aux: Pi
Dom: Pi -> Aux Ji
Dom: Je -> Aux: Pe
Dom: Pe -> Aux Je

Now I'm not really firm on this stance, cause I'm not sure if it matches with what I see in reality.
This might be Jung's stance, but I'm not really sure if I'm willing to subscribe to it as a working model.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

hornet said:


> Now I'm not really firm on this stance, cause I'm not sure if it matches with what I see in reality.
> This might be Jung's stance, but I'm not really sure if I'm willing to subscribe to it as a working model.


Understandable. I maintain at least 3 different configurations in my mind. I see possibilites in Fi+Se, Fi+Si, and Fi+S (where S could flip flop between attitudes. The idea comes from this image).


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> Understandable. I maintain at least 3 different configurations in my mind. I see possibilites in Fi+Se, Fi+Si, and Fi+S (where S could flip flop between attitudes. The idea comes from this image).


I see, that makes a whole lot more sense.
Two aux'es eh?
That eliminates the need for a tert, but do create a slight conflict of interest.
Though I can easily see that conflict of interest in my life.
Still I would have to come down on Jungs side 
and claim that one of them would be a lil more on light side than the other.
Otherwise you cannot explain that one of them has this PoLR quality that Socionics points out.
Personally there is no doubt that Ne is my PoLR.
I would rotate the sensations up some degrees so that intuition 
is mostly unconcious while sensation has some level of differentiation.
You can't draw a perfectly symetrical circle with parts and expect it to match reality head on.
Would also account for the claim in soconics of Si being the second strongest function of ISFP/ESI.

Edit:
Actually I can much more see myself as Fi+Ni if anything.
Concious: Fi+Ni and Unconcious: S+T
Since the unconcious are supposed to have no direction.
Then the I would twist the intuitive side up into the light.
PoLR Ne being then a challenge to my weakly differentiated aux Ni.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

hornet said:


> Actually I can much more see myself as Fi+Ni if anything.
> Concious: Fi+Ni and Unconcious: S+T
> Since the unconcious are supposed to have no direction.


I thought to myself a couple of times: I'm Ni+Fi+Te+Se....am I doing something wrong here? am I confusing feeling with intuition? I know for sure that my sensing is trash but feeling and thinking is fairly balanced, I could get the closest answer and say I'm and INFP, but I don't have Ne and definitely don't have Te as inferior.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Chest said:


> I thought to myself a couple of times: I'm Ni+Fi+Te+Se....am I doing something wrong here? am I confusing feeling with intuition? I know for sure that my sensing is trash but feeling and thinking is fairly balanced, I could get the closest answer and say I'm and INFP, but I don't have Ne and definitely don't have Te as inferior.


Yeah it become this cat and mouse game.
I actually think Se is more prominent than Ni, because Ni is like this, now you see it, now you don't.
Se is always there informing me of whatever is going on.
Ni isn't as dominant, but it isn't far behind, I'd say I have more control over Se than Ni.
I also make more and bigger mistakes when I'm engaging Ni than with Se.
From all the fuzz over the tertiary I'd say that no one can really be sure what is up with it.
You just have to assume a stance that makes sense to you.
I have a workingmodel of this stuff, but right now I've thrown the labels in the discard pile.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Chest said:


> Jung described introverts as having the primary function intorverted and the other 3 extraverted. For extraverts the primary extraverted and the other 3 introverted.
> 
> Myers-briggs put the tertiary in the same direction as the primary.
> 
> ...


The thread located *here* may answer your questions.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> The thread located *here* may answer your questions.


Lol I found this thread and read trough it yesterday and today in a google search on the tert.
It is a good thread and I found the epic complex derail at the end funny. :laughing:


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Also I'm curious as to why so many people say that you're ONE type and that's it, if even Jung himself said that the type changes throughout the life.

check out 28:12


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Chest said:


> Also I'm curious as to why so many people say that you're ONE type and that's it, if even Jung himself said that the type changes throughout the life.


I think it's more likely that the auxiliary can change (like how Jung identified as a Thinking Sensation type in a 1925 lecture, but then in that 1950s interview above, he identified as a Thinking Intuitive type). I think that changing the dominant function will create some kind of identity crisis or something given that Jung stated that "the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego" (CW12) and:



> For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint—his physician becomes his standpoint.


(Psychological Types)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> I think it's more likely that the auxiliary can change (like how Jung identified as a Thinking Sensation type in a 1925 lecture, but then in that 1950s interview above, he identified as a Thinking Intuitive type). I think that changing the dominant function will create some kind of identity crisis or something given that Jung stated that "the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego" (CW12) and:
> 
> 
> 
> (Psychological Types)


Yup if you change the dom you end up quite unstable.
Jung used the example of origen who castrated himself as an example 
of what such a person might do to symbolize the inner shift.
I agree that the aux can move back and forth most easily.
I see no real problem with switching Se to Ne for example as aux 
*if you just torture yourself enough.*
Still the question is if the type would be pure in such cases,
most likely you would just end up as a hollow shadow of what a true type would look like.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Though @PaladinX, I read some article by a Jungian theorist (sorry, don't remember who!), that suggested one can change type and that Jung was actually supportive of this view. By changing type it would of course mean changing dominant. I can see why one would conclude that based on what Jung wrote as I don't think Jung ever suggested that one's dominant is fundamental in that one will never be able to change one's dominant in one's life as the psyche is amorphous; but I have yet to observe it myself and as you point out, to me that would lead to a fundamental crisis of the psyche and be the result of the total breakdown of ego which does not seem like a particularly healthy thing to experience. Egolessness, in the Jungian/analytical psychological sense at least, doesn't seem to be something necessarily desired in that kind of sense. My impression if anything, seems to be that Jung suggests that we need the ego complex in order to actualize the self, in that the ego is a necessary requirement in order for the self to actually be developed in the first place, and that a healthy ego at least, is a fundamental aspect of the realization of self. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here as it was some time ago I read this now.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Chest said:


> Also I'm curious as to why so many people say that you're ONE type and that's it, if even Jung himself said that the type changes throughout the life.
> 
> check out 28:12


Two different systems of thought. MBT indicates that our type is static and cannot change. Jung believes typology is dynamic. He doesn't necessarily indicates it changes from one type to another. Instead based on what I have read, Jung proposes that the number of actual types are limitless since there are so many variables to consider.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

As for myself and how I see type, I think I'll always experience myself slightly stuck in this regard in that I am undoubtly Te-Fi in a Jungian sense. That I prefer Fi over Fe or Ti is in my opinion, not even a question here. I am however also quite sure that I have T as my auxiliary now though one can still make an argument that it would be Fi in the Jungian model (NiFiTeSe), and I have come to this conclusion by being around egoic feelers and seeing how big the difference actually is when one has an ego-preference of thinking vs feeling even if both of us are in this case, actually irrational leads (I'm Ni, she's Se but I think I'm also more differentiated towards Ni than she is Se). 

Based on this I have to say I actually have begun to find Jung's original model questionable in its accuracy because like @hornet, I have yet to actually observe the model to be true. I do clearly not favor Ti-Fe in any shape or form, nor do I experience my thinking function to be flexible enough to just be T in that it's somehow a mix and mash of both Te and Ti. I definitely experience myself being aligned towards Te when I logically reason though people for some reason tend to often think it looks like Ti. I think the fact that I do not, however, actually feel I experientially understand how it feels like to align my ego towards Ti rather than Te suggests that Ti is just not something that I do. 

I could however perhaps make a rational argument for my inferior just being S as I seem as equally oblivious to Se as I do Si, but I feel that Se lies closer to my conscious ego than Si. One can see a rational basis for Beebe's model being accurate here. With that said, there's also some weight to Jung's original idea of Ni often being more coupled with feeling in that I think I am as a whole, more inclined to utilize Fi when I do Ni. I do not think I have ever utilized Ti with Ni.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

-Ephemeral- said:


> As for myself and how I see type, I think I'll always experience myself slightly stuck in this regard in that I am undoubtly Te-Fi in a Jungian sense. That I prefer Fi over Fe or Ti is in my opinion, not even a question here. I am however also quite sure that I have T as my auxiliary now though one can still make an argument that it would be Fi in the Jungian model (NiFiTeSe), and I have come to this conclusion by being around egoic feelers and seeing how big the difference actually is when one has an ego-preference of thinking vs feeling even if both of us are in this case, actually irrational leads (I'm Ni, she's Se but I think I'm also more differentiated towards Ni than she is Se).
> 
> Based on this I have to say I actually have begun to find Jung's original model questionable in its accuracy because like @_hornet_, I have yet to actually observe the model to be true. I do clearly not favor Ti-Fe in any shape or form, nor do I experience my thinking function to be flexible enough to just be T in that it's somehow a mix and mash of both Te and Ti. I definitely experience myself being aligned towards Te when I logically reason though people for some reason tend to often think it looks like Ti. I think the fact that I do not, however, actually feel I experientially understand how it feels like to align my ego towards Ti rather than Te suggests that Ti is just not something that I do.
> 
> I could however perhaps make a rational argument for my inferior just being S as I seem as equally oblivious to Se as I do Si, but I feel that Se lies closer to my conscious ego than Si. One can see a rational basis for Beebe's model being accurate here. With that said, there's also some weight to Jung's original idea of Ni often being more coupled with feeling in that I think I am as a whole, more inclined to utilize Fi when I do Ni. I do not think I have ever utilized Ti with Ni.


If Jung really was Ti-Ni and first reported Ti-Se it reminds me very much about my own situation.
Ni has really grown into it's own now in my thirties compared to how it was earlier.
Still it misfires a lot yet, Jung being much older when that interview was given,
must have really pushed his Ni to the limit in an effort to see further.
I know that my tert Ni can conjoure up all sorts of mystic things that have no connection to what
we ordinarily term reality.
Jungs writings correlate a lot with how I myself approach mystic themes, except that he seemed fond
of Ti'ing everything apart.
I remembered being like WTF the first time I read PsyTypes.
He said stuff like "*and therefore X, Y, Z*"
I was like, "*yeah cool that makes totally sense!*"
But then in the next sentence he would be like, "*BUT we must be careful to not forget A, B, C and bla bla bla*"
Me thinking. "*For real? Seems like my Dad(ISTP) talking about C++ programming. XD*"

Anyway my point is that by observing myself closely and remembering how I attacked issues,
I can see how I switch back and forth between Se and Ni.
Using Ni blocks out Se and as soon as I let it go Se come crashing in.
Se will not be denied.
Ni I can deny for longer periods of time, but when a lot of stuff have happened, 
I often go into a Fi/Ni trance for a while.
Fi wants to pick apart what everything means with the aid of Ni.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint—his physician becomes his standpoint.
> 
> (Psychological Types)


why do I feel like he was talking about himself here?:tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> If Jung really was Ti-Ni and first reported Ti-Se it reminds me very much about my own situation.
> Ni has really grown into it's own now in my thirties compared to how it was earlier.
> Still it misfires a lot yet, Jung being much older when that interview was given,
> must have really pushed his Ni to the limit in an effort to see further.
> ...


What made me realize that I am an irrational type was that I realized that I often end up in situations where I express both somewhat conscious thinking and feeling and feeling like I cannot align my ego (decide which function I prefer) with either of them. Logically speaking I could do X but feeling-wise I want Y and I cannot choose. Instead I end up in a situation more akin to "wait and see how things unfold" because I cannot decide and I hope I will be able to make a rational conclusion with more data available. I think this also fits with how Ni types are described as passive both by Jung and in socionics, rather spending time on perfecting their internal visions of reality than taking action in the present and shaping the present to fit the vision that you see in Se doms.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

-Ephemeral- said:


> What made me realize that I am an irrational type was that I realized that I often end up in situations where I express both somewhat conscious thinking and feeling and feeling like I cannot align my ego (decide which function I prefer) with either of them. Logically speaking I could do X but feeling-wise I want Y and I cannot choose. Instead I end up in a situation more akin to "wait and see how things unfold" because I cannot decide and I hope I will be able to make a rational conclusion with more data available. I think this also fits with how Ni types are described as passive both by Jung and in socionics, rather spending time on perfecting their internal visions of reality than taking action in the present and shaping the present to fit the vision that you see in Se doms.


Yeah my INFJ cousin struggle with the same issue.
Can't decide what to do with the drama she creates in her life with Fe.
Then she want my advice and drags me into this beneficary thing... xD


----------



## Metal Fish (Jan 3, 2014)

hmm, i'm quite sure i have a distinct lack of Se. That's one of the ways i know i'm an INTP.


----------

