# Is this proof that Jung did not consider himself INFJ?



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

From Psychological Types (Jung - Psychological Types) when speaking about the Extraverted Rational type:



> But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore.


Isn't this proof that Jung considered himself to be a dominant rational type?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't know if it's proof, but it seems another in a series of clues that he considered himself Ti-dom. 

The way the Ti description is written has always given me the vibe that he was a Ti-dom. That's not proof in any form, but I just thought I'd mention it. I can read a type description & sometimes tell what type wrote it. Their perspective & way of judging comes through. Certainly creating categories with a kind of logical symmetry & based purely on theory suggests some decent use of Ti....


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Very interesting Link. Thanks a lot.

:tongue:


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

It suggests he considered himself using Ti, but says nothing about position. All these four-letter types like ISTJ, ENTP, INFP etc were created only after so Jung could not have considered himself INTP or INFJ and had no standard to compare himself to.

This brings up an interesting memory for me. I received a compliment from a co-worker recently. He told me that I am "very categorized" among a few other things :happy: Which I thought was a bit weird compliment, so naturally as INFJ I overanalyzed it to bit and pieces and compared it to how I seem to behave. And it turns out that I do mentally create categories and this is related to me using Ti in my thinking somehow. The next thought that popped into my head is that I create very broad and sort of permissive categories in comparison to personalities dominant or auxiliary in Ti for whom this sort of fragmentation (categorization) is much more precise (this is what I sensed before as a sort of "fuzzy" system building). Jung could have felt Ti working in his thinking just like I sense it, but he did not have had a standard to compare his Ti to to make an accurate judgement whether he is Ti dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, or inferior. The only reason that I realized the above was because I know about MBTI types and have come to know several INTPs as well as read typology forums so I can compare myself to people of this other cognitive layout. Ti might also more prominently stand out in comparison to Ni which is an unconscious perceiving process, so hard to define and detect.

It does seem to me, however, that his 'categorization' is of the broader more permissive kind. If you think about the functions he identified and how much time and energy people on this forum spend trying to define just one of them, a single function seems to form a rather broad 'category'.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

I'm reading it the other way round. What I interpret him as saying is that he is using the term rational for T and F, but that he would have called these irrational if he had himself had a personality based on a perceiving function. Therefore I conclude that he did not see himself as N- or S-dominant. Do I miss something?


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

penchant said:


> I'm reading it the other way round. What I interpret him as saying is that he is using the term rational for T and F, but that he would have called these irrational if he had himself had a personality based on a perceiving function. Therefore I conclude that he did not see himself as N- or S-dominant. Do I miss something?


He might not have acted from having such bias but instead wanted to give label to functions that corresponds to what they actually do. Rational implies reasoning and it is the judging functions that evaluate the information from perceiving functions that enable us to make choices that seem rational to us. In other words without Ti/Te and Fi/Fe you wouldn't be able to make sense out of what your perceiving functions sense, and this is perhaps why he called these function "rational" or reasoning.

Re-posted from another thread:


> The "irrational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental and perceptual activity that predominantly (and, for the most part, unconsciously) operates with opportunities, i.e. various possible outcomes and sensations result from premises and sensations, mostly driven by unconscious processes. People with predominantly "irrational" thinking see the world as a structure that can take various forms and outcomes.





> The "rational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental activity that results in thinking, feelings, response and behavior that consciously operates in line with some rules, principles or norms. People with predominantly "rational" function perceive the world as an ordered structure that follows a set of rules.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> I don't know if it's proof, but it seems another in a series of clues that he considered himself Ti-dom.
> 
> The way the Ti description is written has always given me the vibe that he was a Ti-dom. That's not proof in any form, but I just thought I'd mention it. I can read a type description & sometimes tell what type wrote it. Their perspective & way of judging comes through. Certainly creating categories with a kind of logical symmetry & based purely on theory suggests some decent use of Ti....


And what about basing a theory on incidental observation? No, I'm referring to Jung, not you. :wink:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Yes I do know the standard definitions of rational and irrational. And Jung would very well have been able to claim a certain *dominant* cognitive function; after all, that is what he was talking about.

But thanks for making me re-read the passage, as I appear to have misunderstood it the first time.

He is here talking about either judging people based on their own subjective perception or on observable behaviour, and that for the extraverted thinking type their conscious process is rational so he labels them rational types. He goes on saying that if he instead had based his judgment about other people on their behaviour instead, he would have called them irrational, as their behaviour is more influenced by their unconscious (here: the other three functions besides the dominant). And yes, he is talking about extraverts, not introverts. Now, where that train of thought leads... :mellow:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Go to the 8:40 mark [video=youtube;hD-W-1z_qco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-W-1z_qco&playnext=1&list=PL716FAD271173C668&index=19[/url]*[COLOR="Navy"[/video], and he gives his type in saying he is capitalized by thinking, uses a great deal of intuition too, has difficultly with feeling and not good with the reality of things. Based on most of our understanding of type, and knowing that he is an introverting type would give us an indication that his make-up results in INTP.*


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

I consider him INFJ, though I could see him being INTP.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Go to the 8:40 mark *of his interview here*, and he gives his type in saying he is capitalized by thinking, uses a great deal of intuition too, has difficultly with feeling and not good with the reality of things. Based on most of our understanding of type, and knowing that he is an introverting type would give us an indication that his make-up results in INTP.


Thanks. That interview contained a few other interesting things as well.


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

penchant said:


> From Psychological Types (Jung - Psychological Types) when speaking about the Extraverted Rational type:
> 
> "But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, *I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrationa*l, therefore."
> 
> Isn't this proof that Jung considered himself to be a dominant rational type?


This sounds to me like he is saying that the unconscious types are rational (Ni and Ne) and that the sensing types are irrational (Si and Se) but if he was an "irrational" type he would consider THAT rational and Ne and Ni as irrational.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ertertwert said:


> This sounds to me like he is saying that the unconscious types are rational (Ni and Ne) and that the sensing types are irrational (Si and Se) but if he was an "irrational" type he would consider THAT rational and Ne and Ni as irrational.


Not really. He's not making the distinction between S and N but Perceiving vs Judging. Rather, he is clear that the rational functions are the judging and the irrational functions are the perceiving. What he is talking about here is instead the type of the personality.

The unconscious is here not referring to N over S, but to the part of a person that is roughly where all the functions except the dominant resides. So the unconscious of a Te-dom, which is what he is talking about here, is governed mainly by his perceiving. The Te-dom is thus called rational if he is judged by his conscious (which is his own subjective self) or irrational if judged by his unconscious (which is his behaviour). Whether or not this is consistent with Jung in other places and whether I believe this makes sense myself or not, I don't know.

Unless someone more into this than I can prove me wrong... :mellow:


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

Thank you for that. I was obviously confused. Heh.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

ertertwert said:


> Thank you for that. I was obviously confused. Heh.


So was I to start with. Jung isn't an easy read... :laughing:


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

Well I was reading a quote without context and trying to pull something out of my ass anyway.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

penchant said:


> Yes I do know the standard definitions of rational and irrational. And Jung would very well have been able to claim a certain *dominant* cognitive function; after all, that is what he was talking about.


Not really. From what I've read from multiple sources is that dominant function may be more difficult to identify because you are so used to it that you don't even notice it. Think about it this way: you were born and from very early age you had to wear special yellow-tinted glasses which made the world appear more of a yellow hue to you. How would you know that in comparison to other people you see everything slightly more yellow? It would be difficult to identify. Contrary the auxiliary and tertiary functions can be felt much more readily, which typically leads IxxJs wonder whether they are feelers or thinkers because they can feel their logic and feelings switch on and off.

By the way, if you read through that whole paragraph from which you quoted that sentence you will see that Jung is doing something very Ni-ish in it - he is switching internal perspective on things in his reasoning and asking himself what if I was this other type, what if :happy:



Functianalyst said:


> Go to the 8:40 mark *of his interview here*, and he gives his type in saying he is capitalized by thinking, uses a great deal of intuition too, has difficultly with feeling and not good with the reality of things. Based on most of our understanding of type, and knowing that he is an introverting type would give us an indication that his make-up results in INTP.


It is not true that all feelers have an ease with their feelings just like it is not true that all thinkers have issues with their feeling side. This is an overgeneralization. Some feelers and especially feeler men may grow to distrust their feelings and grow up being uncomfortable expressing them. In the other thread about Jung's type I have said that it would be impossible to type him as feeler or thinker and proposed we take a look at his perceiving function. Now his dominant perceiving function to me looks like Ni. This actually stands out in the interview as well. He emphasizes that we are largely shaped by our history, education, family and a lot of past processes that are rather impersonal, which led him to disagree with Freud whose approach was much more personal. He also notes that observing schizophrenic patients has led him to realize certain "general historic conditions". Perceiving past as a dynamic state as Jung describes in this interview, seeing the past of humankind full of processes and themes that affect us in present, "impersonal" though as he describes them, observing the present and interlinking it with the themes of the past, is actually very fitting with description of Ni backed up by Ti.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Aleksei said:


> I consider him INFJ, though I could see him being INTP.





vel said:


> It is not true that all feelers have an ease with their feelings just like it is not true that all thinkers have issues with their feeling side. This is an overgeneralization. Some feelers and especially feeler men may grow to distrust their feelings and grow up being uncomfortable expressing them. In the other thread about Jung's type I have said that it would be impossible to type him as feeler or thinker and proposed we take a look at his perceiving function. Now his dominant perceiving function to me looks like Ni. This actually stands out in the interview as well. He emphasizes that we are largely shaped by our history, education, family and a lot of past processes that are rather impersonal, which led him to disagree with Freud whose approach was much more personal. He also notes that observing schizophrenic patients has led him to realize certain "general historic conditions". Perceiving past as a dynamic state as Jung describes in this interview, seeing the past of humankind full of processes and themes that affect us in present, "impersonal" though as he describes them, observing the present and interlinking it with the themes of the past, is actually very fitting with description of Ni backed up by Ti.


Which is why I find it unproductive to type others in general. As for Jung specifically, I know it's hard for intuiting types not to accept things literally, but any question of his type by you both is a questioning whether he was correct in his self-analysis. He does not say that he capitalizes using intuition. He says he capitalizes with thinking. I have no need to question whether the man was aware of his own type. Based on the video, he makes it clear that he uses T-N, ergo can only be one of two types, ENTJ or INTP. Anything else would be based on our own perspectives. I am not even sure other than a perspective if anyone is providing hard evidence that he was not what he claimed.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

vel said:


> Not really. From what I've read from multiple sources is that dominant function may be more difficult to identify because you are so used to it that you don't even notice it. Think about it this way: you were born and from very early age you had to wear special yellow-tinted glasses which made the world appear more of a yellow hue to you. How would you know that in comparison to other people you see everything slightly more yellow? It would be difficult to identify. Contrary the auxiliary and tertiary functions can be felt much more readily, which typically leads IxxJs wonder whether they are feelers or thinkers because they can feel their logic and feelings switch on and off.


It is difficult yes, but certainly not impossible.



> By the way, if you read through that whole paragraph from which you quoted that sentence you will see that Jung is doing something very Ni-ish in it - he is switching internal perspective on things in his reasoning and asking himself what if I was this other type, what if :happy:


Yes, there are clear indications of Ni too, I don't deny that.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Which is why I find it unproductive to type others in general. As for Jung specifically, I know it's hard for intuiting types not to accept things literally, but any question of his type by you both is a questioning whether he was correct in his self-analysis. He does not say that he capitalizes using intuition. He says he capitalizes with thinking. I have no need to question whether the man was aware of his own type. Based on the video, he makes it clear that he uses T-N, ergo can only be one of two types, ENTJ or INTP. Anything else would be based on our own perspectives. I am not even sure other than a perspective if anyone is providing hard evidence that he was not what he claimed.


Which brings us back to exactly the point of Jung himself in the quote in my OP. Judging yourself from an internal perspective (basing judgment on the dominant conscious function) or being judged by others from an external perspective (basing judgment on the subconscius auxiliary functions that affect behaviour to a greater degree than the conscious dominant) gives different results.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penchant said:


> Which brings us back to exactly the point of Jung himself in the quote in my OP. Judging yourself from an internal perspective (basing judgment on the dominant conscious function) or being judged by others from an external perspective (basing judgment on the subconscius auxiliary functions that affect behaviour to a greater degree than the conscious dominant) gives different results.


And his reason for coining the phrase individuation. Jung saw the dangers of people allowing others to dictate their types and being bound by playing the role others see them as. Jung prized people getting to know themselves which is something I have been conveying since I came to the forum. We know who we are, but we allow ourselves to be confused by how others see us..


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Which is why I find it unproductive to type others in general. As for Jung specifically, I know it's hard for intuiting types not to accept things literally, but any question of his type by you both is a questioning whether he was correct in his self-analysis. He does not say that he capitalizes using intuition. He says he capitalizes with thinking. I have no need to question whether the man was aware of his own type. Based on the video, he makes it clear that he uses T-N, ergo can only be one of two types, ENTJ or INTP. Anything else would be based on our own perspectives. I am not even sure other than a perspective if anyone is providing hard evidence that he was not what he claimed.


As unproductive as you find it you have typed him twice as INTP and once as ENTJ. Jung does not say that his dominant process is thinking. He says, and I will quote directly from the interview: "I most certainly was characterized by thinking, I always thought". It is clear that he is referring to "thinking" as simply a process of reasoning and having thoughts, not as an MBTI function. For if you are relating him saying "I always thought" to being a T-dominant type, then do you suppose INFPs, ESFJs, ENFJs and other personalities with inferior Ti or Te do not think? Then he states "and I had a great deal of intuition too". It sounds to me like he does not "capitalize" any function in the interview at all and even adds that he believes type changes during person's life time.

In the rest of the interview his use of Ni is actually astounding and very hard to miss. At 9min 40sec of the same video the interviewer states that Jung predicted coming of World War II while we was working with German patients, pointing towards not only him being a J but also a Ni dominant or auxiliary, because only very strong Ni can yield such predictive ability. At 5 minutes he describes a case of schizophrenic patient who thought wind is created by looking at the sun and moving your head side to side. Later Jung read the same description of wind in ancient scrolls that the patient could never have seen. This eventually led him to believe in existence of an impersonal statum in human psyche. He took two observations from his memory, two facts, and filled in the gap between them to derive a new meaning. That is exactly what Ni does. It is exactly this type of associative introspective fill-in-the-blank style of thinking that connects past observations with present moment to derive deeper meaning, a fuller context, that is called introverted intuition in MBTI. In part 2 of the interview he also describes what sounds like inferior Se function - when he was young he was attacked by several boys and then he proceeded to physically confront them back with such force that he states they were much afraid of him afterwards.

From Jung's description of Freud it sounds like Freud was an ENFP by the way. He says he disagreed with Freud's "purely personal approach" which sounds like a Ti-Fi clash. He also criticizes him for "disregard of historical conditions of man" which would be Jung's Ni past introspecting function clashing with Freud's Ne which is a function that creates in the present. In any case, anybody who thinks Jung is INTP should point out and explain where exactly in videos or his writing he uses Ne as his axuliary because all I can see so far is a very strong emphasis on Ni in the way he derives his insights and conclusions.




penchant said:


> Which brings us back to exactly the point of Jung himself in the quote in my OP. Judging yourself from an internal perspective (basing judgment on the dominant conscious function) or being judged by others from an external perspective (basing judgment on the subconscius auxiliary functions that affect behaviour to a greater degree than the conscious dominant) gives different results.


Which sort of boggles the mind doesn't it? That the person you feel you are within is not quite the same person that is expressed to the outside that others see of you.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Does it matter, really? He probably isnt S because he "breaks new ground", which also increases the likelyhood of P (although for example INTJ/INFJ are very insightful and very capable. But he sure was smart whatever the type.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

vel said:


> As unproductive as you find it you have typed him twice as INTP and once as ENTJ. Jung does not say that his dominant process is thinking. He says, and I will quote directly from the interview: "I most certainly was characterized by thinking, I always thought". It is clear that he is referring to "thinking" as simply a process of reasoning and having thoughts, not as an MBTI function. For if you are relating him saying "I always thought" to being a T-dominant type, then do you suppose INFPs, ESFJs, ENFJs and other personalities with inferior Ti or Te do not think? Then he states "and I had a great deal of intuition too". It sounds to me like he does not "capitalize" any function in the interview at all and even adds that he believes type changes during person's life time.


First he says he is characterized by thinking. It would be you making the leap that since he says he always thought, then he was not referring to the function thinking. He also makes a point to say next that he uses a great deal of intuition *too*, which as an adverb literally meaning in addition to or an addendum to something. Want to guess what intuition is an addendum to? 

This leads me to the second point of your argument. I am unsure why you directly quote him on the thinking but purposely leave out what he actually says in his definite difficulty with feeling. You are attempting to make your argument with omissions, it appears. Jung says he has given all the data to determine his type, thus from his own theory he can be only one of two types. No other types use the T-N-S-F make-up except INTP and/or ENTJ. Why would you only give only half of what he says to make a point?

As for type not being static and changing you have read his type descriptions right? Jung considers the dominant function itself to be a type,i.e, Ti is a type in his system and Ne/Se merely distinguishes between the to types. I have pasted his chapter on this forum many times, but read his descriptions *here*.


vel said:


> In the rest of the interview his use of Ni is actually astounding and very hard to miss. At 9min 40sec of the same video the interviewer states that Jung predicted coming of World War II while we was working with German patients, pointing towards not only him being a J but also a Ni dominant or auxiliary, because only very strong Ni can yield such predictive ability.


There were a number of people who predicted a second world war in the 1930’s and after the first. In particularly Europe and the rest of the world was quite aware that Germany's economic plight could lead to an over throw of their government. Jung never predicted anything that was already known in the thirties. But the point was being asked if he believer there would be a World War III. For his response and before you proclaim he was using a great deal of Ni to predict it you may should have listened to Jung's response in the next video [video=youtube;90VXHjQREDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90VXHjQREDM&feature=related]


vel said:


> At 5 minutes he describes a case of schizophrenic patient who thought wind is created by looking at the sun and moving your head side to side. Later Jung read the same description of wind in ancient scrolls that the patient could never have seen. This eventually led him to believe in existence of an impersonal statum in human psyche. He took two observations from his memory, two facts, and filled in the gap between them to derive a new meaning. That is exactly what Ni does. It is exactly this type of associative introspective fill-in-the-blank style of thinking that connects past observations with present moment to derive deeper meaning, a fuller context, that is called introverted intuition in MBTI.


The man says he uses thinking and intuition, and has a definite difficulty with feeling and struggles with reality. Why would you make an argument that he would be anything other than what he says? As for your assertion that he was using Ni, well that is suspect. The patient is a focus on something outside of the self, not something that he came to him while alone. So which function is he using as you describe above:


> *Extraverted iNtuition (Ne)*- Inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, and scanning for what could be. Extraverted iNtuiting involves seeing things "as if" with various possible ways of representing reality. Using this process, we can hold many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our minds at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and "threads" together. We don't know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction with a previous one. Thus there is often an emergent quality to using this process. A strategy or concept emerges based on the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Extraverted iNtuiting involves realizing that there is always another view. An example is when you listen to one friend tell about an argument and understand perfectly and then listen to another friend tell a contradictory story and understand that view also. Then you wonder what the real story is because there are always so many different possible meanings.
> 
> *Introverted iNtuition (Ni)*- Foreseeing implications, conceptualizing, and having images of the future or profound meaning. Introverted iNtuiting often involves a sense of what will be. The details might be a little fuzzy, but when you tune in to this process, there is some sense of how things will be. Using this process, we often are able to get pictures about the future or at least a sense of what will happen before we have any data. Sometimes it is an awareness of what is happening in another location and we have no sensory data to go on. Other times introverted iNtuiting operates when we conceptualize and get a sense of a whole plan, pattern, theory, or explanation. These are the kinds of images that come to us in the shower, in meditative states, or in dreams and help us deeply understand something. Sometimes they are profoundly symbolic and even universally so. In using this process, we tune into a likely future or something universal. This information can then be used to decide what to do next, what to plan for. Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes a problem or situation to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when a completely new, un-imagined realization comes to us. There is a disengagement from interactions in the room, followed by a sudden "aha!" or "that's it!" kind of experience. These kinds of experiences are often seen as if they are "psychic" in nature. The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness to them and an imperative quality that seems to demand action.


----------



## Flamethrower (Aug 3, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Go to the 8:40 mark of his interview here, and he gives his type in saying he is capitalized by thinking, uses a great deal of intuition too, has difficultly with feeling and not good with the reality of things. Based on most of our understanding of type, and knowing that he is an introverting type would give us an indication that his make-up results in INTP.





vel said:


> In the rest of the interview his use of Ni is actually astounding and very hard to miss. At 9min 40sec of the same video the interviewer states that Jung predicted coming of World War II while we was working with German patients, pointing towards not only him being a J but also a Ni dominant or auxiliary, because only very strong Ni can yield such predictive ability.


I've often seen it suggested he was INTP but like Vel I believe he was Ni dominant. As Ni dominant myself I have always found his works have always resonated very naturally with me even though they are not easy to explain. My ENTJ friend feels a similar way about his works. His writings do have a mystical quality which lends itself to Ni. So I feel he is more likely to be INTJ.

I have also come to this conclusion he is not INTP due to the different language styles used by INTPs and INTJs. I have read quite a number of works by both Jung and Einstein. I am pretty sure Einstein was INTP. His works seems to have a distinctly INTP sound to them which isn't true for Jung. For example:

INTPs have a concillatory tone to making statements which makes things sound still open to review by anyone:
Einstein: "Now if *we *use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to the earth, then ...."
"If *we *adhere to this law *we *must refer to....."

whereas INTJs tend to make closed statements that sound as if they have personally made a final conclusion that is not to be challenged by others. They are not open for review:
Jung: "The use of dream-analysis in psychotherapy *is *still a much-debated question."
"It is the way of dreams to give us more than we ask, and *this is true *of those* I *have just cited.
"The dreams *I* have cited *unmistakably *present the aetiological factors in the neurosis..."

Also INTPs have a great sense of mischief and Einstein often made amusing comments about his work (like the one about the girl and the hot stove) whereas for the most part Jung always sounds deep and serious - as INTJs are want to do!

And if he wasn't INTJ then my next guess would be INFJ.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

> Student S. But didn't Jung claim to be scientific, like Freud?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To separate whether a judging or perceiving function is dominant, i've seen it be broken down like this;

F+T = Use your conscious mind to refine and focus your unconscious drives

N+S = Allow your unconscious to drive your thoughts and experiences

I think Jung does more of the former. It's even displayed by his theories on the archetypes. He is applying judgments to refine the unconscious. "the archetype is the introspectively recognizable form of a priori psychic orderedness".



> The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato. Jung himself compared archetypes to Platonic εἶδος (eidos). Plato's ideas were pure mental forms, that were imprinted in the soul before it was born into the world. They were collective in the sense that they embodied the fundamental characteristics of a thing rather than its specific peculiarities. In fact many of Jung's Ideas were prevalent in Athenian philosophy. The archetype theory can be seen as a psychological equivalent to the philosophical idea of forms and particulars.





> Psychologist Carl Gustav Jung described several archetypes that are based in the observation of differing but repeating patterns of thought and action that re-appear time and again across people, countries and continents.





> Archetypes are likewise supposed to have been present in folklore and literature for thousands of years, including prehistoric artwork. The use of archetypes to illuminate personality and literature was advanced by Carl Jung early in the 20th century, who suggested the existence of universal contentless forms that channel experiences and emotions, resulting in recognizable and typical patterns of behavior with certain probable outcomes.


This seems more Ne than Ni.


----------



## Flamethrower (Aug 3, 2009)

Flamethrower said:


> And if he wasn't INTJ then my next guess would be INFJ.


Hmmm, actually after reading this post

Jung?s Personality Type: INTP, INFJ, INTJ, or INFP? The Personality Junkie

I am even more inclined to agree he might have been INFJ and 100% certain he was IN_J!

:wink:


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

"Remembering Jung" series, talk with Marie-Louise von Franz | Free Educational & How-To Videos - Watch Educational & How-To Videos Online | Veoh

no more point of continuing this. close friend of jung says on this video (at around 3:20) that jung was thinking intuitive type, this translates to INTP or ENTP, but jung and others has told many times that he was introverted.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

He was INFJ.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Naama said:


> "Remembering Jung" series, talk with Marie-Louise von Franz | Free Educational & How-To Videos - Watch Educational & How-To Videos Online | Veoh
> 
> no more point of continuing this. close friend of jung says on this video (at around 3:20) that jung was thinking intuitive type, this translates to INTP or ENTP, but jung and others has told many times that he was introverted.


Based on her statements, she refers to him as an thinking intuitive type, which in my opinion translates to INTP (Ti-Ne) or ENTJ (Te-Ni), but not ENTP unless you want to add INTJ in the fold as well.


----------

