# Function Definitions: Homepage/Discussion Thread



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Okay. I'm done. This community needs to come up with strong and correct definitions that capture the nature of the functions. Honestly, I couldn't give a fuck if a minority ends up disagreeing with outcome. We just need functional definitions that capture, as best possible, the true nature of each of the functions. 

So, what I'm proposing is we have ourselves a little contest. I will create 8 different threads where an individual can pose each of their "formal" definitions for the function. At the end of a certain period of time, the post(s) that has(ve) the most amount of thanks "win". I realize there are certain issues with this, as winning will be determined by popular vote, which inherently can be problematic (sorry Ti users <3) due to misinformed thinking. Honestly, I think we're all intelligent enough to recognize a good definition when we see one. It might just be me though. Either way, these would be the definitions that are liked the most by the community, which is still important to consider. 

Anyway, I'm done rambling. Post on this thread if you want to discuss the nature of definitions/this contest or whatever. Post on the other threads _*strictly *_for definitions. 

*Judging Functions:*
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ction-definitions-introverted-feeling-fi.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tion-definitions-introverted-thinking-ti.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ction-definitions-extraverted-feeling-fe.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tion-definitions-extraverted-thinking-te.html

*Perceiving Functions:
*http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ion-definitions-introverted-intuition-ni.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ction-definitions-introverted-sensing-si.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ion-definitions-extraverted-intuition-ne.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ction-definitions-extraverted-sensing-se.html

Let the games begin, and may the odds be _ever _in your favor.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Any definition anyone makes about cognitive functions has immediately and inevitably been derived from Jung. So it doesnt matter whether a million people agree on a definition or not because the moment you move away from Jung himself is the moment you move away from cognitive functions themselves in the sense that Jung was acquanted with them. If others move away from the source then they are inevitably restructuring the system where they themselves are a source. In other words the definitions that matter are from Jung, any others outside of that of which moves even slightly from his works isnt Jungian cognitive functions but instead a horrendous interpretation of his model, making their model a model of its own. If Jung is a minority, that doesnt mean that the majority is even close to understanding the system.

So the questions are, do you want to understand Jungian cognitive functions? or do you want to understand what a cognitive function *may* be to a group of people outside of Jung.

If youre trying to understand Jung then chapter 10 of psychological types goes over the *exact* definitions of each Jungian function.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that if Jung was still alive today, his definitions would have changed a bit by now.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Any definition anyone makes about cognitive functions has immediately and inevitably been derived from Jung. So it doesnt matter whether a million people agree on a definition or not because the moment you move away from Jung himself is the moment you move away from cognitive functions themselves in the sense that Jung was acquanted with them. If others move away from the source then they are inevitably restructuring the system where they themselves are a source. In other words the definitions that matter are from Jung, any others outside of that of which moves even slightly from his works isnt Jungian cognitive functions but instead a horrendous interpretation of his model, making their model a model of its own. If Jung is a minority, that doesnt mean that the majority is even close to understanding the system.
> 
> So the questions are, do you want to understand Jungian cognitive functions? or do you want to understand what a cognitive function *may* be to a group of people outside of Jung.
> 
> If youre trying to understand Jung then chapter 10 of psychological types goes over the *exact* definitions of each Jungian function.


I honestly don't care much about Jungian definitions. 

Sure, they're nice and they have a purpose, but I think it's important for us to see the modern-day application and understanding of the functions. I honestly think this forum place's too much importance on Jungian philosophy--don't get me wrong, I have psychological types too--and too little on the cohesion and clarity of the definitions.

It might be me, but I find his definitions to be a little cryptic and more of a starting point for understanding cognition. It's almost as if he's providing a summary for someone to fill in the details via exploration/physical application of the theory. That is one approach to it, but I've also found definitions that make a great deal of sense encompass the certain nature of the function without being ambiguous. It might just be me, but I'm rather exhausted by vagueries in concepts. Sometimes it just seems like it's the over-intellectualization of certain concepts; like how some individual write books on concepts that could be concisely covered in papers. 

I want to be able to hand these definitions over to my mother, who knows nothing about MBTI, and have her understand the concept fully. This would be in the context of teaching my mother MBTI. I just think the world is much, much simpler than we make it. All concepts have root natures that can be followed down to fundamental natural dichotomies.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> I'm pretty sure that if Jung was still alive today, his definitions would have changed a bit by now.


Why?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I'm pretty sure that if Jung was still alive today, his definitions would have changed a bit by now.


You can state such, but such a statement is not a fact. Make of it what you will but Jung lived decades after psychological types and those definitions never changed, some may have been expanded upon but none of them was changed.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Raawx said:


> I honestly don't care much about Jungian definitions.
> 
> Sure, they're nice and they have a purpose, but I think it's important for us to see the modern-day application and understanding of the functions. I honestly think this forum place's too much importance on Jungian philosophy--don't get me wrong, I have psychological types too--and too little on the cohesion and clarity of the definitions.


What is the difference between "modern-day application and understanding" and "Jungian philosophy?"


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Raawx said:


> I honestly don't care much about Jungian definitions.
> 
> Sure, they're nice and they have a purpose, but I think it's important for us to see the modern-day application and understanding of the functions. I honestly think this forum place's too much importance on Jungian philosophy--don't get me wrong, I have psychological types too--and too little on the cohesion and clarity of the definitions.
> 
> ...


Ill respect your decision to not pay attention to Jung, but understand then that you are not asking about cognitive functions since those are Jungian. Instead you are asking about the structure of mbti. Mbti does not equal Jung which means they do not equal cognitive functions from a Jungian perspective. As I said, once we move away from Jung, that means we are essentially moving away not only from the core of such a system but we are also making up our own system. How can one make up a system.with no foundation, what is the foundation of these non Jungian cognitive functions?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> What is the difference between "modern-day application and understanding" and "Jungian philosophy?"


I meant this merely in a fundamentalist approach to Jungian philosophy. I believe that the understanding of his philosophy should always be used a first interpretation from where it can be expanded, which it has done so through the growth of online communities such as this one.



Shadow Logic said:


> Ill respect your decision to not pay attention to Jung, but understand then that you are not asking about cognitive functions since those are Jungian. Instead you are asking about the structure of mbti. Mbti does not equal Jung which means they do not equal cognitive functions from a Jungian perspective. As I said, once we move away from Jung, that means we are essentially moving away not only from the core of such a system but we are also making up our own system. How can one make up a system.with no foundation, what is the foundation of these non Jungian cognitive functions?


Well, semantics mean little to me. What is meant by MBTI is THIS theory. What we're discussing right here, right now on personalitycafe.com. Got it?

I mean to say that Jung is not a divine God whose word on the matter is all-encompassing. Yes, he has some very immensely important and significant contributions, but he, in my mind, merely began the theory. It's much like how actual psychology began with Freud and developed into whatever the hell it is today. Theories grow and adapt over time. If you want to provide Jungian definitions, be my guest. They'll likely be well received; I just, at the end of the day, want to be able to understand the entire mystic quality of the functions through a long, well-thought out explanation of the functions.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Raawx said:


> I meant this merely in a fundamentalist approach to Jungian philosophy. I believe that the understanding of his philosophy should always be used a first interpretation from where it can be expanded, which it has done so through the growth of online communities such as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Semantics? Im not even getting into that realm yet. What I am saying is that there is MBTI and then there is JCF. They are completely separate *systems* where MBTI is derived from Jung. No Jung is not a God, instead he is a human who made a *system* from specifically his perspective where everything after JCF is derived from. Freud may have been a big influence on psychology but the root word psychology nor its study started or was even defined initially by him while JCF was started and defined initially by Jung. Freud gave theories within psychology but he did not invent or even start psychology but Jung did invent and start JCF. JCF is not only a theory, its a *system* which must be understood from the perspective of Jung. If you leave Jung then you leave JCF but if you leave Frued, that doesnt mean you leave psychology but instead you leave Freuds part of psychology. JCF from Jung isnt even comparable to Freuds part of psychology. Psychology is a field that Freud was a part of, JCF on the other hand is literally Jungs individual system.

Like I said, Ill respect your decision to leave Jung but understand that by leaving Jung you are essentially leaving the realm of JCF to start a new system of non Jungian Cognitive Functions.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Why?





Shadow Logic said:


> You can state such, but such a statement is not a fact. Make of it what you will but Jung lived decades after psychological types and those definitions never changed, some may have been expanded upon but none of them was changed.


I never said it was a fact. I said I'm pretty sure. Don't say I'm making claims where there are none, Shadow.

To answer your question, Paladin, because psychology has changed a lot, neuroscience is coming into play, etc. Old models are old. I don't get the beloved attachment to them that some people have just cause "old dead guy made them."

I'm not saying new shit should be unsupported and random, but come on. We have a wealth of information that people like Jung simply didn't have available to them. Let's be modern.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I never said it was a fact. I said I'm pretty sure. Don't say I'm making claims where there are non, Shadow.


I didnt mean to accuse you of making such a statement, instead I was trying to imply that your thoughts on Jung maybe changing his definitions even slightly are not factual nor is supported, therefore one can not use such a statement as reason to change or escape Jungs definitions of cognitive functions.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Any definition anyone makes about cognitive functions has immediately and inevitably been derived from Jung. So it doesnt matter whether a million people agree on a definition or not because the moment you move away from Jung himself is the moment you move away from cognitive functions themselves in the sense that Jung was acquanted with them. If others move away from the source then they are inevitably restructuring the system where they themselves are a source. In other words the definitions that matter are from Jung, any others outside of that of which moves even slightly from his works isnt Jungian cognitive functions but instead a horrendous interpretation of his model, making their model a model of its own. ...
> 
> If youre trying to understand Jung then chapter 10 of psychological types goes over the *exact* definitions of each Jungian function.


FYI, and just for starters, virtually none of the modern cognitive functions theorists — not Thomson, not Berens, not Nardi, not Quenk, etc. — makes any substantial use of Jung's goofy descriptions of Si and Si-doms. And you can read a lot more about that in this post.

Myers put Jung's notions to the test in a way that Jung himself never tried to do, and the Myer-Briggs typology represented a major advance beyond Jung's original concepts, including many appropriate corrections.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original function descriptions, I really don't think he'd approve.

As a final note: Is the particular cognitive functions model you seem determined to treat as a religion even Jungian? If you view your own functions as Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, be advised that the majority of Jung scholars take the view — and I think it's really the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung's model for the functions of an Ne-dom with a T-aux was Ne-Te-Fi-Si.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> To answer your question, Paladin, because psychology has changed a lot, neuroscience is coming into play, etc. Old models are old. I don't get the beloved attachment to them that some people have just cause "old dead guy made them."
> 
> I'm not saying new shit should be unsupported and random, but come on. We have a wealth of information that people like Jung simply didn't have available to them. Let's be modern.


I thought there was a specific reason why you thought Jung would change his definitions, but it appears to me that you are making a general assumption. Is that correct?

Just because a model was founded a long time ago, does not mean that it is no longer relevant or applicable. I don't understand why you are bringing up a "beloved attachment" to models just because some "old dead guy made them." Who is using that reasoning? I think you are making a wild assumption.  Freud is an old dead guy with models. I don't believe any of his psychosexual nonsense.

I'm not opposed to the theorizing of functions, I was merely curious as to the reasoning behind your earlier statement.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> FYI, and just for starters, virtually none of the modern cognitive functions theorists — not Thomson, not Berens, not Nardi, not Quenk, etc. — makes any substantial use of Jung's goofy descriptions of Si and Si-doms. And you can read a lot more about that in this post.
> 
> Myers put Jung's notions to the test in a way that Jung himself never tried to do, and the Myer-Briggs typology represented a major advance beyond Jung's original concepts, including many appropriate corrections.
> 
> ...


As I said before, you can make such a statement but such a statement about Jung is not a fact nor is supported. Yes according to Jungs system, especially paying attention to his brief explanation on auxiliary functions, I would be Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. Now understand that whether or not I am seen as Ne-Ti-Fe-Si to post Jungian descriptions doesnt make any difference to me. What does concern me is assumptions and acquisations that have no basis in facts. Maybe Jung wouldve changed his system, and maybe the christian God will eventually show itself but on both occasions there are no facts that support such assumptions. 

I do not mean to offend but I do want others to understand what a fact is and how important the fundamentals of any system are. If you change the fundamentals of a system then you change the system, its really that simple. If post Jungian scholars made "assumptions", then they are changing the system. What I am trying to do is strip away all opinions, all acquisations, and all assumptions to focus on strictly the facts of Jungs system, the fundamentals and framework of such a system. If we move away from these fundamentals then we move away from Jung, no matter how many "scholars" want to make up their own interpretation. 

I have seen the E-E-I-I/I-I-E-E model and I know that this model isnt supported anywhere in Jungs original system. There are two systems that are supported by Jung:

There is the E-I-E-I/I-E-I-E system which is supported by Jungs brief explanation of auxiliary functions. There is also the E-I-I-I/I-E-E-E system which Jung very very very briefly mentioned during his explanation of Ti doms in psychological types. Both of those systems can be argued using the fundamentals of Jung but the system you have mentioned can not. If so I would like to see directly from Jung where this is so.

Like I said, I can care less if people want to move away from Jung but moving away from Jung means moving away from the fundamentals and facts within the system of JCF. Inevitably leading to discussion on non Jungian Cognitive Functions. If thats what people want then I will respect that decision, as said before.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> As I said before, you can make such a statement but such a statement about Jung is not a fact nor is supported.


Your fundamental _error of fact_ is your notion that Jung had a non-scientific attitude toward his theories. He most emphatically did not. Jung proposed his typology as a theory that he hoped corresponded to _actual real world facts_ — namely, preferences in certain people which he speculated were fundamentally biological in nature and resulted from evolutionary forces.

He strongly believed in putting theories to the test and adjusting them appropriately when they prove inconsistent with the facts — although he acknowledged that Ti-doms tend to have a temperamental difficulty giving facts the appropriate weight.

To repeat: If somebody had told him that, 90 years after he published Psychological Types, somebody would be holding up his typology as a "system" that couldn't be adjusted _or it wouldn't be Jung's system anymore_, he would not have approved.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> Your fundamental _error of fact_ is your notion that Jung had a non-scientific attitude toward his theories. He most emphatically did not. Jung proposed his typology as a theory that he hoped corresponded to _actual real world facts_ — namely, preferences in certain people which he speculated were fundamentally biological in nature and resulted from evolutionary forces.
> 
> He strongly believed in putting theories to the test and adjusting them appropriately when they prove inconsistent with the facts — although he acknowledged that Ti-doms tend to have a temperamental difficulty giving facts the appropriate weight.
> 
> To repeat: If somebody had told him that, 90 years after he published Psychological Types, somebody was holding up his typology as a "system" that couldn't be adjusted _or it wouldn't be Jung's system anymore_, he would not have approved.


Thats understandable but what you are not understanding is the study of systems. If a system exists and someone wants to test the efficiency of such a system then they have to use the system itself to test it. The system itself is full of components which are factors that are ingrained within the system. If you change those factors then you change the system to a system that it is not. If you are saying that you dont agree with Jungs system then ill respect your decision to make a new system but this new system now becomes just that, a new system which is now non Jungian. You can't test a system against real world facts if you are constantly trying to change the system inatead of seeing its application in the real world when not giving any assumptions or acquisations *at all in any way* towards the system. 

At the end of the day, JCF is a system and it works like a system, following all the rules of a system. Change that system and all you have is a new separate system that may or may not reference JCF but it is not JCF. If others want to pursue that road, well as I said before a few times, I will respect such a decision but understand they are leaving one system to create another system with no fundamentala to hold it up.

As I said before you can state such, but such a statement is not a fact nor is it supported but yes it can be greatly assumed if youre in the business of assuming.


----------



## HBIC (Feb 28, 2014)

This could be a very good idea for people who just joined the forum and are looking for acessible begginner's reading material on functins.




reckful said:


> FYI, and just for starters, virtually none of the modern cognitive functions theorists — not Thomson, not Berens, not Nardi, not Quenk, etc. — makes any substantial use of Jung's goofy descriptions of Si and Si-doms. And you can read a lot more about that in this post.
> 
> *Myers put Jung's notions to the test in a way that Jung himself never tried to do, and the Myer-Briggs typology represented a major advance beyond Jung's original concepts, including many appropriate corrections.*
> 
> ...


This information is key. People purposely forget Jung himself was not a traditionalist and certainly never indicated his theory was finished and ste in stone. He was far too intelligent for that. If he disagreed and challenge his seniors ideas and approaches to human psychology, I don't see why so many people are adamant in doing the exact opposite.




reckful said:


> Your fundamental _error of fact_ is your notion that Jung had a non-scientific attitude toward his theories. He most emphatically did not. J*ung proposed his typology as a theory that he hoped corresponded to actual real world facts — namely, preferences in certain people which he speculated were fundamentally biological in nature and resulted from evolutionary forces.
> 
> He strongly believed in putting theories to the test and adjusting them appropriately when they prove inconsistent with the facts — although he acknowledged that Ti-doms tend to have a temperamental difficulty giving facts the appropriate weight.
> 
> To repeat: If somebody had told him that, 90 years after he published Psychological Types, somebody was holding up his typology as a "system" that couldn't be adjusted or it wouldn't be Jung's system anymore, he would not have approved.*


He must certainly undertsood that theories should be ever evolving and I'd love to see his reaction to the "Don't You Dare Challenge Jung!" brigade. Somehow, I don't think he'd be pleased.

EDIT:I just saw the ending sentence to the OP. Don't you know by now @Raawx, that the odds are _never_ in our favor?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> I didnt mean to accuse you of making such a statement, instead I was trying to imply that your thoughts on Jung maybe changing his definitions even slightly are not factual nor is supported, therefore one can not use such a statement as reason to change or escape Jungs definitions of cognitive functions.


That's fair to say, though largely unnecessary. I was giving my opinion on the subject and thus don't expect it to be taken as a statement of fact. My reasoning is similar to Reckful's and he explained it better than I. 



PaladinX said:


> I thought there was a specific reason why you thought Jung would change his definitions, but it appears to me that you are making a general assumption. Is that correct?
> 
> Just because a model was founded a long time ago, does not mean that it is no longer relevant or applicable. I don't understand why you are bringing up a "beloved attachment" to models just because some "old dead guy made them." Who is using that reasoning? I think you are making a wild assumption.  Freud is an old dead guy with models. I don't believe any of his psychosexual nonsense.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the theorizing of functions, I was merely curious as to the reasoning behind your earlier statement.


It depends on what you consider a "specific reason" to be. To me, the progression of psychology and the introduction of neuroscience is plenty of reason to make that assumption. Add to that Reckful's reasoning if you'd like; I'm largely in agreement with him on this.

I have run into people who view Jung's theories with a sort of "beloved attachment." I shouldn't have lumped it in with you - it was meant more for the people who view his stuff that way (one of those "if the shoe fits" things).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Thats understandable but what you are not understanding is the study of systems. If a system exists and someone wants to test the efficiency of such a system then they have to use the system itself to test it.


And testing Jung's system is exactly what Myers did, over many years in which she adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects.

As McCrae and Costa — probably the most prominent Big Five psychologists — long ago noted, Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown _are not significantly correlated_. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the scientific standards applicable in the field of personality. As McCrae and Costa explain:



McCrae & Costa said:


> Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
> 
> Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.


As further discussed in this post and the posts its links to (and some follow-up posts in that same thread), Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered — as a _factual_ matter (not a Jung-has-his-"system"-and-Myers-has-her-"system" matter) — that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's _no significant correlation_ between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.

Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that, as you probably know, a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP.

Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.

And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is _not_ as simply a different — and similarly untested — theory from Jung's original typology. It's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was adjusted to fit the evidence.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> And testing Jung's system is exactly what Myers did, over many years in which she adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects.
> 
> As McCrae and Costa — probably the most prominent Big Five psychologists — long ago noted, Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown _are not significantly correlated_. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the scientific standards applicable in the field of personality. As McCrae and Costa explain:
> 
> ...


See thats the problem, Myers had to adjust the system to fit her perception of reality. The moment that was done was the exact moment that Jungs system was replaced by myers personal system of which she tested out. She did not test Jungs system with reality, she altered Jungs system to fit her reality. 

Where does it say that extraverts love change and introverts do not. Do you mean extraverts want to expand whild introverts want to condense? If so then that is still a true statement. Extraverted functions expand, introverted functions condense. Its actually a very simple concept.

Where does it say that extraverts are traditionalist, or did it mean that extraverts are more likely to be in the spotlight within our culture. Also in the description of Si, Jung understood that customs play a huge part within Si due to the condensation of their sensory infornation so it can be stored as a point of reference for their perceptions. Also in Ne description he goes on to say Ne users can not be found where cultural values are. So she didnt really do much since Jung already clarified in depth what each individual function is capable of.

Yes I do see myers system as a separate system because it is. It may derive from JCF but it also pushes away from JCF making it a system of its own. Im not saying myers didnt test out her system but I am saying she had to alter Jungs system which inevitably led her to make her own system which is separate from JCF. Also mbti focuses on behaviors and how a type is seen from the outside hence why she focused her J/P upon whuch functiin is extraverted. JCF describes the process of acquiring information. So yes they are completely separate systems, ehere one is derived from the alteration of the other.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The metaphor I like to use is this one:

Carl Jung's ideas about the psyche are a gold mine. But you can't sell raw gold. You have to refine it into something. Jung opened doors and presented new possibilities that, in themselves, make sense. But they still needed to be tested. He did a lot of his own testing, but that was only enough to substantiate his arguments, not enough to deliver them as facts.

Myers did that. She took a small part of Jung's work and improved upon it. This isn't devaluing the work of Jung in any way, quite the contrary. She's lending a great deal of support to many of his ideas by improving them.

And furthermore, there's much of Jung's work she didn't delve into, so there's still quite a lot there to dig into if you're looking for inspiration.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Im going to describe a concept:

Imagine or draw a circle. Everything within that circle is a component that works as a system to produce a circle. Now if you want to understand that circle you have to specifically focus on the properties of a circle. Those properties being that there are no corners but there is 360°. Other components are that Pi is equivalent to half a circle. These are facts within the system of a circle and these facts are the reason the circle exists.

Now if JCF is the circle then I have no problem finding the facts within the system of JCF, including the facts that Jung himself wasnt aware of. The only way to do this though is to study JCF (the circle) to find these factual components. Yes there is more to be learned about JCF but one can only learn them by studying JCF directly while avoiding making any assumptions at all. If these newJCF facts are brought to light then they must be proven that they are a fact of the system and not an assumption put into the system.

Now back to the circle. If a triangle is within a circle then it is within the circle meaning it can logically be deduced from the circle without having to assume anything. The triangle itself is a system that is part of a bigger system, the circle. Meaning that the triangles system must directly, with no assumption, be logically connected to the system that its within. 

MBTI isnt a triangle within a circle (JCF), it literally is its own system that touches into JCFs circle, now becoming a venn diagram. Meaning there are aspects they both share and there are aspects where they differ, making them separate systems and not a system derived wholistically from another system.

Im not against the theorizing of functions, im against the idea of adding in assumptions to try to understand systems.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Where does it say that extraverts are traditionalist, or did it mean that extraverts are more likely to be in the spotlight within our culture. Also in the description of Si, Jung understood that customs play a huge part within Si due to the condensation of their sensory infornation so it can be stored as a point of reference for their perceptions. Also in Ne description he goes on to say Ne users can not be found where cultural values are. So she didnt really do much since Jung already clarified in depth what each individual function is capable of.


Here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:

[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."

[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did _not_ compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.​
And, as previously noted, Myers discovered that whether someone tends to adopt established, mainstream values or tends to be rebelliously individualistic primarily implicates the S/N dimension (with some secondary influence by J/P) — so that, as I said before, an ISTJ is significantly more likely to be majoritarian/traditional than an ENTP.

Your posts make it sound like you're not all that familiar with Psychological Types as a whole, and I think you're twisting yourself into pretzels trying to defend a perspective that basically says _Jung understood it all_ and all the data that Myers and others have gathered to the contrary actually _confirms_ what Jung said on some deeper level where it's all about, like, "expanding" and "condensing."

As I said, it seems to me that you're treating Jung like Freud wanted Jung to treat Freud — and Jung refused.

And, as I've also already noted (together with a long explanatory link), if you really take the position that Jung's Si-dom portrait does a fine job of capturing a typical MBTI I_SJ, you don't have much company. Thomson, Nardi, Berens, Quenk and every other reasonably well-known modern cognitive functions theorist I've ever read works with an Si description that bears very little resemblance to Jung's original description and instead more or less corresponds to Myers' very different descriptions of IS_Js.

So... if most of the Si descriptions that people post in the OP's Si thread end up sounding more like Myers' (or Berens', or Nardi's) descriptions than Jung's, I (for one) will think that's OK — and I suspect Jung would think it was OK, too.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Im going to describe a concept:
> 
> Imagine or draw a circle. Everything within that circle is a component that works as a system to produce a circle. Now if you want to understand that circle you have to specifically focus on the properties of a circle. Those properties being that there are no corners but there is 360°. Other components are that Pi is equivalent to half a circle. These are facts within the system of a circle and these facts are the reason the circle exists.
> 
> ...


...and the underlined part is just a shadow that you have no reason to jump at. No one in this thread is condoning assuming untested ideas for personality theory as facts without finding support for them. No one is devaluing Jung's work.

Personally, I mix and match bits and pieces of systems all the time. My reality is often not clean "circles" with no bleeding into other "circles"; it's a messy mixture of systems that dip into other systems for support. Maybe your reality is different, but that has little to do with correctness.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can find reasonable support for something, then it doesn't matter if it works as a standalone system, as long as you can find a place for it to fit into (or expand upon) existing systems. Only in the instance that it can't fit anywhere does it needs to be a system all its own.

The important part is that when the system gets new pieces added, or existing pieces modified, it becomes a slightly different system and that's ok. There are also some systems that don't directly conflict with each other, such as Enneagram and MBTI.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm with @Shadow Logic on this one, because I don't think any of the current MBTI theorists except maybe Thomson and socionists can actually properly identify the types as they are in relation to how Jung actually saw them. This isn't even about the MBTI vs Jung, but this is about proper application of Jung and I'd argue that Myers did *not* do that. Myers did not fully and truly understand Jung at his essence, and so she simply applied that which she understood but it became something far removed from actual Jungian theory. In her idea of Jung, I'd be an INTP because Myers failed to realize that a Pi dominant will have Pe inferior and can thus easily relate to, identify with and manifest behavior typical of what she thinks is P-ness. She does not account for the fact that the auxiliary is just that. It does not have anything close to the same importance in the psyche that the inferior does. And this is just the tip of the iceberg that I have problems with when it comes to Myers. Her idea of Jung is watered down. She did not understand Jung. That's just how simple it is in my mind.

If you are going to modify a theory then fine, I am not against that per se, but why modify a theory that actually *works* because you as the applicator of theory is too dumb to apply it properly?

Also, Nardi's (and with him also Berens) understanding of the functions are absolutely bull-fucking-shit. Nardi has even mistyped himself. It just says it all really. He may be the only one who is doing some empirical research on the functions but he didn't even get their properties right in the first place so anything his research will yield will be so fucking useless because his conceptual understanding of the functions are so shit. He can't identify them properly in individuals first and that's a big fucking problem.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> Here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:
> 
> [W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
> 
> ...


A few things:

1. In what you have quoted Jung gave examples of what Extraverts and introverts *may* look like. Jung did not state that all extraverts are traditionalist or follow cultural follows. Instead Jung gave examples of what these attitudes *may* look like. To claim that Jung implied *all* extraverts are traditionalist or followers is short sighted on your part.

2. Let md stress a specific fact about reading and studying systems: when a person reads a book or a study, in order for them to completely comprehend it, they have to understand the whole book wholistically and not by fractions. Psychological types is more than just chapter 10, I agree with that, but chapter 10 is still part of psychological types as a whole and is the foundation of JCF while everything before it was what extraversion/introversion could look like and where in history it is present. The book as a whole is a system that needs to be understand fully and not just focused on aspects of it. As Jung gave examples of what extraverts and introverts *may* look like, he further went on to give his exact definition of extraversion/introversion and their depth with the separate functions that are directed in these attitudes. To discount chapter 10 and focus on one aspect of a book is flawed reasoning. It needs to be understood wholistically to be understood.

3. I actually blatantly stated that I have no problem finding facts within the system that Jung has presented to us that not even Jung was aware of:



> *Now if JCF is the circle then I have no problem finding the facts within the system of JCF, including the facts that Jung himself wasnt aware of*. The only way to do this though is to study JCF (the circle) to find these factual components. Yes there is more to be learned about JCF but one can only learn them by studying JCF directly while avoiding making any assumptions at all. If these newJCF facts are brought to light then they must be proven that they are a fact of the system and not an assumption put into the system.


So no, I do not think that "Jung understood it all", which he himself blatantly stated a few times that he did not. That is an assumption on your part to even suggest that I believe in such a thing.

4. Freuds part of psychology is his own system, his system Jung didnt agree with fully but Jung didnt completely discard all of Freud either. What Jung did was leave Freud, using a little bit of freuds understanding (system) while also using a lot of his own understanding to create his own system. When we talk of JCF, we do not state that Jungs system is the same as Freuds, instead we are quite aware they are separate systems because Jung went and made his own system. The same goes for Myers system in relation to Jungs systems, myers went and altered Jungs system, inevitably leading her to make a system of her own. To go further in depth, MBTI is not cognitive functions, its behavorial, which clearly shows that they are separate systems. So just like Jung left Freud to make his own system, Myers too left Jung to make her own system. Even though Jung may use some of Freuds system, and even though Myers may use some of Jungs system, it still shows that Jungs system is a system separate from Freuds system, while Myers system is a system separate from Jungs system.

5. Youre going to have to forgive me for what I say next for it might bother you a bit. I do not care about how many people after Jung decide to not use his system or go against some of its fundamentals, that doesnt show proof but instead shows consensus, and history has shown a million times before that consensus=/=proof. If everyone came out and said that Si is about seeing multiple possibilities and underlying meanings, this would be completely separate from Jung since in JCF those traits belong to Ne. I am not saying people see Si that way, I am saying that the moment people start to change Jungs definition by assuming parts into the system is the moment that they have left JCF to make up their own non JCF system.

6. Suspecting Jung would agree with consensus is the furthest away from who Jung himself was. You may want to not only reread psychological types but seriously read every single writing Jung has written, and read all of his seminars because you get quite a clear picture that Jung was not a man of consensus but instead a man who wanted to understand from his own individual perspective. Your suspections are not supported, warranted, nor fact.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> ...and the underlined part is just a shadow that you have no reason to jump at. No one in this thread is condoning assuming untested ideas for personality theory as facts without finding support for them. No one is devaluing Jung's work.
> 
> Personally, I mix and match bits and pieces of systems all the time. My reality is often not clean "circles" with no bleeding into other "circles"; it's a messy mixture of systems that dip into other systems for support. Maybe your reality is different, but that has little to do with correctness.
> 
> ...


My reality is different. When I talk of systems I talk of a circle where the line that makes the circle what it is, is its borders/limits. These borders/limits represent the separation from that system from other systems outside of it. Everything within that circle is fact of that circle and can not be changed no matter how many times a human wants to try to change it. Now lets say you start adding in other parts of other systems into Jungs system that is from outside of the borders of the system, now you are changing the system and entering into a new system because you have now left the borders of the original system. If someone takes a circle and adds a triangle to the top of it, now you have the circle which is a system of its own, and now we have a triangle that is a system of its own. They are still completely separate systems, even if they overlap, they are still separate since that triangle isnt from within the circle but instead its sources are from without, meaning its own system was made which is separate from the original system.

This is what I mean by assuming into systems, when people leave a system to create their own and then claim they havent changed the system, well thats a lie. What they did was assume that their system was a part of the original, as in a deeper way of seeing the original. Instead the original has been lost or altered and the new separate system has arisen making it a system separate from the original which attempts to assume itself into the original but it is not part of the original. I want to leave all opinions, all accusations, and all assumptions just so we can pay attention to all the facts with Jungs system including the hidden facts within the system that Jung himself was not aware of.

Now if we are in agreement that these are two separate systems, then there is no problem. I have no problem with people making up their own systems but I just rather they become aware that their system is exactly that, *their system*.

Yes enneagram works well with MBTI but they are still separate systems and neither system is assumed into the other, so I have no problem with that. All I want to do is strip away all assumptions and accusations that are forced into systems of which they do not belong. The moment you are trying to add outer separate systems into another separate original system, is the moment you devalued the original.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> She does not account for the fact that the auxiliary is just that. It does not have anything close to the same importance in the psyche that the inferior does.


Hallelujah for someone finally spelling it out.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Semantics? Im not even getting into that realm yet. What I am saying is that there is MBTI and then there is JCF. They are completely separate *systems* where MBTI is derived from Jung. No Jung is not a God, instead he is a human who made a *system* from specifically his perspective where everything after JCF is derived from. Freud may have been a big influence on psychology but the root word psychology nor its study started or was even defined initially by him while JCF was started and defined initially by Jung. Freud gave theories within psychology but he did not invent or even start psychology but Jung did invent and start JCF. JCF is not only a theory, its a *system* which must be understood from the perspective of Jung. If you leave Jung then you leave JCF but if you leave Frued, that doesnt mean you leave psychology but instead you leave Freuds part of psychology. JCF from Jung isnt even comparable to Freuds part of psychology. Psychology is a field that Freud was a part of, JCF on the other hand is literally Jungs individual system.


Some sloppy language here:

JCF is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. 

Psychoanalysis was started by Freud. I would actually say Psychoanalysis is more original than JCF, because Jung really didn't invent a single function. Sensation, intuition, feeling, etc. extrovert/introvert already existed. He just put his own spin on them. And I see no reason why we should discount such great minds as William James, and others. Previous thinkers on the subject, who Jung just casually threw by the wayside. Much less, latter thinkers. I mean, if Jung was actually a prophet, there would be critics saying he stole his philosophy from others, like Christianity borrowed from Pagans. 

It's like the Council of Nicea. You guys are looking for scripture. And saying, "Only I truly understand the prophets." That is really what the argument is reduced to. There are many bells and whistles thrown on these arguments, but cut through it all, and they all say the same thi


That's why guys are so threatened by empirical investigation. Because then, their stories, their interpretations, based on nothing, are as exposed as the facade they are. They are totally removed from the debate. What are some guys gonna do, when they can no longer just pull stories out their ass?

Again, all the hallmarks of a religion, which is the exact opposite that Jung would want, as noted. It is total woozling. 

a *woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and nonfacts becomeurban myths and factoids

* an example of confirmation bias and links it to belief perseverance and groupthink

“Every one knows …”, “It is clear that …”, “It is obvious that …”, “It is generally agreed that …” as alarm bells that what follows might be an Woozle line of reasoning.
 
People are saying so and so interpreted Jung wrong, but did you ever think that Jung was wrong? Or YOU misinterpret him? 

This is what happens when no facts exist. It's all interpretation. Like religion or art. 

A system should change and evolve, or else it is religion. You get an empirical background for it, and you remove the storytellers. Just like Freud was removed from psychology. Freud saw something, and made up a story for it. That was acceptable then, it isn't now.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Some sloppy language here:
> 
> JCF is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis.
> 
> ...


Last time someone tried to be empirical with Jung you got MBTI. MBTI is a shit system through and through which is why not even MBTI theorists can salvage its contents though they fucking try. Not even empirical science is anything more than what you call "a story" or as actual social science would call it, a discourse or cosmology. But of course, you are yourself too blinded to understand this. 

I think it is very possible to be empirical about Jungian theory, I have no doubt about that, but then one needs to work with Jungian ideas from the ground-up. Nardi is not. He's operating with Berens' definitions and Berens seems to suffer the same issue if not worse than Myers did. Berens does not understand Jung and as such Nardi does not understand Jung either.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@FearAndTrembling, you are the epitome of a person who uses assumptions to come to conclusions. The exact thing I go against fully. Lets focus on some of your assumptions about me:

1. My argument in this thread has nothing to do whether Jung is right or not, and in no way do I claim that anywhere. Nor do I claim that mbti or Freud is wrong. These are things you have assumed into me, not things I am currently arguing.

a. What I am arguing is systems, and strictly the science and study of systems. JCF, whether you believe it or not, is a system and follows the rules of a system.

2. I have never claimed the Jung created JCF out of thin air. I am quite aware that Jung also has his sources, of whom I suggest for everyone trying to understand JCF should read to get a clearer understanding. 

3. When ever you take sources and make up a system you have essentially created a theory. Do you know what a theory is? If not, heres the definition:



> Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on).


Therefore Jung did create a theory, since he grouped up ideas to explain past and present phenomenon, the same phenomenon he studied in his sources, his patients, and the characters within mythology.

4. I actually agree and support that people should look at his sources for themselves. What I am arguing, specifically, is that once a system is changed/altered then it is no longer identical to the original systsm. In this case MBTI is not JCF. Thats my argument. I have also stated that I have no problem with that but the creator of the new system must realize they have now created a system separate from Jung. Just as Jung created a system separate from his sources and contemporaries. To further explain what I am saying, heres a quote from me not too long ago:



> All sources have sources, that I do agree with. Source of life derives from that what sustains life, earth, while the source of earth is from the galaxy, the galaxies source from a previous galaxy, and the source of all galaxies from the universe. If you can find a fact then you can find all facts that lead up to it. The number one is a fact, and all constituents of the number one are apart of the number one: 1/1000 of 1 is still a part of one just like 1/1000 of that 1/1000 of one is still a part of one.all the fractions of 1 is what "1" derives from, its sources.
> 
> With that said, Jung had sources also, and those sources had sources, and those sources had sources. Just like how 1/1000 is a source of "1" it is also a source of "2", but 1/1000 of "1" is of more importance to "1" than it is of "2" because 1/1000 of 1 is equal to 1/2000 of 2, 1/2000 is less than 1/1000 when dealing with proportion. Jung's cognitive functions would be equivalent to "1" while socionics and mbti are equivalent to "2". To understand "1" is to understand the parts that make it up, to understand "2" is to understand not only "1" but everything in between "1" and "2" because all of those parts make up "2". The smallest parts of "1" have less of an impact to understanding "2" than would, let's say, "1.2" would have on "2" and the smallest part of "1.2" also contains the smallest part of "1".
> 
> If you want to understand "2" its best to look at "1" than all of the parts of "1" because all the parts of "1" are inevitably also a part of "2". 1 being the source 2, and 2 being the derivative of 1. Now if you question the structure of "1" then by all means break apart all of its parts to find its flaw, but now we're focused on "1" instead of "2". If " 1" is not questioned and is taken to be truth then "2" will, at the least, be as factual as "1" is. So if we are not questioning Jung (1) but instead questioning socionics/mbti (2) then we need to see how consistent "2" is with "1" in relation. If "2" contains parts that are completely irrelevant to "1" then there is a flaw, but if "2" contains all parts that are relevant to "1" then we know it is, at the least, consistent in its soundness as much as "1". At the end of it all to understand socionics/mbti and their differences you must compare them to their source which is Jung. If you want to understand Jung then you must compare him to his sources, and if you want to understand those sources then you must compare them to the source they derive from and so on.


So yes I am in agreement that one should study the sources to see how efficient such system is.

Conclusion: Your whole post was an assumption about me that you were to blind to see the wrongness and bias in your own post. We actually agree about a lot but what we are talking, about as of right now, are completely separate things. I do not hold Jung up as a prophet or a God and ive never once stated or implied such. Ive never even implied if Jungs system or any other system is "right" or not. Instead I focus on the science of systems, which JCF, its sources, and whatever else was derived from Jung all fits within. So no, I am not being religious about Jung, instead Im being analytical of Jungs system and all other systems that are brought forth to me.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> My reality is different. When I talk of systems I talk of a circle where the line that makes the circle what it is, is its borders/limits. These borders/limits represent the separation from that system from other systems outside of it. Everything within that circle is fact of that circle and can not be changed no matter how many times a human wants to try to change it. Now lets say you start adding in other parts of other systems into Jungs system that is from outside of the borders of the system, now you are changing the system and entering into a new system because you have now left the borders of the original system. If someone takes a circle and adds a triangle to the top of it, now you have the circle which is a system of its own, and now we have a triangle that is a system of its own. They are still completely separate systems, even if they overlap, they are still separate since that triangle isnt from within the circle but instead its sources are from without, meaning its own system was made which is separate from the original system.
> 
> This is what I mean by assuming into systems, when people leave a system to create their own and then claim they havent changed the system, well thats a lie. What they did was assume that their system was a part of the original, as in a deeper way of seeing the original. Instead the original has been lost or altered and the new separate system has arisen making it a system separate from the original which attempts to assume itself into the original but it is not part of the original. I want to leave all opinions, all accusations, and all assumptions just so we can pay attention to all the facts with Jungs system including the hidden facts within the system that Jung himself was not aware of.
> 
> ...


I just acknowledged in the post you quoted that when a system gets pieces added or modified, it becomes a slightly different system; I thought it would be obvious that Jungian Cognitive Functions is no longer JCF if I add some things to it or change some things around, so I have to scratch my head in that regard. There's no reason we can't still call them Cognitive Functions though.

I get the sense we started this whole discussion from a place of misunderstanding. It seems to have gone from a simple opinion that Jung would have updated his theories over time if he was alive today, to protective arguments of Jung's theories against would-be attackers. Not once was I trying to imply that because Jung would have updated his theories, we should update his theories for him and then call it his work - which is what you seem to think I was saying. What I was trying to imply is that because he probably would have updated his theories, there's no reason for us to cling to his research as the "gospel" definition of what the functions are - which is what you seemed to be implying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I'm afraid I just don't look at the "devaluing" that way. I consider it a great compliment to a system if I base my understanding in its roots. But I'm not going to sit around and assume that it's all 100% correct, if I notice new modifications/ideas that seem like an improvement.

And I don't see how finding "hidden facts" in a system keeps the system intact in terms of your rigidity about circles and borders and whatnot. It seems to me that according to your own reasoning, discovering a "hidden fact" in Jung's system without consulting him for confirmation, is no different than adding a new piece or modifying an existing one; ultimately, you are changing the system in some small way with the addition of the "hidden fact" and would need to call it a new system.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I'm with @_Shadow Logic_ on this one, because I don't think any of the current MBTI theorists except maybe Thomson and socionists can actually properly identify the types as they are in relation to how Jung actually saw them. This isn't even about the MBTI vs Jung, but this is about proper application of Jung and I'd argue that Myers did *not* do that. Myers did not fully and truly understand Jung at his essence, and so she simply applied that which she understood but it became something far removed from actual Jungian theory. In her idea of Jung, I'd be an INTP because Myers failed to realize that a Pi dominant will have Pe inferior and can thus easily relate to, identify with and manifest behavior typical of what she thinks is P-ness. She does not account for the fact that the auxiliary is just that. It does not have anything close to the same importance in the psyche that the inferior does. And this is just the tip of the iceberg that I have problems with when it comes to Myers. Her idea of Jung is watered down. She did not understand Jung. That's just how simple it is in my mind.
> 
> If you are going to modify a theory then fine, I am not against that per se, but why modify a theory that actually *works* because you as the applicator of theory is too dumb to apply it properly?
> 
> Also, Nardi's (and with him also Berens) understanding of the functions are absolutely bull-fucking-shit. Nardi has even mistyped himself. It just says it all really. He may be the only one who is doing some empirical research on the functions but he didn't even get their properties right in the first place so anything his research will yield will be so fucking useless because his conceptual understanding of the functions are so shit. He can't identify them properly in individuals first and that's a big fucking problem.


I hope you realize that this entire post of yours is just rampant opinionated claims without any evidence to back them up. If it is just intended as an opinion, then that's fine, but I hope you don't mean it as anything more.

Attacking one theorists credibility, for example, by claiming that he mistyped himself is really bad form. It's circular reasoning at its worst.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I just acknowledged in the post you quoted that when a system gets pieces added or modified, it becomes a slightly different system; I thought it would be obvious that Jungian Cognitive Functions is no longer JCF if I add some things to it or change some things around, so I have to scratch my head in that regard. There's no reason we can't still call them Cognitive Functions though.
> 
> I get the sense we started this whole discussion from a place of misunderstanding. It seems to have gone from a simple opinion that Jung would have updated his theories over time if he was alive today, to protective arguments of Jung's theories against would-be attackers. Not once was I trying to imply that because Jung would have updated his theories, we should update his theories for him and then call it his work - which is what you seem to think I was saying. What I was trying to imply is that because he probably would have updated his theories, there's no reason for us to cling to his research as the "gospel" definition of what the functions are - which is what you seemed to be implying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


You are completely misunderstanding me. I do not hold Jungs works as gospel, read the post above yours, it explains it clearly. Im focused on analyzing systems for what they are and not for what they are not. I have never implied that Jung or anyone is right or wrong. Im simply stating that if you change the system then you created a new system. You didnt enhance an original system, you replaced it. 

Let me explain a "hidden fact". If I show you a circle, at first we see a circle and we can now say the circle is fact, and choose to leave it at that. Lets say someone invented the circle and didnt go any more in depth, now we know that their system is the circle, but all they did was draw the circle. To find a hidden fact is to focus on specifically the circle. A hidden fact at this moment, since all we know is a circle, are the lack of edges in a circle. Another fact of a circle is that its borders are infinite, with no beginning and end. Another hidden fact is that the circle has properties (its derivatives) that make it the system that it is. Now it doesnt matter if the inventor of the circle is around to consult with you because to be quite frank you do not need the inventor, you need the system. 

Jung created his system, his system is equivalent to the circle, what Jung did was define the borders/limits but he never gave a full comprehensive analysis of all the derivatives of his system. Instead he admitted that he didnt know all of his system. All he did was create the circle, now its up to us to actually focus and hone in to all the infinite parts of the circle that he may or may not have been aware of.

Ill say it again I do not hold Jung up as Gospel, religion, or God. Jung is a man who made a system and put that system out to be explored further, but you must do just that, *explore the system itself*. What you are implying is instead of doing thatvwe should add in our own interpretations, expanding the borders/limits but not to focus on the original systems infinite amount of peoperties that make it what it is. Essentially you want to change the system, which now we are both in agreemwnt that this is your intention. I am not against you or anyone else making up your own system of cognitive functions, im not even against you using some of Jung as source to further improve your own system. All I am saying is that what you and others are creating, are your own separate systems that make it easier for you to apply to reality. Your system though doesnt show any flaws in Jungs system because your not focused on all the properties of Jungs system, instead you are only focused in creating your own system of which you compare to Jung, but it doesnt discount or help become aware the knowledge within Jungian system. You want to create your own system? Go ahead, I encourage it, just dont hold it as anyone else but yours and only yours.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> You are completely misunderstanding me. I do not hold Jungs works as gospel, read the post above yours, it explains it clearly. Im focused on analyzing systems for what they are and not for what they are not. I have never implied that Jung or anyone is right or wrong. Im simply stating that if you change the system then you created a new system. You didnt enhance an original system, you replaced it.
> 
> Let me explain a "hidden fact". If I show you a circle, at first we see a circle and we can now say the circle is fact, and choose to leave it at that. Lets say someone invented the circle and didnt go any more in depth, now we know that their system is the circle, but all they did was draw the circle. To find a hidden fact is to focus on specifically the circle. A hidden fact at this moment, since all we know is a circle, are the lack of edges in a circle. Another fact of a circle is that its borders are infinite, with no beginning and end. Another hidden fact is that the circle has properties (its derivatives) that make it the system that it is. Now it doesnt matter if the inventor of the circle is around to consult with you because to be quite frank you do not need the inventor, you need the system.
> 
> ...


I'm not completely misunderstanding. Just in regards to the whole "gospel" thing. Though at this point, I feel like we're just restating things ad nauseum and getting nowhere. I mean, I just said, "Not once was I trying to imply that because Jung would have updated his theories, we should update his theories for him and then call it his work," so I don't know why you're still saying "don't hold it as anyone else but yours and only yours." If I give a nod to Jung in the process of talking about a derivative of his system, it's because the roots of the derivative system are with his work - it's just a mark of respect. :S Not that I even go around talking about "JCF" most of the time anyway.

That said, I challenge you to come up with a concrete example to support your notion of "hidden facts" in regards to Jung's system. Cause honestly, while I respect your analogy and the thought put into it, I can't just take your word for it that the concept of a circle somehow translates to complex psychological phenomena. I mean, we can look directly at a circle and see its properties with our eyes. We can't do that with concepts of internal processes. We can create concepts of the concepts in the form of drawings and diagrams, but we can't just draw an inarguable illustration of "extroverted thinking," for instance, and then analyze it from there.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I hope you realize that this entire post of yours is just rampant opinionated claims without any evidence to back them up.


Since when did I ever claim that most of it is simply not personal opinion? I never stated it as a fact or claimed that it is a fact. 



> If it is just intended as an opinion, then that's fine, but I hope you don't mean it as anything more.


Why should I? I don't hold science or the scientific method to such a high regard you seem to do. Jung's theory studied the intangible, to apply empirical logic is going to be flawed and fail simply because the empirical model cannot make sense of the intangible. 



> Attacking one theorists credibility, for example, by claiming that he mistyped himself is really bad form. It's circular reasoning at its worst.


Not unless it's actually justified which I think mine really is.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I'm not completely misunderstanding. Just in regards to the whole "gospel" thing. Though at this point, I feel like we're just restating things ad nauseum and getting nowhere. I mean, I just said, "Not once was I trying to imply that because Jung would have updated his theories, we should update his theories for him and then call it his work," so I don't know why you're still saying "don't hold it as anyone else but yours and only yours." If I give a nod to Jung in the process of talking about a derivative of his system, it's because the roots of the derivative system are with his work - it's just a mark of respect. :S Not that I even go around talking about "JCF" most of the time anyway.
> 
> That said, I challenge you to come up with a concrete example to support your notion of "hidden facts" in regards to Jung's system. Cause honestly, while I respect your analogy and the thought put into it, I can't just take your word for it that the concept of a circle somehow translates to complex psychological phenomena. I mean, we can look directly at a circle and see its properties with our eyes. We can't do that with concepts of internal processes. We can create concepts of the concepts in the form of drawings and diagrams, but we can't just draw an inarguable illustration of "extroverted thinking," for instance, and then analyze it from there.


When I read or see things I immediately with no effort put it into a visual concept within my head where there are no assumptions because the picture im painting in my is being directed by the exact words I am reading. Every word or term describes a concept. The word "I" is the most basic word but "I" is concept that refers to the self. That self is a painted picture now. Whenever I think of "I", I think of a visual picture of the self. Visually in my head, this self looks like a transparent human being. If I am to learn more about the self, then all the new properties I am learning is getting put into the visual picture of the self, so I can keep painting it more and more in depth.

The reason I mention this is because Jung used words, and those words were derived from sources who created those words to define the concept and its borders, which creates a whole visual picture in my head that I keep painting the more I learn. Once I pull away from painting it, I start to analyze all of its properties and how those properties relate to other properties within the concept to notice things that many others may not have noticed.

Extraverted thinking for example, needs to be defined. First we have extraversion which is defined as away from the self. So take the picture of the self and point an arrow away from it. Now lets focus on defining thinking in the Jungian sense, which is for Ti absorbing factual knowledge to create an internal framework, and for Te is looking to apply factual information to efficiently reach a desired goal. Both types of thinking are saying the same thing though, which is acquiring facts to acquire resources. These resources being anything from materialistic possessions to "hidden" facts. So for an Extraverted thinker they look for facts that have everything to do with achieving a goal, which is a form of acquiring a resource, and nothing to do with absorbing and organizing every single fact to create a comprehensive system internally. 

Jung never said that thinking is to acquire resources but Jung did talk about extraversion and introversion, he also talked about the differences in Ti and Te. Knowing what separates Ti and Te, knowing that they derive from the same source but are directed in two different ways, knowing what extraversion and introversion is and putting these "facts of the system" into relation with each other induces the fact that Thinking=Thinking but its directions chooses the way its headed, and based upon the way its headed shows how it is affected. Imagine thinking of a ball of light, where it is being reflected off in two different directions, one direction has different factors than the other and these factors change how the light effects such objects. If Thinking is based upon gathering facts, and extraversion/introversion is based upon the direction, that means these facts must go into different directions. Te applies the facts externally, Ti applies the facts internally but Judgement functions are based upon a criteria/ a set goal. The goal of Ti is to increase its knowledge internally to form a cohesive system where all the facts are completely in relation with eachother, meaning Ti has to focus on how these facts relate within every angle, finding new information from the relation of these facts. While Te's focus is to use these facts to achieve an external goal/acquire an external resource. These goals are the effects being produced when perception is in relation to Judgement. Perception perceives, while Judgement forms a criteria, by perceing and creating a criteria, a goal is inevitably producdd from this action.

Jung himself didnt say this word for word, instead he defined a system, gave it borders/limits and from there I absorbed it within my visual mind creating these visual concepts based upon the "facts of his system" and seeing what can be induced from the relation of such facts. This is called inductive logic, while breaking apart the system to see the relation of of such facts is deductive reasoning.

Edit: Also the concept of a circle is equivalent to two other concepts, the concept of 1, and the concept of a system with borders/limits. Circle=1=Enclosed System. This means that a circle can always be used as an analogy to understand numbers and systems, *no matter what*.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> When I read or see things I immediately with no effort put it into a visual concept within my head where there are no assumptions because the picture im painting in my is being directed by the exact words I am reading. Every word or term describes a concept. The word "I" is the most basic word but "I" is concept that refers to the self. That self is a painted picture now. Whenever I think of "I", I think of a visual picture of the self. Visually in my head, this self looks like a transparent human being. If I am to learn more about the self, then all the new properties I am learning is getting put into the visual picture of the self, so I can keep painting it more and more in depth.
> 
> The reason I mention this is because Jung used words, and those words were derived from sources who created those words to define the concept and its borders, which creates a whole visual picture in my head that I keep painting the more I learn. Once I pull away from painting it, I start to analyze all of its properties and how those properties relate to other properties within the concept to notice things that many others may not have noticed.
> 
> ...












By the way, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you just illustrated why we're on two different wavelengths.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> By the way, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you just illustrated why we're on two different wavelengths.


I am aware, you are Ni-Te, I am Ne-Ti. Our focus may be the same but how we direct/go about it are completely different leading us to walk parallel paths but having completely different goals about where we end up on these paths. Its also the reason there are many misunderstandings on this forum alone. One people are focused on completely different things when looking at objects, this applies to systems to. Just as systems (which individually we are also), we have our limits/birders and where we are limited may be where someone else separate from us are gifted. Everyone though will hold on to the beliefs that they can do anything anyone else can do and that they dont have limits, or they accept they have limits but then forcefully apply their limits to everyon, stating everyone must have these limits because they cant accept that others arent limited in the ways they are. Just like you are you and I am me, but we will never be the same person, and that right there is a limit.

Btw I wasnt necessarily directing this to you instead I was just going off on a rant about what patterns I have noticed since I got into JCF and signed up for PerC. Its a mess on this site.


----------

