# Jungian types are not personality types



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> which makes absolutely no sense unless you work backwards with confirmation bias and not forwards from a principled framework


Stop with these ready-made formulas, to give yourself a pseudo scientist varnish. I have eyes to see, ears to hear, it's enough to validate the Grand stack, wich is the most widely observable. I do not observe any TJ who uses even (Fe). The same for TP and (Fi). Whether on this forum or in reality. Compare TJ with TPs, TPs have an emotional style, much more expressive or accommodating. There is no debate.

Jung contradicted himself. It's just obvious. Tertiary (Ti). Everyone is quarreling to know what truth he meant ... well the fact is that he himself did not know exactly. It is for this reason that he remained largely silent about the MBTI ...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Maybe you'd benefit from some kind of therapy to find ways to connect with people and develop patience and other social skills, or just put yourself out there on your own. Luck is an important factor for sure, finding someone with whom you can actually get along with. Maybe now that you know you are a judger it will help you being less of that if you put some effort on it.
> Which reminds, me Jung's work on type was more focused on individuation and overcoming such personality obstacles than identifying with a label so maybe it would help you to look into that more. Working on your inconsistencies is a very important thing for long term health, mind and body, don't give up on that.


I am doing that already, it's just that after a while I'm generally exhausted of people and after that limit I can no longer concentrate on what is being said. Words simply don't process anymore and I have a feeling of becoming disconnected. There's too much to process and care about. But, it's okay. I don't think that I ever was any different. I'm also not sure what being judger can help there (we were talking about seele and persona)



I know that this is hella random, but I recently finished watching Neon Genesis Evangelion. Now that I think about it, everything in it is weirdly similar to Jung's works. It feels like the whole anime was made based on that book. I have read, that director wasn't very mentally sound, when this anime was made, so it would only make sense if he found Jung's book.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Casus Belli said:


> Stop with these ready-made formulas, to give yourself a pseudo scientist varnish. I have eyes to see, ears to hear, it's enough to validate this Grand stack, wich is the most widely observable. I do not observe any TJ who uses even (Fe). The same for TP and (Fi). Whether on this forum or in reality. Compare them with ISTPs, whose emotional style is much more expressive or accommodating. There is no debate.
> 
> Jung contradicted himself. It's just obvious. Tertiary (Ti). Everyone is quarreling to know what truth he meant ... well the fact is that he himself did not know exactly. It is for this reason that he remained largely silent about the MBTI ...


well I have seen them all  
TJs typically protect their feelings from change, like FJs who try to harmonize their environment to avoid cognitive dissonance and doorslam disturbances. The reason FJs can be warm and accommodating is because they are FEELERS and often prioritze F over J, basically using both "Fi" and "Fe", many times more than any TJ or maybe even TP depending on individual preference.
TPs are typically genuinely warm and accommodating like FPs and are open to external influence on how they feel, because they go with the flow and are adaptable. 

The contradictions of the function stack are so painfully obvious, how can anyone be a "Fi" dom and ADAPTABLE when "introversion" is by definition NOT adaptable? it only works if we retrofit the definitions by working backwards, typing people through the 4 letters then adding the grant stack arbitrarily which is exactly what this system does. Also, btw the grant stack is not only NOT widely observable but research shows it completely comes apart when tested, you can read more about it in the article I linked to The Red Spirit. Your approach to this is incredibly ironic.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> it does talk about MBTI, if you follow the context of this paragraph and the whole article lol, what else could it refer to??


I "followed the context of this paragraph and the whole article lol" — and if the article's author was in a position to quote a _single substantive criticism_ by Jung of the MBTI, why didn't he do it? And why did the author make fuzzy references to "the American interpretation of his theory," and "the popular interpretation of his theory," rather than the MBTI?

Put yourself in Steve Myers' shoes, Red Panda. As the "whole article" makes clear, he's got an axe to grind with the MBTI, and he wants us to believe that Jung had negative things to say about the MBTI.

And now imagine that Steve Myers, as he's writing that article, has in front of him one or more Jung statements (in 1957, or from any other time) that specifically describe one or more aspects of the MBTI that he objects to — or even a general statement along the lines of _the MBTI sucks._

If you're Steve Myers, and you've got _any_ Jung statements along those lines, why not quote them?

But instead, he... did what he did. He wrote an article that asserted — based on "evidence" that didn't include any persuasive evidence — that the Jung letter praising Myers was produced by his secretary without his input.

And he included a paragraph that referred to:

(1) A "God preserve me from my friends" answer by Jung from an interview where Steve Myers _doesn't quote the question_, and characterizes the question as being about "the American interpretation of his typological theory."

(2) A Jung "response to a PhD student" who requested input from Jung on that student's specific (MBTI-related) research. Steve Myers tells us that Jung told the student that his "type of work" "did not align with the content of his book." Was what "did not align" something about that student's research? Again, if what Jung told the PhD student included criticism of the MBTI, wouldn't you quote that criticism if you were Steve Myers, and you were hell-bent on establishing that Jung's letter praising the MBTI must have been written by his secretary behind his back? Of course you would. And Steve Myers didn't.

(3) A final, utterly vague and unsourced reference to "various objections to the popular interpretation of his typological theory from the early 1930s to the late 1950s." Were they statements where Jung referred to the MBTI, and offered specific "objections"? He doesn't quote any, he doesn't describe any, and he doesn't cite any.​
I'd respectfully suggest that you consider upping your standards when it comes to sources.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> The contradictions of the function stack are so painfully obvious, how can anyone be a "Fi" dom and ADAPTABLE when "introversion" is by definition NOT adaptable?


Such a waste. I wrote above than Jung contradicted himself at many time because (Ti) tertiary... It's so hard to reading me?

He said about the _introverted feeling type_: _Their outward demeanour is *harmonious *and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a *sympathetic* parallelism, which has *no desire to affect others*, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way._

If this is not the definition of "adaptability", then what else ...

That'all my little panda.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> He said about the _introverted feeling type_: _Their outward demeanour is *harmonious *and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a *sympathetic* parallelism, which has *no desire to affect others*, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way._
> 
> If this is not the definition of "adaptability", then what else ...


Um, many things? Anyway, Jung also wrote that Fi types do appear cold to others. Also in his description of soul, he pretty much stated that people often have one attitude for social interactions and then they often are completely different by themselves.

Also, what typology has to do with adaptability? It's literally a skill. Personality type can only try to explain how adaptable/unadaptable person could approach this action and perhaps behave.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Um, many things? Anyway, Jung also wrote that Fi types do appear cold to others. Also in his description of soul, he pretty much stated that people often have one attitude for social interactions and then they often are completely different by themselves.
> 
> Also, what typology has to do with adaptability? It's literally a skill. Personality type can only try to explain how adaptable/unadaptable person could approach this action and perhaps behave.


So tiring ...

In short, you still have nothing to say, except you adapt to each post that someone writes to launch a multitude of approximations based on a global scheme of passive negation. And as a strong (P), you can feed on that for years.

Your statements of Jung are useless. Everyone uses thought more or less. So everyone adapts their behavior more or less. That's simple.

Jung also says about your type: _The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path_

As far as you're concerned, the MBTI is the object on your way. It's your problem. So forget it.



The red spirit said:


> Also, what typology has to do with adaptability? It's literally a skill. Personality type can only try to explain how adaptable/unadaptable person could approach this action and perhaps behave.


Say this to Little Panda.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Casus Belli said:


> Such a waste. I wrote above than Jung contradicted himself at many time because (Ti) tertiary... It's so hard to reading me?
> 
> He said about the _introverted feeling type_: _Their outward demeanour is *harmonious *and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a *sympathetic* parallelism, which has *no desire to affect others*, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way._
> 
> ...


This harmonious demeanor is exactly typical of FJs, until you do something they don't like, which he explains how it changes, in the following sentences from what you quoted. Adaptability in the way of extraversion is to change things at the core, not just appear warm to others while resisting change and their influence.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Casus Belli said:


> Such a waste. I wrote above than Jung contradicted himself at many time because (Ti) tertiary... It's so hard to reading me?
> 
> He said about the _introverted feeling type_: _Their outward demeanour is *harmonious *and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a *sympathetic* parallelism, which has *no desire to affect others*, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way._
> 
> ...


This harmonious demeanor is exactly typical of FJs, until you do something they don't like, which he explains how it changes, in the following sentences from what you quoted. Adaptability in the way of extraversion is to change things at the core, not just appear warm to others while resisting change and their influence.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> In short, you still have nothing to say, except you adapt to each post that someone writes to launch a multitude of approximations based on a global scheme of passive negation. And as a strong (P), you can feed on that for years.


Passive negation or just basically what typology doesn't decide? You have your opinion here. Also from where does P type arise here?




Casus Belli said:


> Your statements of Jung are useless. Everyone uses thought more or less. So everyone adapts their behavior more or less. That's simple.


So why are you specifically picking up Fi type and saying otherwise? For some reason, it's not so simple for you.




Casus Belli said:


> Jung also says about your type: _The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path_


Whatever type it is, it's not my own. There's no such thing as my own type (and this thread was about that and my thoughts about if anyone actually has one until you and reckful derailed it to cause unnecessary ruckus) when talking about Jungian typology or MBTI.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> I "followed the context of this paragraph and the whole article lol" — and if the article's author was in a position to quote a _single substantive criticism_ by Jung of the MBTI, why didn't he do it? And why did the author make fuzzy references to "the American interpretation of his theory," and "the popular interpretation of his theory," rather than the MBTI?
> 
> Put yourself in Steve Myers' shoes, red panda. As the "whole article" makes clear, he's got an axe to grind with the MBTI, and he wants us to believe that Jung had negative things to say about the MBTI.
> 
> ...


Not everyone feels the need to have incredibly detailed quotes to prove their points, when they can just provide the gist and a list below. It is your expectations and mode of thinking for accepting or rejecting something. Maybe he is not that "hell-bent" on proving something, but rather to just give his opinion, knowledge and the source materials for anyone else interested to read. He cites everything in the end of the article. 

I think he simply called it the "american interpretation of his typological theory" for literary variance and not for any other reason. What other system could it be?

this is the letter to the phd student:



> Dear Mr. von Fange, 8 April 1960
> I have read your letter with great interest and I congratulate you
> on your attempt at further investigation in the field of typology.1
> It is a line of thought which I have not pursued any further, since my original tendency was not the classification of normal or pathological
> ...


I think you expect that Jung should have made some detailed and bold statement & analytical criticism against MBTI to match your idea of what being opposed would look like but that's just your expectation and not necessarily how Jung felt and wanted to act.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> This harmonious demeanor is exactly typical of FJs, until you do something they don't like, which he explains how it changes, in the following sentences from what you quoted.


No, I just quoted Jung #27, it's the same for (Fi). Both can react negatively but for different reasons.

The MBTI is currently and officially based on the first two functions. That's determines the last letter (J-P). So (Fi-Se) or (Fi-Ne) are necessarily more adaptable than (Fe-Si) or (Fe-Ni). FJs are adaptable only on the surface. And with that, everyone is ok.

So the debate is closed.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> So why are you specifically picking up Fi type and saying otherwise?


You are wrong, or you lie in the worst case.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> You are wrong, or you lie in the worst case.


Dude, nobody understands you anymore. Your thoughts have massive jumps. In this specific post it's unclear about what I am wrong or perhaps am lying.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Dude, nobody understands you anymore. Your thoughts have massive jumps. In this specific post it's unclear about what I am wrong or perhaps am lying.


According to Jung, the _introverted feeling_ and _extraverted thinking_ are linked, and vice versa. One does not work without the other. Same thing for (Ti-Fe) or (Fe-Ti)... So necessarily, you use the thought. There are INFJ engineers and ENFP architects as well as INTJ artists. The _introverted feeling_ already aims harmony ... What more do you want ...

From my point of view, you simply do not understand the theory.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> According to Jung, the _introverted feeling_ and _extraverted thinking_ are linked, and vice versa. One does not work without the other. Same thing for (Ti-Fe) or (Fe-Ti)... So necessarily, you use the thought. There are INFJ engineers and ENFP architects as well as INTJ artists. The _introverted feeling_ already aims harmony ... What more do you want ...
> 
> From my point of view, you simply do not understand the theory.


From my point of view this is coming out of nowhere. 

I will disagree with you and tell you to look at the original post of this thread. You can find your answer there. Anyway, this is coming out of nowhere. I never specifically mentioned interconnection of functions in this thread. Either way, there's nothing to prove that it works as you say. And wasn't reckful there saying that Grant stack wasn't scientifically sound? That includes these function pairs.


----------



## melloi (Jul 14, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> According to Jung, the _introverted feeling_ and _extraverted thinking_ are linked, and vice versa. One does not work without the other. Same thing for (Ti-Fe) or (Fe-Ti)


A good way I came up with to justify the links was through judging and perceiving axis.

Axis of judging:
T-------------F

Axis of perceiving:
N------------S

Axis work like sticks, you can't have 1 end without the other. Or as coins, in which case you can't have tails without heads, or heads without tails.

Every healthily functioning human being has a judging and perceiving axis, and both of them must provide input for both introverted and extroverted processes that the mind experiences.

Hence, if the judging axis is T/F, and needs to have the ability to judge both introverted and extroverted processes, then you have no choice but to end up with either a Te/Fi axis or a Ti/Fe axis, similarly as you will always have a coin that has a tails and heads side.
A coin is a single object, tails and heads are just its facets, hence the T/F axis is likewise *a single* object, with Ti and Fe (or Te and Fi) being its facets.
If you have a mind that is only able to judge extroverted processes, or only judge introverted processes, then that's a broken mind. (same for perceiving)


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Either way, there's nothing to prove that it works as you say. And wasn't reckful there saying that Grant stack wasn't scientifically sound? That includes these function pairs.


Yes I have noticed your tactics that you think subtle. You isolate an element in an attempt to discredit a complex set.

The Royal Air Force is now using the MBTI. RAF has demonstrated improvement results with the MBTI. It is an additional psychometric data

Do not play more seriously than you really are. And the fact is that the first two functions are currently recognized as valid.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> It doesn't matter if you like stacking theories or not, but idea everywhere is the same. To show that people have many facets and how complex personality of anyone is. Jung's theory calls itself being a personality theory, but it actually never taps into human personality. This problem becomes very apparent in his book's type descriptions, where each main function type is described. Jung wrote, that they are somewhat overblown. That's okay. They are there to mostly show us the essence of each function, but sadly in his later explanation of personality structure his theories really fall short. He pretty much writes that people mostly have one main function and others supplement each other and main one. Makes sense, after all many processes that make up our cognition are interconnected, but he was mostly describing human cognition. Does that make a personality? No, not really.
> 
> We all have cognition and operate in many cases really similarly to anyone else. What sets one human apart from other are characteristics. People with multiple personality disorder don't have different cognition, they only have sets of characteristics different. They have all their function working, regardless of preferences. One can be a master of any of their cognitive function and have it differentiated as much as they want. The idea was, that there are preferences for what function to use and that is pretty much set in stone. Is that true? No. Depending on situation human can change their behavior radically and preference of cognitive elements too, therefore destroying the theory of type.
> 
> ...


Genotype vs phenotype.

Normalized distribution.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> Yes I have noticed your tactics that you think subtle. You isolate an element in an attempt to discredit a complex set.
> 
> The Royal Air Force is now using the MBTI. RAF has demonstrated improvement results with the MBTI. It is an additional psychometric data
> 
> Do not play more seriously than you really are. And the fact is that the first two functions are currently recognized as valid.


The Royal Air Force is gay.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Dude, nobody understands you anymore. Your thoughts have massive jumps. In this specific post it's unclear about what I am wrong or perhaps am lying.



Schizophrenia is a helluva drug.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> this is the letter to the phd student:


Thanks for the quote!

You'll note that Jung doesn't actually point to anything wrong with the MBTI, and tells the student, "I admit that your statistical line of research is perfectly legitimate but it certainly does not coincide with the purpose of my book."

But Steve Myers held that letter out as one of two cited examples where, according to him, Jung's "disapproval" of the MBTI was sufficiently clear that it was good "evidence" that Jung couldn't have written (or read) that letter to Isabel Myers that _Jung signed_ (not even Steve Myers disputes that) and that praised Isabel Myers' work.

And Steve Myers described that letter as Jung saying that MBTI research "did not align with the content of his book" — and without having more of what Jung wrote in the letter, that's a misleading characterization that suggests that Jung was pointing to _substantive inconsistencies_ with his theory where he thought Isabel Myers was wrong, rather than the differences in "purpose" (and emphasis) that Jung described in his letter (while acknowledging that Myers' approach/emphasis was "perfectly legitimate").

As a final note, the last sentence of that paragraph of Steve Myers' article is "Jung made various objections to the popular interpretation of his typological theory from the early 1930s to the late 1950s" — and you apparently made that the basis of your assertion that Jung "fought for 20 years to correct the misunderstandings of MBTI."

But Jung died in 1961, and the MBTI was all but unknown (much less "popular") until the 1950s, so any objections Jung ever voiced to "popular interpretations of his typological theory" in the "early 1930s," and through the 1940s, wouldn't have been objections to the MBTI.

In any case, do you have any source you can point us to with even one statement by Jung, from any year, that shows him "fighting" to "correct" MBTI "misunderstandings"?


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

reckful said:


> Thanks for the quote!
> 
> You'll note that Jung doesn't actually point to anything wrong with the MBTI, and tells the student, "I admit that your statistical line of research is perfectly legitimate but it certainly does not coincide with the purpose of my book."
> 
> ...


Why didn’t he just measure stuff? I keep hearing people referencing theories, but theories are that which has already been measured multiple times by multiple sources. Truth be told, Jung didn’t even develop a hypothesis, let alone a theory. His works on personality were more a conjecture of a plausible hypothesis than anything close to a theory. He placed one thing as being first, and another as being second. If one were to treat this as law, one would simply pick a first and second most accurate function from his descriptions in the book. And then what would you have? Apples and oranges, my friend.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> Yes I have noticed your tactics that you think subtle. You isolate an element in an attempt to discredit a complex set.
> 
> The Royal Air Force is now using the MBTI. RAF has demonstrated improvement results with the MBTI. It is an additional psychometric data
> 
> Do not play more seriously than you really are. And the fact is that the first two functions are currently recognized as valid.


Stop imagining me doing something so shady, this is just a forum argument. If I was so shady and shit, then I would have my ass banned from perC. Apparently, I don't.

Your posted article has no real value. There is no research done, if it's done results aren't shown. There is only possibility of RAFC failure mentioned and how much it would cost. Other than that nothing substantial. Also look at who is posting such articles, MBTI company. Their results cannot be trusted as it is in their interest to sell their products. I don't give a shit about sales. Show some independent and honest research done with actual percentages and other data. I did that in the past and there really weren't anything, meanwhile for actually good tools like MMPI-2 or 16PF, there are some positive results.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

DavidGH said:


> The Royal Air Force is gay.


 'merica!

And what about the pink saddle of your horse...


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> 'merica!
> 
> And what about the pink saddle of your horse...


I’m not a cowboy.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Stop imagining me doing something so shady, this is just a forum argument. If I was so shady and shit, then I would have my ass banned from perC. Apparently, I don't.
> 
> Your posted article has no real value. There is no research done, if it's done results aren't shown. There is only possibility of RAFC failure mentioned and how much it would cost. Other than that nothing substantial. Also look at who is posting such articles, MBTI company. Their results cannot be trusted as it is in their interest to sell their products. I don't give a shit about sales. Show some independent and honest research done with actual percentages and other data. I did that in the past and there really weren't anything, meanwhile for actually good tools like MMPI-2 or 16PF, there are some positive results.


This joke ... You do not want to be suspected of intellectual dishonesty when in your next sentence you question the MBTI honesty...

So that's your second step. The systematic negation.

When a judge reads an expert report, he is generally satisfied with the conclusion without going into more details. The MBTI mention a Squadron Leader who says the results are improved since their use the MBTI. That's enough for me and every honest person.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> When a judge reads an expert report, he is generally satisfied with the conclusion. The MBTI mention a Squadron Leader who says the results are improved since their use the MBTI. That's enough for me


You miss the point, in perC judge is community. There should be only numerical data shown, just raw research itself. All those middlemans are useless here. It may be enough for you and that's okay, but when you have to prove your point, nothing less than purely factual information should be there. It could have been that recruits were better this time and therefore leader is happy. It may have been that article is fake. Investigation size is unknown too. Way too many unknown factors, that could have skewed results. Also what the expert was there? That is also not clear.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> 'merica!
> 
> And what about the pink saddle of your horse...


I’m not a cowboy.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> You miss the point, in perC judge is community. There should be only numerical data shown, just raw research itself.


What would be your legitimacy... But honestly, even with these data, you will dispute them. This will be the third step: the ultimate negation.

In addition you confuse factual and raw data. These are factual data. MBTI is used (at least) since 2012 by RAF. It is easy, however, to find this fact. So your reasoning based on a unique case does not hold. I start to see your _extraverted intuition_ that blame someone or something without any evidence simply because you think it's possible.

The reality is that you are not really interested in the facts.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

DavidGH said:


> I’m not a cowboy.


There is an echo here. #46 #49


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> In addition you confuse factual and raw data. These are factual data.


There are no numbers, therefore it's not. Also hard data is conveniently not said. For example, name and surname of that "expert" are unknown, so we can't even check if he has any background in psychology or at least other social science. 



Casus Belli said:


> MBTI is used (at least) since 2012 by RAF. It is easy, however, to find this fact. So your reasoning based on a unique case does not hold.


So why does it matter since when it is used? I'm talking about results nor examination sample size. Date is also meaningful to known, but usually not as crucial to know.

Look at how more scientific text looks like:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_tool_and_window_into_intuitive_psychology

And this is how actual research looks like:
http://typeandculture.org/Pages/C_papers06/BeukeChineseRelib.doc.pdf

Your article looks nothing like that and most importantly doesn't have similar information. It's purely marketing material without any scientific substance.



Casus Belli said:


> I start to see your _extraverted intuition_ that blame someone or something without any evidence simply because you think it's possible.


If anything it would be some sort of introverted perceptive function (because they are subjective) and some sort of judgement function. Either way, unsolicited typing isn't acceptable behaviour in perC. 




Casus Belli said:


> The reality is that you are not really interested in the facts.


Oh, the irony XD


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> There is an echo here. #46 #49


Refresh double posts.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> There are no numbers, therefore it's not.


The _factual_ is not specifically related to numbers. Exemple: _Red Spirit, emotionally weakened, invokes the rules_, it's a fact.

Then what are your backgrounds in psychology or at least in other social science? Because it is the minimum to claim criticize a psychlogical study. You see, this is not my case, so I do not pretend of what I'm not qualified.




The red spirit said:


> If anything it would be some sort of introverted perceptive function (because they are subjective) and some sort of judgement function.


Indeed. But you generate many ideas in front of an object: the MBTI website. It's (Ne). You do not confirm your ideas. So it's not yet subjective.


----------



## almonde366 (Feb 19, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> It doesn't matter if you like stacking theories or not, but idea everywhere is the same. To show that people have many facets and how complex personality of anyone is. Jung's theory calls itself being a personality theory, but it actually never taps into human personality. This problem becomes very apparent in his book's type descriptions, where each main function type is described. Jung wrote, that they are somewhat overblown. That's okay. They are there to mostly show us the essence of each function, but sadly in his later explanation of personality structure his theories really fall short. He pretty much writes that people mostly have one main function and others supplement each other and main one. Makes sense, after all many processes that make up our cognition are interconnected, but he was mostly describing human cognition. Does that make a personality? No, not really.
> 
> We all have cognition and operate in many cases really similarly to anyone else. What sets one human apart from other are characteristics. People with multiple personality disorder don't have different cognition, they only have sets of characteristics different. They have all their function working, regardless of preferences. One can be a master of any of their cognitive function and have it differentiated as much as they want. The idea was, that there are preferences for what function to use and that is pretty much set in stone. Is that true? No. Depending on situation human can change their behavior radically and preference of cognitive elements too, therefore destroying the theory of type.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what is being fought over and who's on whose side, so I'll just chime in

I think the advantage of the functional stack compared to just a bunch of traits is: the stack accounts for both your strengths and weaknesses, your preference and the less preferred, so you can improve yourself without losing focus.

For example I always have the tendency to stay in my own world without seeking outside feedback. Everyone can probably agree that the healthy move for me is to go out and get some feedback/interactions, but then I'd encounter these questions: 1. in what area should I go get that interaction? 2. how outgoing (giving up of self) should I be? 3. what is the purpose/goal for this process (given that I have little motivation to go out)?

Functional stack roughly balances introversion/extraversion, thinking/feeling, and sensing/intuition. So if I observed that I tend to stay in my inner fantasy world (Ti-Ni loop), then the reasonable next step is to get some realistic, concrete feedback from the outside world (Se).

The T/F balance is trickier since Te process makes more sense to me than Fe process, but since I know Ti is my focus/strength, and Te goals (efficient use of resource to maintain an external system) directly contradict Ti goals (complete understanding of systems at the cost of overspending resources), I know using Fe would better suit me. I have little motivation to develop Fe, but my need for outside feedback (Se) can drive my Fe development.

Of course in reality the process is far less neat than what I described, and I had to go through lots of trial and errors. But as long as I use the stack as a guideline or map (not as shortcut or stereotype), it will be very helpful to me.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Well, you're talking about yourself in different post, so I'm not out of rules. Think about the fact that if you have a _personality disorder_, it can be very difficult to have an objective view about you... This is not related to the MBTI.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> The _factual_ is not specifically related to numbers. Exemple: _Red Spirit, emotionally weakened, invokes the rules_, it's a fact.
> 
> Then what are your backgrounds in psychology or at least in other social science? Because it is the minimum to claim criticize a psychlogical study. You see, this is not my case, so I do not pretend of what I'm not qualified.


I said that expert should have such background. Anyone with understanding of how experiments should be done is fine for result analysis. 




Casus Belli said:


> Indeed. But you generate many ideas in front of an object: the MBTI website. It's (Ne). You do not confirm your ideas. So it's not yet subjective.


Keep your imagination for yourself


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Casus Belli said:


> No, I just quoted Jung #27, it's the same for (Fi). Both can react negatively but for different reasons.
> 
> The MBTI is currently and officially based on the first two functions. That's determines the last letter (J-P). So (Fi-Se) or (Fi-Ne) are necessarily more adaptable than (Fe-Si) or (Fe-Ni). FJs are adaptable only on the surface. And with that, everyone is ok.
> 
> So the debate is closed.


The behavior of i.e. FiNe as someone who takes in broad information then turns inwards to change and adapt is what Jung called Extraversion. The behavior of FeNi that has a self-reinforcing perception of building up and instead of turning inwards to change, they turn outwards to change the world instead, is what Jung called Introversion. It's that simple. The 8 function system had to change the definitions of E/I and retrofit them to those observations because its system of changing attitudes did not fit reality. The difference is more apparent when the person is found in a conflicting environment and have to deal with cognitive dissonance between the object and themselves, hence the E/I are opposite adaptation attitudes.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

reckful said:


> Thanks for the quote!
> 
> You'll note that Jung doesn't actually point to anything wrong with the MBTI, and tells the student, "I admit that your statistical line of research is perfectly legitimate but it certainly does not coincide with the purpose of my book."
> 
> ...



I was expecting you'd focus on that particular paragraph, but the rest of his letter does not support that he didn't think anything was wrong with it, it just shows he was rather diplomatic. 

Because let's just reverse it a bit, if Jung was positive about MBTI, _why not be a more active participant in its making?_ Instead he says he is skeptical.. and he complains that people misunderstand his work. 

I think it was both his character and more importantly the time, if Jung was a man of today he'd probably act a lot more 'aggressively', but given how slow information spread at the time he probably underestimated or preferred to work on his own theory to combat it. That's because his approach to typology was literally the opposite of MBTI, he considered having a type a *problem*, while MBTI was using it as positive thing. 

I don't think he meant popular at the time, but as I said was just another way to write "MBTI" without repeating himself, you know, like they teach as at high school. 

I consider that letter to be a fine example of him voicing his objections, it may not fit your personal criteria but perhaps to Jung it was important. I don't see why it must be how he must have fought the way *you* want to expect it. Because the big question is still, if he was not against it then why not participate, etc.

I haven't checked the other citations he has in the article, but I also remember seeing some quotes in the past from complaints so I expect I'll find them eventually.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

The red spirit said:


> I am doing that already, it's just that after a while I'm generally exhausted of people and after that limit I can no longer concentrate on what is being said. Words simply don't process anymore and I have a feeling of becoming disconnected. There's too much to process and care about. But, it's okay. I don't think that I ever was any different. I'm also not sure what being judger can help there (we were talking about seele and persona)
> 
> 
> 
> I know that this is hella random, but I recently finished watching Neon Genesis Evangelion. Now that I think about it, everything in it is weirdly similar to Jung's works. It feels like the whole anime was made based on that book. I have read, that director wasn't very mentally sound, when this anime was made, so it would only make sense if he found Jung's book.


I mean that knowing you have a focus on judging can potentially help you loosen it up, identifying the problem is the first step to solving it. 

Been years since I saw NGE don't really remember anything, but I wouldn't be surprised because references to Jung's work have been made many times in various media, there's a game called Persona for example.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Been years since I saw NGE don't really remember anything, but I wouldn't be surprised because references to Jung's work have been made many times in various media, there's a game called Persona for example.


In media maybe, but it's weird to see that in anime. Why is that? Because in japan psychiatry is stigmatized. Maybe it's popular, but undervalued. NGE was definitely the most psychologically themed work. Maybe some others also took something from psychology textbooks, those could be Perfect Blue, Colorful or Serial Experiments Lain. But their themes show that only some elements may have been taken from psychology books and it's possible that it happened not intentionally, meanwhile NGE feels like it was intentional psychology text based work. If you still have it, maybe you should re-watch it.


* *





The whole instrumentality project reminds me a lot about some kind of therapy. Character Seele is an obvious use of Jung's terminology. Shit ton of symbolism of Shinji and his comeback to womb looks like some sort of Jungian stuff too (or schizoid stuff, similar symbolism was used in literature to describe schizoids). Religiousness all over place was also Jung's interest. At the end, when it is shown that scenario was imagined or "instrumentalized" shows how stuck in fantasies Shinji actually was. During movie The End of Evangelion, it is better explained how destructive Shinji was and what consequences his separation from reality had. Evangelions themselves have soul and are different kind of living beings, possibly it's symbolism of legendary characters, which were talked a lot in Jung's type book's first half. The protagonist itself isn't mentally sound and it's possible that he is portrayed as schizoid or schizotypal. Other characters than protagonist before their breakdown most likely symbolized Shinji's voice of conscience. Over time they all deteriorate, showing increasing Shinji's internal conflicts. In original ending, Shinji at the end of story experiences his biggest break down and gains some hope to change his life, meanwhile alternative ending (which is considered the real ending) shows that Shinji fucked up badly and his damage is irrecoverable. Basically this whole anime is about self discovery (Nerv's secrets being revealed one by one).


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> The behavior of i.e. FiNe as someone who takes in broad information then turns inwards to change and adapt is what Jung called Extraversion. The behavior of FeNi that has a self-reinforcing perception of building up and instead of turning inwards to change, they turn outwards to change the world instead, is what Jung called Introversion. It's that simple.


It is obvious you are confusing between the attitude of function and the attitude of global personality. ISFP are very adaptable in sensory and INFP very adaptable in creativity. Their primary function is relatively neutral because first described as _harmonious_ and a bit _distant_. The _extraverted feeling_ is hot in appearance, but rigid in reality. Again everyone here is agree to describe the EFJ as your best ally or your biggest problem by their rigidity.


Take your little snout out of Jung's writings and start to seriously study the MBTI.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> Again everyone here is agree to describe the EFJ as your best ally or your biggest problem by their rigidity.


That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Casus Belli said:


> It is obvious you are confusing between the attitude of function and the attitude of global personality. ISFP are very adaptable in sensory and INFP very adaptable in creativity. Their primary function is relatively neutral because first described as _harmonious_ and a bit _distant_. The _extraverted feeling_ is hot in appearance, but rigid in reality. Again everyone here is agree to describe the EFJ as your best ally or your biggest problem by their rigidity.
> 
> 
> Take your little snout out of Jung's writings and start to seriously study the MBTI.


I've studied the MBTI & function theory for many years, I'm just willing to see the contradictions in their framework unlike you. You are working backwards and not through fundamental premises and a proper semantic framework of observations, hence why you say things like FE is rigid in reality which contradicts the definition of Extraversion. Also it makes no sense that a self-reinforcing perception would feed an object-adaptable judgment. Anyways, I'm done replying to your arrogance.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> I've studied the MBTI & function theory for many years, I'm just willing to see the contradictions in their framework unlike you. You are working backwards and not through fundamental premises and a proper *semantic *framework of observations, hence why you say things like FE is rigid in reality which contradicts the definition of Extraversion. Also it makes no sense that a self-reinforcing perception would feed an object-adaptable judgment. Anyways, I'm done replying to your arrogance.


Still this pseudo scientist words detached from all reality... You think impress who here? Except _Red Spirit_... Your introverted cousin.


Open your mind, Little Panda.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?


Listen, I'm not going to talk about your trouble, because I think it's morally bad, without your consent. But honestly, I've already typed a person INFP, then this personn is ENTP. This person has officially recognized to have psychiatric disorders. Your answer will depend on my final expertise. Think about that.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> Listen, I'm not going to talk about your trouble, because I think it's morally bad, without your consent. But honestly, I've already typed a person INFP, then this personn is ENTP. This person has officially recognized to have psychiatric disorders. Your answer will depend on my final expertise. Think about that.


Are you hallucinating or something? What trouble? Read what I write once in a while:
"That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?"

Now your hallucinations aside, answer to the questions given.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> I mean that knowing you have a focus on judging can potentially help you loosen it up


Should be most people on here’s goal. That or moving.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Are you hallucinating or something? What trouble? Read what I write once in a while:
> "That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?"
> 
> Now your hallucinations aside, answer to the questions given.


I hate being insulted. So I will remind that you are a mentally handicapped: https://www.personalitycafe.com/hea...tal-disorders-mental-illnesses-come-here.html

Do not challenge me...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> I hate being insulted. So I will remind that you are a mentally handicapped: https://www.personalitycafe.com/hea...tal-disorders-mental-illnesses-come-here.html
> 
> Do not challenge me...


If you hate being insulted, then you should fix the underlying problems. Anyway, you again had to cherry-pick the source and not read its contents. Sure, technically I was, but in another thread, where everything was explained earlier it was explained that psychiatrist's methods weren't sound and he was rushing to make diagnoses. So, I really didn't know if I had something for a while. After lots of research I came to conclusions, that I really don't have any disorder, it's just that at the time on quick glance I could have looked like I have. Even then, schizotypal PD diagnosis was pulled out of the ass, since I showed zero symptoms of it. Schizoid PD was plausible, but I don't qualify as one. Later I got my hands on tests and other materials and I investigated myself further. Again similar results. Afterall, no one actually sees any PD in me otherwise (close people). 

BTW you shouldn't call people with PD mentally handicapped, disorder is not an illness and these people function usually not too badly. There isn't much of handicap. Hell, many of them aren't formally recognized as handicapped. Some of them don't have any reduction in quality of their life, especially if disorder isn't severe. Some disorders are described so badly, that too many specialist question if those shouldn't be merged or removed (avoidant PD for example). Some countries have disorders still in lists, which are in other countries not disorders (cyclothymic disorder)

Either way, you are using this data just for insulting others. So I will ask you third time to answer the actual questions given:
"That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?"


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> "That's literally pulling facts out of your ass. Nobody really said that about EFJs. Since when they are best ally and since when they are secretly rigid?"



Ok, as you have a mental disorder, I will take it into account in my answer. I just note that you like to be humiliated.

._They may be resistant to change unless they can see the practical benefits or
maintain a feeling of control.
_

._They tend to value positions of authority, regulations and often use
the traditional way to complete a task._

https://students.usask.ca/documents/secc/ESFJ.pdf


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> Ok, as you have a mental disorder, I will take it into account in my answer. I just note that you like to be humiliated.


Obviously you lack analytical skills so no wonder...




Casus Belli said:


> ._They may be resistant to change unless they can see the practical benefits or
> maintain a feeling of control.
> _
> 
> ...


...that yet again you failed to answer my questions. My questions were:
1)Since when they are best ally?
2)Since when they are secretly rigid?

Explanation of why your answer isn't an answer:
1) You said absolutely nothing about how EFJs are the best allies. Nor allies at all.
2) You still don't say anything about they are secretly rigid. In your quoted words (perhaps you didn't write in yours, because you don't really comprehend text) behaviour mentioned is totally not secret. 

I will not ask you to answer those two questions again, because they are too hard for you. Instead I will ask you, what EFJs have to do with this thread? This thread is about cognitive functions and Jung's types, EFJs are MBTI types. There's a spam world if you want to derail threads.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

You do not even realize that your concerns are of no interest ...

The CIM-10 explains this very well about the schizotypal personality disorder: _Obsessive mental rumination without internal resistance_ 

You are clearly a caricature of unhealthy INTP. Which gives this false F impression. If you were healthy, you would have understood the sentance with hindsight, instead, you literally take it to the first degree.

All types can be our best allies or our biggest problem. But the FJ types are more likely to focus emotionally in one direction or another. By definition.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

@The red spirit

Jung places his cognitive functions as being inherent, unchanging aspects of people. That makes them genotypes. Personalities, however, are changing. They are phenotypes.

Individuals online predominantly consider personality types to be of significance. They consider people within a type to be more similar to each other than people from other types. They consider personality traits to be a bimodal distribution. Personality traits are actually a normalized distribution. The average person will have more similarities with an average person from any of the personality types than they will have with a weird person from their own personality types. The personality types describe the manner in which individuals are different or similar to others. The personality types do not describe to what degree those differences or similarities are compared to the average individual.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> You do not even realize that your concerns are of no interest ...
> 
> The CIM-10 explains this very well about the schizotypal personality disorder: _Obsessive mental rumination without internal resistance_
> 
> ...


Oh, you’re schizotypal?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DavidGH said:


> @The red spirit
> 
> Jung places his cognitive functions as being inherent, unchanging aspects of people. That makes them genotypes. Personalities, however, are changing. They are phenotypes.
> 
> Individuals online predominantly consider personality types to be of significance. They consider people within a type to be more similar to each other than people from other types. They consider personality traits to be a bimodal distribution. Personality traits are actually a normalized distribution. The average person will have more similarities with an average person from any of the personality types than they will have with a weird person from their own personality types. The personality types describe the manner in which individuals are different or similar to others. The personality types do not describe to what degree those differences or similarities are compared to the average individual.


I know that about scales. Most people are actually in the middle of MBTI scales. With slight exception for I/E scale. It was confirmed to be rather differentiated, but in a sense that we are all ambiverts with some bias. 

I wouldn't involve genotypes and phenotypes, as analogy they could work, but if we take them literally it's risky without research done. Even the most stubborn traits of us change, even if slowly and little by little.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> I know that about scales. Most people are actually in the middle of MBTI scales. With slight exception for I/E scale. It was confirmed to be rather differentiated, but in a sense that we are all ambiverts with some bias.
> 
> I wouldn't involve genotypes and phenotypes, as analogy they could work, but if we take them literally it's risky without research done. Even the most stubborn traits of us change, even if slowly and little by little.


Without research done? That’s what the words mean.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DavidGH said:


> Without research done? That’s what the words mean.


Sorry for that, but even if he said that that's obviously questionable in reality. After all, his whole book doesn't really have actual research done and it wasn't uncommon for psychiatrists to be somewhat poetic about their fields back then. Obviously, his aim wasn't to be poetic, he wrote his observations.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> Sorry for that, but even if he said that that's obviously questionable in reality. After all, his whole book doesn't really have actual research done and it wasn't uncommon for psychiatrists to be somewhat poetic about their fields back then. Obviously, his aim wasn't to be poetic, he wrote his observations.


Your aim isn’t to be poetic?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

The red spirit said:


> Sorry for that, but even if he said that that's obviously questionable in reality. After all, his whole book doesn't really have actual research done and it wasn't uncommon for psychiatrists to be somewhat poetic about their fields back then. Obviously, his aim wasn't to be poetic, he wrote his observations.


I think we are what we are. It's too hard to be an entj if you are not rich. For example Trump is entj and he was born rich.but imagine if he was born poor and was working at a local company as an accountant his whole life. You'll probably think he was estj or esfj or smth like that... It's like it is. People compare all the time and it's all about who's powerful and successful and all that


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DavidGH said:


> Your aim isn’t to be poetic?


It never was. Although old psychology books could be considered art. Just look at this:
Everything that works, creates, does, suffers, matures and hides in our unconscious soul's Night, everything that shows up in our organism's life and is connected with effect (influence), which is made by other souls and whole world, everything in special way tries to escape from unconscious night into conscious life's daylight; and this chant, this beautiful Unconscious reveal to Conscious we call feeling.

It was written by C.G. Carus.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

VoodooDolls said:


> I think we are what we are. It's too hard to be an entj if you are not rich. For example Trump is entj and he was born rich.but imagine if he was born poor and was working at a local company as an accountant his whole life. You'll probably think he was estj or esfj or smth like that... It's like it is. People compare all the time and it's all about who's powerful and successful and all that


I dunno, but people consider Trump being ESTP, not ENTJ. I honestly don't care about his presence. I don't live in his country and I don't follow news. Also why it is hard to be ENTJ if you aren't rich? That's pretty much the only type (stereotypically speaking) to be a commander no matter what. No matter how you end up in life, everyone's objective is to do the most with what's available. Therefore, to do as as it's possible to satisfy your needs. It's only too hard if you see no future.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> It never was. Although old psychology books could be considered art. Just look at this:
> Everything that works, creates, does, suffers, matures and hides in our unconscious soul's Night, everything that shows up in our organism's life and is connected with effect (influence), which is made by other souls and whole world, everything in special way tries to escape from unconscious night into conscious life's daylight; and this chant, this beautiful Unconscious reveal to Conscious we call feeling.
> 
> It was written by C.G. Carus.


I think you misread what I wrote lol


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

DavidGH said:


> Oh, you’re schizotypal?


To be absorbed by fantasies of unlimited success, power and perfection, it's rather close to narcissism. Masturbating or get angry about a conceptual and impersonal definition is typically INTP. Lot of INTPs are schizotypal or schyzoid. In his narrow mind, dwell on words and definitions is the summum of the personal satisfaction (Ti). Now, he is certainly getting excited on his little seat because I challenge him on his own ground... When you read his self descriptions, it's even funnier to imagine.

PS: he is your boyfriend?


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> To be absorbed by fantasies of unlimited success, power and perfection, it's rather close to narcissism. Masturbating or get angry about a conceptual and impersonal definition is typically INTP. Lot of INTPs are schizotypal or schyzoid. In his narrow mind, dwell on words and definitions are the summum of the personal satisfaction (Ti). Now, he is certainly getting excited on his little seat because I challenge him on his own ground... When you read his self descriptions, it's even more fun to imagine.
> 
> PS: he is your boyfriend?


Are you slow?


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

DavidGH said:


> Are you slow?


A bit. The consequences of my saturday night fever... But I was the king.


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> A bit. The consequences of my saturday night fever... But I was the king.


Well that’s no good. Can’t be weird and stupid.


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

DavidGH said:


> Well that’s no good. Can’t be weird and stupid.


Remove the splinter of wood from your eye, you will feel better after.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Casus Belli said:


> But I was the king.


...of flies


----------



## Casus Belli (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> ...of flies


Don't forget to cut your hairs tuft for your next electrode placement:laughing:

So INTP...


----------



## DavidGH (Aug 10, 2019)

Casus Belli said:


> Remove the splinter of wood from your eye, you will feel better after.


Don’t have any splinters. I wear my ppe.


----------

