# Jung didn't like Te...



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I know Jung's philosophy well, and it just dawned on me how anti-Te he was. Because I just read his description of Te in his own book for the first time, and now realized that one of the main forces he was fighting in all of his work, was Te. I finally have a name to put to it. 

I am reading Psychological Types and the part on Te. Now, Jung has to be more subtle in his putting down of Te here, because it is more academic. But it is there. He says that basically whatever society believes, Te believes. He subtly portrays Te as an automaton always susceptible to whatever evils society can sell it. Because they are always looking outward, they have no basis of the subject, and therefore no reference to the object. It's just a blurred mess. People can manipulate your own complexes, because you don't even know yourself. (this was played out with Luke in Star Wars, I will get to that later) If you don't know yourself, how can you know when others are using your own insecurities against you? Te is a dictator and demagogues dream. If you read The Undiscovered Self, a more personal work of Jung, it is an anti-Te manifesto. It is about how people are so outward focused, and so lack self knowledge and introverted thought, that Nazism was absolutely no surprise. It should be expected. There was nothing at all unique about the German public, nearly any society would have went along with it. We like to think we wouldn't but we would. Jung calls for a "hero to stand against the world". 

In fact, Jung thought Te was so predominate, and Ti so repressed, that nobody would even believe him that Ti exists. As Te constitutes everything we know about thinking. 

Funny thing is, this spilled over into pop culture, because Jung and Campbell's thought is so influential there, and the absolute best stories are about the hero overcoming Te. Star wars: Luke finally knows himself, finally looks inward, where the truth really is. And prevails. Te is vanquished.

And this is another important thing you need to realize about Jung. Jung thought that objective knowledge was only good if it lead to self knowledge. Jung studied the outside world to learn about himself. He was one of those old Greeks who saw learning as a form of remembering. Of remembering the self.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

This was played out in Star Wars so well, that I must expand on it. And Luke is a typical INFJ hero, so even further reason. Probably the most concise scene of this was in The Empire Strikes Back.

Luke enters the cave, to face his worst fear. And of course we all know that Vader is his worst fear, and sure enough Vader appears. They fight, and Luke strikes Vader down. But when Vader's helmet comes off, it reveals Luke inside. And then we finally realize what Luke's worst fear REALLY is. Not Vader, but turning into Vader. The recognition that he was capable of being Vader. At any second. That is very important self knowledge, and the rock that Luke uses to propel him to stand against the world. Self knowledge is basis of all goodness, of all righteous action..

And this is what Jung tried to communicate. We must all recognize we are capable of evil. As he said about the Iron Curtain, the fears we see is our own reflection, and we don't even know it. 

Jung thought that every human must have a reckoning with himself. Face down who he really is, and either accept it, or fight it. Jung thought most people would rather die than do this. But the reckoning will happen, either inside you, or outside of you. 

As he said:



> The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate.
> 
> That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.


Hitler had his own inner conflict, and it had to be played out on the world stage. He so avoided himself, that we would rather reckon with the world, than reckon with himself. Vader too. And that is why Luke is the true hero, because he reckoned with himself. Reckoning with the world is easy, it is reckoning with yourself that is hard.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> He says that basically whatever society believes, Te believes. He subtly portrays Te as an automaton always susceptible to whatever evils society can sell it. Because they are always looking outward, they have no basis of the subject, and therefore no reference to the object. It's just a blurred mess. People can manipulate your own complexes, because you don't even know yourself.


Jung spent more of Psychological Types describing the things he thought _all extraverts_ and _all introverts_ had in common than he spent on all eight of the functions put together. Since he also included some of those general E/I characteristics in his eight function-type portraits, it's not uncommon for people who've only read Chapter X to mistakenly associate them with one of the specific functions, like you've done here.

Jung thought that _all_ extraverts, not just Te-doms, were prone to adopt the dominant values and beliefs of their cultures, and to be lacking when it came to an independent/subjective perspective. He said that "the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature ... and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when 'other people know.' His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote."

Here he is describing _extraverts generally_ and _introverts generally_:

[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.​


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

_*Using generalizations instead of looking at individual instances about Te use to argue against generalizations in favor of looking at individual instances? Go to bed Jung, you are drunk.*_

Heaps of stuff Jung did was wacky. Libraries can be found with several volumes worth - analysis of religions and cultural archetypes come to mind.

Some of his stuff is... less wacky.

As for his attitude to Te? Expected, really, if you know his type and the nature of the functions of his type. Pity he didn't individuate enough, should have probably developed inward instead of just looking inward. Unless he didn't have the natural aptitude, haha.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

default settings said:


> _*Using generalizations instead of looking at individual instances about Te use to argue against generalizations in favor of looking at individual instances? Go to bed Jung, you are drunk.*_
> 
> Heaps of stuff Jung did was wacky. Libraries can be found with several volumes worth - analysis of religions and cultural archetypes come to mind.
> 
> Some of his stuff is... less wacky.


What kind of wacky are you referring to? Maybe you perceive the subject of_ spirituality _as such?

To the OP: I have only read select chapters from 2 of his books, but plan to read more. If he's not a Ni-dom with a healthy Ti-muscle then I don't know who is... This automatically rules out any love for Te in my limited understanding.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Miya said:


> What kind of wacky are you referring to? Maybe you perceive the subject of_ spirituality _as such?
> 
> To the OP: I have only read select chapters from 2 of his books, but plan to read more. If he's not a Ni-dom with a healthy Ti-muscle then I don't know who is... This automatically rules out any love for Te in my limited understanding.


Agreed, INFJ to the core. In socionics his hate for Te is quite easily explained with the concept of PoLR (point of least resistanc) or vulnerable function that Te would be located within socionics' function order and it is exactly what it sounds like, something we are vulnerable to and we can develop very strong sentiments towards it. In socionics Jung is usually commonly typed as the equivalent of an INFJ.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Agreed, INFJ to the core. In socionics his hate for Te is quite easily explained with the concept of PoLR (point of least resistanc) or vulnerable function that Te would be located within socionics' function order and it is exactly what it sounds like, something we are vulnerable to and we can develop very strong sentiments towards it. In socionics Jung is usually commonly typed as the equivalent of an INFJ.


That's what I suspected, too. I'm also interested in how Te-doms and aux's distrust Ti. What constructive criticism would you care to offer us? I'd love to hear. Because, you know... I can't NOT appreciate Ti, I see it as super awesome (=truthful) in myself and others, given that it makes sense


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Miya said:


> That's what I suspected, too. I'm also interested in how Te-dom and aux's distrust Ti. What constructive criticism would you care to offer us? I'd love to hear. Because, you know... I can't NOT appreciate Ti, I see it as super awesome (=truthful) in myself and others, given that it makes sense


I think to answer your question you would need to ask what Fi is as opposed to Te itself since it is Fi that creates value for Te to hold onto. Essentially, what makes me distrust Fe-Ti in general as a function combination is that it seems irrational to me. It seems to often contradict itself in terms of say, ethical behavior. To me, ethics is something that is applies equally in all situations as to make it fair, but Fe-Ti doesn't care about this at all. I also feel I cannot trust how Fe-Ti does not seem to value personal sentiments towards others as much as they value external bonds e.g. family. I for example often hear my Fe family members tell me that of course we care about you because you're family which leaves me a little cold because I don't care that you care about me as family, because it would be so much nicer if you actually cared about me as a _person_ based on the personal feelings of mutual intimacy that we share. 

I also find that I think Ti doms in particular often nitpick certain things just because they can nitpick at it, but tend to miss out on the bigger picture because the point isn't say that particular phrase, word or whatever, but the point is how it all strings together and formulate a concept or an idea. I think that's more my reaction because I'm irrational lead as opposed to rational though. Observations precede that of categorization.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> _*Using generalizations instead of looking at individual instances about Te use to argue against generalizations in favor of looking at individual instances? Go to bed Jung, you are drunk.*_
> 
> Heaps of stuff Jung did was wacky. Libraries can be found with several volumes worth - analysis of religions and cultural archetypes come to mind.
> 
> ...


There is nothing wacky about his analysis of myths and archetypes. In fact, that is where he shines most and does his most profound work. Jung wanted to be archaeologist, and applied that method to psychology. Always digging into the mind. Jung could read the ancient languages. Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin, Greek. He read these religious texts in their original language, which is why he was so good at noticing patterns across cultures. He played a large role in bringing a lot of Eastern philosophy to the west. People like him don't even exist anymore. 

I think his attitude towards Te was also related to the environment. He was alive during the height of Nazisim, and then the Cold War soon followed. The world was much more divided. Jung lived in a war zone.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> *I for example often hear my Fe family members tell me that of course we care about you because you're family which leaves me a little cold because I don't care that you care about me as family, because it would be so much nicer if you actually cared about me as a person based on the personal feelings of mutual intimacy that we share.*


As a Ni-dom I feel exactly the same. I don't understand how one "must" love anyone simply because you are born into that particular family. But, then again, I believe in a conscious universe and destiny, so that I now and then see how being born into my family helps me grow as a person (and don't we grow best when we must overcome major obstacles in life?).

As another INFJ said, Fe in an INFJ is different from other Fe-forms, even ENFJs, in that it actually sees everything from Ni's detached point of view and thus, on one hand, appreciates and loves humans for the good they can hold, and, on the other hand, hates, despises and even fears them because of the evil they are perfectly capable of. I see many social norms with a great deal of skepticism. People do mindless and senseless things just because others do them, this contradicts my Ni's own worldview and the Idealists' desire to be at least a little "special". 



ephemereality said:


> I also find that I think Ti doms in particular often *nitpick* *certain things just because they can nitpick at it*, but tend to miss out on the bigger picture because the point isn't say that particular phrase, word or whatever, but the point is how it all strings together and formulate a concept or an idea. I think that's more my reaction because I'm irrational lead as opposed to rational though. Observations precede that of categorization.


The logic behind this is simple: if your basic premise is already containing a fallacy, there are chances your conclusion might as well...  It's a gesture of caring whether or not you distance yourself from the truth by committing minor reasoning errors, which would be very very regretful.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Miya said:


> As a Ni-dom I feel exactly the same. I don't understand how one "must" love anyone simply because you are born into that particular family. But, then again, I believe in a conscious universe and destiny, so that I now and then see how being born into my family helps me grow as a person (and don't we grow best when we must overcome major obstacles in life?).
> 
> As another INFJ said, Fe in an INFJ is different from other Fe-forms, even ENFJs, in that it actually sees everything from Ni's detached point of view and thus, on one hand, appreciates and loves humans for the good they can hold, and, on the other hand, hates, despises and even fears them because of the evil they are perfectly capable of. I see many social norms with a great deal of skepticism. People do mindless and senseless things just because others do them, this contradicts my Ni's own worldview and the Idealists' desire to be at least a little "special".


I want to note that my ESTP cousin says this, though. 



> The logic behind this is simple: if your basic premise is already containing a fallacy, there are chances your conclusion might as well...  It's a gesture of caring whether or not you distance yourself from the truth by committing minor reasoning errors, which would be very very regretful.


But who cares about whether it is logical or not? The point isn't the logic or lack thereof or logic at all, but the point is exactly as it is presented to you in order to convey the idea. It's not about the conclusion. I rarely have any real conclusions in the first place. The point is the process of how we observe a specific phenomenon and as it is observed, we can observe tangible patterns that emerge from this observation. So what I care about is referring to these patterns to you, not whether they are logical or make sense. If they don't, go complain to said phenomenon then that it doesn't obey the laws of physics which is certainly not my problem but your problem then to sort out of how to make sense of it.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I want to note that my ESTP cousin says this, though.
> 
> 
> 
> But who cares about whether it is logical or not? The point isn't the logic or lack thereof or logic at all, but the point is exactly as it is presented to you in order to convey the idea. It's not about the conclusion. I rarely have any real conclusions in the first place. The point is the process of how we observe a specific phenomenon and as it is observed, we can observe tangible patterns that emerge from this observation. So what I care about is referring to these patterns to you, not whether they are logical or make sense. If they don't, go complain to said phenomenon then that it doesn't obey the laws of physics which is certainly not my problem but your problem then to sort out of how to make sense of it.


Sorry if I'm slow but I didn't get the bit with your ESTP cousin. Does he say what I wrote or the "one loves his family by definition" bit you described earlier in a post?

As for the logic, I can see how you prefer the matter-of-fact approach to reality, but that same reality is built on certain principles that are most likely to be based on some kind of logic. In Ti's eyes this is an essential part of the matrix around us, or so I think.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

It is complicated. I LOATHE detail and really get annoyed when people get tripped up by and can't see the big picture. Like I will use an example to back up an idea, and they will just fix in on the example, totally be sucked into analyzing that. Instead of the underlying greater idea which it is only a tentacle of. 

If someone starts off with a "fallacy" in their argument, I can correct it and retranslate in my head, and know the real big picture they are trying to communicate, and see beyond the detail of presentation. That fallacy may hurt their argument, but it doesn't necessarily discredit the whole idea. That is focusing too much on detail. 

OF course, I am also a snake, and will resort to detail to pick apart your argument, and call them fallacies and all that. But that negative thinking is not in my heart. That is what CS Lewis called "nothing buttery". Everything is "nothing but" this or that. It is negative thinking. It is probably introverted, I don't know. But Jung said that Te was was positive thought, in that it was productive. There is nothing productive about nothing buttery. 

So if someone starts off an argument with a particular fallacy. A person may start with the nothing buttery. "That is nothing but strawman fallacy", etc..


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Miya said:


> Sorry if I'm slow but I didn't get the bit with your ESTP cousin. Does he say what I wrote or the "one loves his family by definition" bit you described earlier in a post?


*She

But yes, she's the one who for example says "we care because we're family". 



> As for the logic, I can see how you refer the matter-of-fact approach to reality, but that same reality is built on certain principles that are most likely to be based on some kind of logic. In Ti's eyes this is an essential part of the matrix around us, or so I think.


Likely. I don't give a fuck. I mean, we could equally argue this from the POV of Fi in that I think similarly, there's some ethical underpinning to everything that guides us in where we end up doing, but I don't think an Fe type is going to agree with how Fi becomes some driving force in this manner.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know Jung's philosophy well, and it just dawned on me how anti-Te he was. Because I just read his description of Te in his own book for the first time, and now realized that one of the main forces he was fighting in all of his work, was Te. I finally have a name to put to it…..


In reviewing your full statement objectively would you say that everything you refer to in your quote post is your interpretation of how Dr. Jung describes the extraverted thinking type? Because I don’t remember he saying any of what you just wrote as to how he describes Te. 

Dr. Jung does not sugar coat his descriptions and shares an equal consideration of what he finds wrong with every type. In fact if I had to determine whether he had a type that Dr. Jung did have a least preference for it would be the introverted intuitive type. In his first sentence he refers to the type as a crank:


> The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Functianalyst said:


> In reviewing your full statement objectively would you say that everything you refer to in your quote post is your interpretation of how Dr. Jung describes the extraverted thinking type? Because I don’t remember he saying any of what you just wrote as to how he describes Te.
> 
> Dr. Jung does not sugar coat his descriptions and shares an equal consideration of what he finds wrong with every type. In fact if I had to determine whether he had a type that Dr. Jung did have a least preference for it would be the introverted intuitive type. In his first sentence he refers to the type as a crank:


That is why I think it is necessary to cross reference Jung's academic work, with his more personal work. Jung loved intuition and basically thought it was the root of all genius. Jung was a seer and mystic himself. Because of this, he tried extra hard in academia not to show is bias, because he wanted to be taken seriously scientifically. He certainly said a paraphrase of "what society believes, Te usually believes, and if that belief changes, Te will change along with it."


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

reckful said:


> Jung spent more of Psychological Types describing the things he thought _all extraverts_ and _all introverts_ had in common than he spent on all eight of the functions put together. Since he also included some of those general E/I characteristics in his eight function-type portraits, it's not uncommon for people who've only read Chapter X to mistakenly associate them with one of the specific functions, like you've done here.


To the contrary, the basis of his theory is to distinguish between extravert and introvert as outlined *here*. As for giving little credence to the functions, as I have attempted to convey for almost two years on this forum and even in threads like *this one*. His theory is not based on functions as is Myers Briggs’. It’s based on the attitude.


FearAndTrembling said:


> That is why I think it is necessary to cross reference Jung's academic work, with his more personal work. Jung loved intuition and basically thought it was the root of all genius. Jung was a seer and mystic himself. Because of this, he tried extra hard in academia not to show is bias, because he wanted to be taken seriously scientifically. He certainly said a paraphrase of "what society believes, Te usually believes, and if that belief changes, Te will change along with it."


As already stated by Reckful and others, what you are describing as his opinion of Te is what he describes of extraverted types in general. I think the whole position here is to the contrary, Dr. Jung does not indicate a disdain or liking for one function-attitude over another. He is an introverted thinking type, and as he says of the type, they just put the information out for others to read and become annoyed when it does not bud on it's own. He has no vested interest that I have ever witnessed in one function-attitude having greater or lesser value than any other.

If I am following your OP, is it safe to infer that you are indicating Dr. Jung's disdain for extraverted thinking based on your own diagnosis, not on something he has written?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> To the contrary, the basis of his theory is to distinguish between extravert and introvert as outlined *here*. As for giving little credence to the functions, as I have attempted to convey for almost two years on this forum and even in threads like *this one*. His theory is not based on functions as is Myers Briggs’. It’s based on the attitude.


If you're saying Jung considered E/I the most important divider of his types, I don't disagree and I don't know why you prefaced your sentence with "to the contrary."

But I don't think it's very meaningful to say that Jung's theory "is not based on functions. ... It's based on the attitude" given that Jung thought _both_ the attitudes and the functions played very important roles. I guess it depends what you mean by "based on."


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

reckful said:


> But I don't think it's very meaningful to say that Jung's theory "is not based on functions. ... It's based on the attitude" given that Jung thought _both_ the attitudes and the functions played very important roles. I guess it depends what you mean by "based on."


The theory in the introduction makes it clear:


> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.


Even when he does refer to the word function, Dr. Jung makes it clear they are guided by the extraverted/introverted attitude and gives no validity to function alone. In fact above he is referring not to a particular function but “the most differentiated” function-attitude. So when I say to the contrary, that is being said in the utmost mild way it can be said. I am saying with complete confidence that function has very little meaning. It cannot work on its own as E/I can. In fact Dr. Jung spends probably more time referring to functions in general terms using judging and perceiving instead acknowledging the specific functions thinking, feeling, sensing and intuiting.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think the problem here is that many people here have only read Jung's descriptions, but not his prescriptions. In Psychological Types, he describes, in The Undiscovered Self, he prescribes. 

Plus it is kind of a mindfuck because Psychological Types was written in like the 1920s, and The Undiscovered Self decades later. Jung had time to more consolidate his thoughts.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> Although Jung ascribed that quality to Ni, I'd blame Kiersey for going nuts slapping labels on things like types and promoting that trend.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced all of those people were INFJ.


Yeah, even though I don't have much depth of knowledge of Ne or Ni, it seemed obvious to me that it was Ni. Mysticism is irrational, and orangeappled pointed out that Ni is irrational. So it fits.

Jung's description of Ni:



> _*The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition.*_


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You were arguing for Jung being INTP. I don't really see any major mystics there.
> 
> *Aquinas: "Reason in man is rather like God in the world."
> 
> ...


In what way is that an argument to support that Jung is an INFJ? Aside from the fact that it is a random quote out of context, at best it's an argument demonstrating a preference for perceiving dominance rather than judgment.

Jung described himself as a Thinker and an Intuitive. Despite the conclusions made by the originator of the theory of his own self, most others seem to want to type him as a Feeler. Why? And I don't mean why do people think he's a Feeler, but why do they think Jung is wrong in understanding his own self? Granted there are mistypes all the time; however, I find it extremely unlikely that Jung would mistype or misunderstand his own self.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> In what way is that an argument to support that Jung is an INFJ? Aside from the fact that it is a random quote out of context, at best it's an argument demonstrating a preference for perceiving dominance rather than judgment.
> 
> Jung described himself as a Thinker and an Intuitive. Despite the conclusions made by the originator of the theory of his own self, most others seem to want to type him as a Feeler. Why? And I don't mean why do people think he's a Feeler, but why do they think Jung is wrong in understanding his own self? Granted there are mistypes all the time; however, I find it extremely unlikely that Jung would mistype or misunderstand his own self.


\

How is the quote taken out of context? What context is missing that is relevant?

What does it have to do with perceiving or judging? It has to do with rational, logical thought being overrated, and feeling being important. It's important in showing Jung was irrational. Though if you knew his life story, you would never doubt he was irrational. 

When and where did he describe himself as a thinker?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> \
> 
> How is the quote taken out of context? What context is missing that is relevant?


Without context, it could just be a fragment of the expression of another idea altogether, rather than the belief in the individual statement itself. For example, maybe he is arguing epistemology: According to Descartes, reason is all you need for gaining knowledge. A response to that could be "Reason alone does not suffice." This doesn't necessarily mean he is downplaying reason at all. Or maybe he is quoting or paraphrasing something someone else said. Without context, it becomes difficult to be certain of the intended meaning.



> What does it have to do with perceiving or judging? It has to do with rational, logical thought being overrated, and feeling being important. It's important in showing Jung was irrational. Though if you knew his life story, you would never doubt he was irrational.


In this context, perceiving dominant = irrational. ESTPs, ENTPs, ESFPs, ENFPs, ISFJs, ISTJs, and INTJs are also perceiving dominants or "irrational" types. How does your argument specificially indicate INFJ, rather than any of the other irrational types?



> When and where did he describe himself as a thinker?


http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/13952-carl-jung.html#post272137


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Without context, it could just be a fragment of the expression of another idea altogether, rather than the belief in the individual statement itself. For example, maybe he is arguing epistemology: According to Descartes, reason is all you need for gaining knowledge. A response to that could be "Reason alone does not suffice." This doesn't necessarily mean he is downplaying reason at all. Or maybe he is quoting or paraphrasing something someone else said. Without context, it becomes difficult to be certain of the intended meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would fit that quote into his lifetime work of putting down the intellect and "scientific thought". As I said before, Jung was the biggest, and best, critic of scientific materialism and rationalism of the last century. I guess this is the INFJ in me; I see the big picture in Jung, and I know what he was about. 

Most "professionals" type Jung as an INTP, INFJ or INTJ. I think that is reasonable. I don't necessarily have to prove that Jung fits INFJ perfectly, or even very well. All I have to do is show he is more like an INFJ than any other type. No way is Ni that far down on his stack, so he is not INTP. Einstein is also mistyped as INTP for the same reason. Einstein is the absolute epitome of Ni. If he isn't Ni dominant, then nobody is. What is the best evidence against Jung being INFJ? I think he fits it pretty well.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

My understanding is that Einstein's generally viewed as epitome-of-INTP — although, as described below, I think that means Jung would have considered Einstein's functions to be Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

Anyway, moving to Jung's type...

First point: Jung viewed himself as a Ti-dom at the time he wrote Psychological Types. In talking about why Jordan viewed introverts and extraverts in terms of their unconscious side, Jung explained that that was typical of P-doms, and that his own temperament led him (Jung) to have the opposite perspective (i.e., to view people in terms of their conscious sides). So he thought of himself as a J-dom, and he certainly thought of himself as an introvert, so that narrows it down to Ti-dom and Fi-dom. He also confessed that, up until not long before he published Psychological Types, he'd thought T was part of introversion (i.e., that all introverts were T's and all extraverts were F's) — which is not a mistake he would have made if he'd thought of himself as an introverted F.

Second point: Both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, and you can (in case you're interested) read more about that in this post and the posts it links to.

Third point: Although Jung didn't exactly describe a separate J/P dimension of personality, he did make a strong distinction between the "rational types" (the J-doms) and the "irrational types" (the P-doms) and, if you read through Psychological Types looking for two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world descriptions that seem to line up reasonably well with the MBTI J/P dimension, you'll mostly find them in Jung's descriptions of the J-doms and P-doms. Jung said P-doms "find fulfilment in ... the flux of events" and are "attuned to the absolutely contingent," while J-doms seek to "coerce the untidiness and fortuitousness of life into a definite pattern." He said a J-dom tends to view a P-dom as "a hodge-podge of accidentals," while a P-dom "ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments."

So... I think Jung's view of his own functions (at least at the time he wrote Psychological Types) was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. And, because Jung viewed himself as a rational type, and so presumably identified with the characteristics he ascribed to rational types — and because, similarly, you'll also find some traces of the MBTI J/P dimension in Jung's E/I characterizations (with introverts being the J-ish ones) — I think it's likely he would have tested as an MBTI J.

So I've long thought of Jung as an IN_J, but I'm open to the idea that he mistyped himself on T/F and might have been an INFJ, and I agree that that typing would be more consistent with his mystical streak than INTJ.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

What you described sounds a lot like Jung's philosophy. Jung thought meaning, and structure were very important. He said meaningless was equivalent to illness. He said there is no problem he ever came across that couldn't be solved by a religious style of living. He talked so much about the importance of fitting yourself into a larger, ordered narrative. Like religion. He actually thought the world was connected by meaning: synchronicity. He thought there was no thought or feeling in our head that was irrelevant. It was all part of something greater. Nothing is accidental. He was a unifier. He was a ritualist. 

Oh, and another thing that makes him an INFJ is that he understands others better than he understands himself.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I would fit that quote into his lifetime work of putting down the intellect and "scientific thought". As I said before, Jung was the biggest, and best, critic of scientific materialism and rationalism of the last century. I guess this is the INFJ in me; I see the big picture in Jung, and I know what he was about.


That's fine, but I don't think you can appeal to your own authority without some kind of objective credibility as being an authoritative source on Jung. 

Citing the source of the quote is probably better.



> _*Aquinas: "Reason in man is rather like God in the world."
> 
> ^^INTP
> 
> ...


In this case, I would have used the quote by Jung to undermine the idea of him as an INTP; rather than to support the claim that he is an INFJ to refute the INTP conclusion. If that makes any sense? Though I suppose I'm just arguing logical semantics or something. 



> Most "professionals" type Jung as an INTP, INFJ or INTJ. I think that is reasonable. I don't necessarily have to prove that Jung fits INFJ perfectly, or even very well. All I have to do is show he is more like an INFJ than any other type. No way is Ni that far down on his stack, so he is not INTP. Einstein is also mistyped as INTP for the same reason. Einstein is the absolute epitome of Ni. If he isn't Ni dominant, then nobody is. What is the best evidence against Jung being INFJ? I think he fits it pretty well.


So far, I choose to align my understanding of Jung's type with INTx because that is his self-typing (ok, I am making an assumption that he saw himself as an Introvert). I do not have any sufficient reason at this time to doubt that typing. I don't see how he reasons by personal or social values; however, I have not read into his works as extensively as you have. I disagree that mystic = INFJ though I can see how the probability of truth in that is significantly greater.

Einstein I'm on the fence on. I just don't know enough about him to think either Ni or Ti dominant. I've heard some pretty good arguments for the possibility of INFP or ENFP as well.



> Oh, and another thing that makes him an INFJ is that he understands others better than he understands himself.


I understand others better than I understand myself. Am I an INFJ?

I used to type as one. Who knows?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Mysticism is irrational, and orangeappled pointed out that Ni is irrational.


Ni is an irrational function.

But when Jung uses the idea to describe functions, it means something technical rather than driven by emotional whims.

Irrational means beyond rational, in a similar way to how one may recognize the sky is blue even before thought constructs come into the forefront of the mind.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@PaladinX, I'm of the belief that Jung mistyped himself, so I'll explain why, though I cannot argue why others see this but perhaps our readings of Jung and his reasoning process may overlap:

One thing that is striking about Jung's work is his lack and willingness to define things more than is necessary for understanding. Other ego Ti types sometimes complain about this aspect of his writing and it is a fair complaint. Jung may at times be so vague that it is either difficult to understand him or he is simply contradicting himself outright. While I do think Ti seems to guide his work in some order, which is why he for example got hung up on this number of 4 being important to the theory as I often find that Ti thinkers tend to get hung up on specific numbers to force a theory to fit or be shaped around, what really seems to be the core focus of Jung's works are his descriptions and analysis of the symbolic and a bit too much so for him to seem to fit the pattern of a Ti dominant type. Granted, he now also ascribed the Ti dom to revel in some form of archetype and mystical patterns, but overall, the way the man reasoned doesn't fit my impression of a Ti dominant, intelligent as he may be.

Of particular interest are a lot of his odd snide remarks towards thinkers of both kinds that may seem to come out of nowhere. He for example noted when it came to his thinking description that philosophers fit it well because they end up in endless diatribes attempting to define what something is. He could have conveyed this neutrally or even positively, but instead he did so in a negative manner. Why? If thinking is the most important aspect of his psyche, then why look down upon those who he sees utilizing it the most? 

It was some time ago since I read Jung now so I don't remember all instances that were present in his works that were phrased in such way as to give off an impression that he doesn't value that particular way of being highly, but it were a few things scattered here and there that may indicate such. For being an inferior Fe type he must also a) have been very integrated or b) been egoic Fe because Fe is often a very present idea underlining most of his other ideas. Take the collective unconsciousness for example. The notion of such a thought is extremely Fe. His example of mob mentality is also very Fe, and the way he described the way that he engaged his patients also very Fe. People can be wrong about themselves even if they are the originator of something. Yes, Jung found it very important to analyze and understand his own psyche, but it doesn't mean he had the objective ability to see himself clearly. Alternatively it could be that over time, the way we came to understand type and theory differs from his own personal perception of it which could also explain such a discrepancy.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

default settings said:


> Although Jung ascribed that quality to Ni, I'd blame Kiersey for going nuts slapping labels on things like types and promoting that trend.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not convinced all of those people were INFJ.


I agree Default, but I would say that Keirsey perpetuated the notion which was started by Myers Briggs who coined the 4-letter codes.



reckful said:


> Anyway, moving to Jung's type...
> Second point: Both I and (as Myers acknowledged) most Jung scholars believe that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, and you can (in case you're interested) read more about that in this post and the posts it links to.
> 
> So... I think Jung's view of his own functions (at least at the time he wrote Psychological Types) was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. And, because Jung viewed himself as a rational type, and so presumably identified with the characteristics he ascribed to rational types — and because, similarly, you'll also find some traces of the MBTI J/P dimension in Jung's E/I characterizations (with introverts being the J-ish ones) — I think it's likely he would have tested as an MBTI J.


Actually Dr. Jung made it clear that the auxiliary function is “in every respect different from the nature of the main function”.


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
> 
> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.


But I think your point is correct Reckful, that Dr. Jung at some point noticed he used Ti-Ni-Se. That coincides with his prize pupil Marie Lousie Von Franz' notion that the Ni is not a tertiary function as implied, but merely another auxiliary function. 

As for his type, the interview that I pasted on the Carl Jung thread was his last. Prior to that and at the time he wrote Psychological Types, Dr. Jung provided his type in an interview as well. Unless his attitude changed from extravert to introvert, Dr. Jung pretty much concludes that he would be what we know as an ISTP type in modern typology. That interview is somewhere in that thread as well starting at or about post *#90*. As he says in his final interview, types are not static. It changes as people grow and develop.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung thought that objective knowledge was only good if it lead to self knowledge.


He was a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, not a religious leader of whatever cult. He participated to our collective understanding with his works yet we can't consume them as "the truth".



FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung studied the outside world to learn about himself.


"_What would Jung do? You made the baby Jung cry!_" So what? Should we simply "read his works and think about them" for our own understanding or "follow his footsteps and limit our interpretations"? I would like to remind you this: After all, he was yet another human being with his own personal tendencies/decisions. In my honest opinion, his works are truly inspirational and progressive but "his least favorite function" sounds ridiculous as a potentially definitive part of the whole theory.



FearAndTrembling said:


> He was one of those old Greeks who saw learning as a form of remembering. Of remembering the self.


I think comparing Jung with ancient greek philosophers is pretty much insulting. I'm not a big fan of chronological snobbery... But... Seriously? Jung's theories are way more rational than all those archaic arguments from ignorance about the fundamental forces of nature. The human psyche is not so different than the true nature of matter and energy. We will never completely understand "everything" about them, just because we are doomed to exist in the cage of "everything", while trying to milk wisdom from ourselves as "something". The thing is, philosophical approaches requires "external" references and paradigm shifts between generations to make sense. Nothing is made of earth, water, air, and fire "anymore". Jung was lucky enough to know that as a member of a relatively modern society. Truth (or "remembering the self" as you want to call it) can't be perceived, owned or controlled by isolated individuals. It can be constantly dismantled by collective efforts. So, we can also digest it's useful grains for our personal development. It's nothing but improving the quality of our eternal ignorance with science and neverending delusions with philosophy. You are not going to "find" anything, they are not lost glass beads... What matters is how good you are with simply searching for them.

(Yes, I'm butthurt as a Te user. Actually, I know what you are talking about and already agree with you behind the wall of my argumentative bullshit... It's my guilty pleasure as always with INFJs.)


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

As an introvert, especially as an introverted thinker, it's only natural to hate on the extroverted world we find ourselves in. Back then it has probably been not as bad as today, since capitalism, consumerism and idioticy have reached heights far beyond the imagination of Jung.

The western world care little to none about the individual, individuation and what not. In fact, true individuals may be the very archenemy of the system in place. It's then only natural one may falls into the mindset of a rebel or feels/thinks of himself as suppressed. I've recently read a bit of Jung's Psychiatric Studies and what's laid out in there is nothing of the Jung you'll read further down the road. It's a bogged down Jung by societies and science standards that didn't care to dwell in things for long enough to go down the rabbit hole for the sake of correctness - at least that's the impression it made to me. 

A few years back I couldn't understand the world either and didn't understand why it drove as mad as it did. Having understand Jung's fundamentals in regards to intro- and extroversion turned all that loathing into acceptance, though. It doesn't necessarily improve the global situation - but an individual can only ever be the best individual he can be and improve the world one day at a time through deeds. It's not about revolution at the end of the day but finding one's own peace within a world that isn't made for introverts - although it'll greatly exploit their potential in the thinking/feeling/visionary department for further drive society up against the wall.

Anyway, bottom line being; it's not a specific function hate that's being exhibited - if anything it's the I/E divide that clashes most predominantly at the very core. I for one have a hard time these days dealing with with people who're perfectly being mocked by the following image:










That isn't Te, Fe or anything specifically but a complete lack of sense in regards to what matters for the individual - thus, it's a complete lack of individuation/introversion and understanding of oneself and one's motivations in trade for shallowness, consumerism and hedonistic distraction from everything that actually matters.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually Dr. Jung made it clear that the auxiliary function is “in every respect different from the nature of the main function”.


The fundamental flaw in this logic, and it's the same problem I have with Myers' reasoning for her type dynamics, is that this assumes that a function is Xy rather than just X. In the context with which he was describing the auxiliary function, he never indicated or even alluded to an Xy configuration. In this section he always talked about the function as X. In my opinion, the "y" part is added by the reader as an assumption due to the preceding sections.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> The fundamental flaw in this logic, and it's the same problem I have with Myers' reasoning for her type dynamics, is that this assumes that a function is Xy rather than just X. In the context with which he was describing the auxiliary function, he never indicated or even alluded to an Xy configuration. In this section he always talked about the function as X. In my opinion, the "y" part is added by the reader as an assumption due to the preceding sections.


Instead of trying to make it into a mathematical equation, can you convey your message by using type terminology? If you are equating Xy with a particular function-attitude, then it should be clear that type codes such as Te, Ti, etc were never presented by Dr. Jung and have only surfaced in the past decade. Dr. Jung referred to Ti as introverted thinking or in your case yX. 

All one needs to do is read the theory to know that what he refers to as "function" is paired with an attitude. Again Psychological Types does not infer there is such a thing as a stand-alone function such as thinking for it's own sake. In fact he made that clear in his theory as well when saying:


> For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the *orientation* of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere pondering, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually Dr. Jung made it clear that the auxiliary function is “in every respect different from the nature of the main function”. But I think your point is correct Reckful, that Dr. Jung at some point noticed he used Ti-Ni-Se.


As I noted in one of the posts I previously linked to:



reckful said:


> As I understand it, the majority of Jung scholars believe that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as providing balance between judging and perceiving, but _not_ between introversion and extraversion. Myers largely rested her case on the sentence where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types. When Jung wrote about how an introvert's introversion gets balanced (or "compensated," as he more often put it) by extraversion (and vice versa) — and he actually devoted a great deal of Psychological Types to that issue — he consistently envisioned the I/E balance happening by way of the unconscious, and never by way of a differentiated conscious function oriented in the opposite direction.


So I agree with you that Jung "at some point noticed he used Ti-Ni-Se," but I suspect he'd reached that point by the time he wrote Psychological Types — and, in any case, I don't think there's any fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole that allows for an auxiliary with the opposite attitude to the dominant.

That "interview" you're referring to "at the time he wrote Psychological Types" is a transcription of a 1925 seminar — four years after PT was published — where Jung is answering a question from a "Miss Hincks." The quote turns up on the internet periodically in the context of discussions of Jung's type, and nobody ever really knows what to make of it. Jung was around 50 at the time, and it kind of sounds like he's talking about what he was like during some earlier period when he was a "natural scientist" (he says T and S "*were* uppermost in me") but it's really not clear — nor is it entirely clear whether his follow-up example (which clearly involves a T-dom with an S-aux) was intended to be him (during an earlier period or at any time).

For anyone else who may be interested, I've put that quote in the spoiler, along with what he said in the Freeman interview.


* *




Here's what Jung said in that BBC TV interview with John Freeman (when he was 84):



BBC said:


> *JF:* Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?
> 
> *Jung:* (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.
> 
> ...


And here's the quote from that 1925 seminar transcription:



Jung said:


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





I agree that the 1925 transcript involves Jung characterizing himself as a Ti-dom with an S-aux _if_ you assume that his follow-up example was intended to be him (which is not entirely clear). In any case, it's pretty clearly Jung saying that, at some point in his past (when he was a "natural scientist"), he had S and T preferences, meaning (assuming introversion) he was either ISTP or ISTJ.

But, on top of the uncertainty as to what time period he's talking about there, another significant complication is that, as further described in this post and the posts its links to (and some follow-up posts in that same thread), Jung mostly located the concrete/abstract component of S/N in his very broad notion of what E/I involved — which is part of the reason he spent the vast majority of Psychological Types talking about introversion and extraversion and relatively little time discussing the four (or eight, if you prefer) functions.

By the time Jung gave that BBC interview 30 years later, he'd clearly concluded he was an N, but it's unclear whether that was because his concept of intuition had changed to something more consistent with Myers' concept or because he thought his type had changed from S to N — although the Freeman interview certainly has an I-was-this-way-from-the-start flavor. ("I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. ... And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things.")

In any case, the Jung who published Psychological Types in the 1920s (and gave the 1925 seminar) was a Jung who believed that the core aspect of an N preference involved a preferential focus on, and a special ability to perceive, the contents of the collective unconscious — which is the primary reason Jung's portrait of the "introverted intuitive type" has a strong _mystical visionary_ flavor that a typical INT is not all that likely to identify with. So I suspect the main explanation for Jung's self-characterization (during whatever the relevant period was) as an IST was (1) that Jung recognized the abstract-theorizer, troubles-with-practical-reality characteristics that would make him an N by today's definition, but _thought of those characteristics as part of his introversion_; and (2) that Jung assumed that any scientist whose science involved real-world physical phenomena was demonstrating an S preference (whereas we understand today that the ranks of physical scientists are very well-populated with N's), and assumed that an N preference would have involved more of a primary (and mystical) focus on the contents of his own unconscious.

A final point to ponder: If you assume (as you should) that Jung didn't think the auxiliary would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and if you assume that Jung saw himself (during whatever that "natural scientist" period was) as a Ti-dom with an S-aux, then Jung's auxiliary during that period would have been Si, not Se — and Jung's description of Si hardly seems consistent with a natural scientist with a healthy respect for the actual physical facts he's dealing with.

On the other hand, an alternative interpretation of Jung that I'm open to is that, because he said the auxiliary function was something of a crippled version of the function that was subservient to the dominant rather than true to its own principle, maybe Jung would have said that the auxiliary of a Ti-dom with an S-aux is best characterized as simply S, rather than Si or Se.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

reckful said:


> So I agree with you that Jung "at some point noticed he used Ti-Ni-Se," but I suspect he'd reached that point by the time he wrote Psychological Types — and, in any case, I don't think there's any fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole that allows for an auxiliary with the opposite attitude to the dominant.
> 
> That "interview" you're referring to "at the time he wrote Psychological Types" is a transcription of a 1925 seminar — four years after PT was published — where Jung is answering a question from a "Miss Hincks." The quote turns up on the internet periodically in the context of discussions of Jung's type, and nobody ever really knows what to make of it. Jung was around 50 at the time, and it kind of sounds like he's talking about what he was like during some earlier period when he was a "natural scientist" (he says T and S "*were* uppermost in me") but it's really not clear — nor is it entirely clear whether his follow-up example (which clearly involves a T-dom with an S-aux) was intended to be him (during an earlier period or at any time).
> 
> ...


Very informative Reckful, thanks. A few thoughts…. I am still unclear why some do not see that over the course of a life time that Dr. Jung’s type like us all, simply developed or changed through natural progression As he said type is not static as implied by most who follow some form of a MB principle which also claims we make dichotomous choices. 

It seems clear that per his principles of type, Dr. Jung was born an introvert, began using thinking until it became habitual, thus differentiated Ti. Later as a teen or young adult he began using sensing which from his own principles of “in every way different” and not antagonistic to the dominant type, ergo Se. Clearly the next function-attitude to develop will be by default be compensatory (not opposite) to Se which is Ni. I am not sure Carl Jung has ever written where he implied a succession of type except to say:


> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling (NF) attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect (TS), whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.


 Why do I infer when he refers to “practical intellect” that he is meaning T-S instead of S-T? Because again he said in the previous sentence, “From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation (T-S), the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition (T-N), the artistic intuition which selects and presents its images by means of feeling judgment (N-F), the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect (T-N), translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.”

Nevertheless it was his pupil Marie Louise VonFranz who stated in her "Lectures on Jung's Typology" that after the most differentiated function, the following two function-attitudes are both auxiliary functions and that these are the only two other functions that can develop to stand-alone status or being differentiated. The remaining 5 function-attitudes can only work with the assistance of another function-attitude (undifferentiated). Again the process he says that he went through parallels with his theory and seems extremely clear.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Erbse said:


> As an introvert, especially as an introverted thinker, it's only natural to hate on the extroverted world we find ourselves in. Back then it has probably been not as bad as today, since capitalism, consumerism and idioticy have reached heights far beyond the imagination of Jung.
> 
> The western world care little to none about the individual, individuation and what not. In fact, true individuals may be the very archenemy of the system in place. It's then only natural one may falls into the mindset of a rebel or feels/thinks of himself as suppressed. I've recently read a bit of Jung's Psychiatric Studies and what's laid out in there is nothing of the Jung you'll read further down the road. It's a bogged down Jung by societies and science standards that didn't care to dwell in things for long enough to go down the rabbit hole for the sake of correctness - at least that's the impression it made to me.
> 
> ...


I may be quoting you because you brought up this particular angle, but really, are we going to burrow ourselves down into this mess? 

As a starting point:

1. Jung (and subsequently Beebe and likely other Jungians) think that functions don't just exist individually but collectively, building upon Jung's idea of how the collective unconsciousness works

2. This means that we can analyze clusters of people who seem to act or operate in a somewhat unison way according to function theory

3. Societies may operate in a way that is not congruent with individuals

4. Some ideas are more prevalent in others

Don't get me wrong here, because I'm a strong adherent of discourse theory, but I think there's a point where we shouldn't ascribe _all_ social behavior onto functions and Jung's idea of the psyche. The reason for this is quite simple - where and what are we looking at? Is capitalism fueled by Te logic alone? Are all ills of the world caused by "collective unconscious Te gone bad"? I have an ESFP friend. She would agree with the faults of the current dominating discourses. Yet she's a cognitive extrovert and often feels she must fight against society's expectations of her. This struggle of an individual vs society doesn't need to be something related to functions (though socionics might suggest so indirectly). 

I'm a Te user, auxiliary, I don't support capitalism or capitalist logic. There are Te doms who don't support capitalism and capitalist logic. Clearly the process of why this occurs is a much more deeper and complex social mechanic than "collective unconsciousness gone wrong". I think the collective unconsciousness can explain a lot of things, but overall I don't think we should over-attribute it either. Humans are more complex than functions or I/E, what have you. Also, Jung argued himself that most people are ambiverts.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Functianalyst said:


> Instead of trying to make it into a mathematical equation, can you convey your message by using type terminology? If you are equating Xy with a particular function-attitude, then it should be clear that type codes such as Te, Ti, etc were never presented by Dr. Jung and have only surfaced in the past decade. Dr. Jung referred to Ti as introverted thinking or in your case yX.


I am not disagreeing with that. I agree with it, when we are talking about the dominant function or "function-attitude". 



> All one needs to do is read the theory to know that what he refers to as "function" is paired with an attitude. Again Psychological Types does not infer there is such a thing as a stand-alone function such as thinking for it's own sake. In fact he made that clear in his theory as well when saying:


Technically, when the function's principle _is_ "decisive for the orientation of consciousness" it is an attitude. There are the two general attitudes of Introversion and Extraversion and then there are four functions. When one of those functions is dominant, it becomes a function-attitude.

Orientation, nor attitude, equate to Extraversion or Introversion. The only categorical reference I've seen made by Jung is to call them "general attitude types."



> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term *general attitude types,* since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.





> *Orientation*
> This term is used to denote the general principle of an attitude (q.v.). Every attitude is orientated by a certain point-of-view, no matter whether that point-of-view be conscious or unconscious. A so-called power-attitude is orientated by the view-point of ego-power exerted against oppressive influences and conditions. A *thinking attitude* is orientated by the principle of logic as its supreme law; a *sensational attitude* by the sensuous perception of given facts.


^ Shows that orientation and attitude don't necessarily mean Extraversion or Introversion.

The auxiliary is not an attitude in and of itself because it is subservient to the general attitude of the consciousness, which for an ISTP would be IT or Introverted Thinking.

There are three ways to look at this, function-wise for an ISTP:

TiSe
TiSi
TiS

The first is dependent upon the reasoning you mentioned earlier which brought about this sub-discussion.

The second assumes that Introversion encapsulates the sphere of consciousness and thus all conscious functions are Introverted by association.

The third assumes that the preferred "attitude" (e/i in this context) _is_ paired with the dominant function or that the dominant function is fully encapsulated by the sphere of Introversion and that the auxiliary kind of waffles between both spheres. Kind of how it is depicted in this picture by Jung:










My personal stance leans towards one of the latter two options because the first is based on flawed logic.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

yet another intj said:


> He was a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, not a religious leader of whatever cult. He participated to our collective understanding with his works yet we can't consume them as "the truth".
> 
> 
> "_What would Jung do? You made the baby Jung cry!_" So what? Should we simply "read his works and think about them" for our own understanding or "follow his footsteps and limit our interpretations"? I would like to remind you this: After all, he was yet another human being with his own personal tendencies/decisions. In my honest opinion, his works are truly inspirational and progressive but "his least favorite function" sounds ridiculous as a potentially definitive part of the whole theory.
> ...


:tongue:

As I said, I like Jung because he valued everything I value, and had a bias against everything I did. 

I find this particular argument interesting because I am a fan of Freud too, and I think Freud gets way too much shit. Yes, Freud was wrong about a lot, and the old Greek philosophers, like Aristotle for example, were wrong about nearly everything. But those kind of mistakes are necessary for progress. They breed it. Freud and Aristotle made mistakes. Anyone can make mistakes. But Freud and Aristotle made profound mistakes. Only a genius can make profound mistakes. Profound mistakes are actually a form of truth, and some would argue, like Bohr, that a profound mistake must actually precede or accompany a profound truth. That one cannot be revealed without the other. It is only through their mistakes that we find truth. That is what Jung tried to do, find the truth in error. Reveal it. 

That is exactly what he did with this psych patients now that I think about it. Psychiatry was obviously a much more primitive and harsher field back then. Patients were more to be controlled than understood. But Jung did something that most counselors didn't, actually took the delusions of the people seriously. And the "errors" of these people lead to profound truths. 

Jung actually brought this up before Bohr. That there are different levels of truth, and that when the modern scientific materialist rails against something as being untrue or primitive, they are being short sighted. Like Jung says, if something is believed forever, there is some truth to it. It is psychologically true. Which is important to Jung. 

From the Psychology of the Unconscious:



> When an idea is so old, and is so generally believed, it is probably true in some way, and, indeed, as is mostly the case, is not literally true, but is true psychologically. In this distinction lies the reason why the old fogies of science have from time to time thrown away an inherited piece of ancient truth; because it was not literal but psychologic truth. For such discrimination this type of person has at no time had anycomprehension. From our experience, it is hardly conceivable that a God existing outside of ourselves causes dreams, or that the dream, eo ipso, foresees the future prophetically. When we translate this into the psychologic, however, then the ancient theories sound much more reconcilable, namely, the dream arises from a part of the mind unknown to us, but none the less important, and is concerned with the desires for the approaching day. This psychologic formula derived from the ancient superstitious conception of dreams, is, so to speak, exactly identified with the Freudian psychology, which assumes a rising wish from the unconscious to be the source of the dream.


He also talked about how like a modern European walks down the street, and sees a statue or structure made by the ancients, he likes to think he is from a different world. But he isn't. The psyche has changed very little from that time, according to Jung.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> That's possible. I thought I saw somewhere that he was an ExTJ. Given this assumption and that Jung and Freud had a falling out, I thought it would make for a good joke.


I think that the clashed over Jung rejecting his libido theories. Jung rejected Freud's premise that sex was the basis for all behaviour. Freud didn't care to much for Jung's theories.

My conjecture, is that Freud is an INTP (although I have heard him typed as an INFJ as well) and Jung is an INFJ. INFJs are known for their love of metaphors and symbolism.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> I think that the clashed over Jung rejecting his libido theories. Jung rejected Freud's premise that sex was the basis for all behaviour. Freud didn't care to much for Jung's theories.
> 
> My conjecture, is that Freud is an INTP (although I have heard him typed as an INFJ as well) and Jung is an INFJ. INFJs are known for their love of metaphors and symbolism.


What broke them up is that Jung realized that Freud was more interested in protecting the "integrity" of Psychoanalysis, than finding truth. It had become a dogma that must be protected. This not only made Jung lose respect for Freud, but limited Jung's work. Jung was very interested in studying the mystical. It's not that Freud was necessarily against the mystical, though he certainly appreciated it less than Jung, but because he thought it hurt the image of Psychoanalysis. 

Psychoanalysis was not very welcome. It was weird. It was Jewish. Freud was very aware of this and one of his main goals was to have Psychoanalysis accepted and taken seriously. This couldn't be done with Jung continuing to muck around in the occult, because Jung was supposed to be Freud's heir, in Freud's mind.

It's basically like a father-son relationship. Freud wanted Jung to follow in his footsteps, and was heartbroken when he took his own path.

I would not be surprised if both were INFJ, though I am nothing close to a typing expert. 

No, actually, Freud did not have enough Fe. Freud was gentle and could be very warm though.

Reminds me of a Nietzsche quote: 'Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.'

Freud's convictions were in the way of truth. Jung actually quoted Nietzsche when breaking with Freud. 

'*One repays* a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.'


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

reckful said:


> [...]


Although I may be mistaken with my assessment I think what @Functianalyst tries to say is that whenever Jung used the term "attitude" in context of functions or letters (N S T F) it is equivalent to E/I in that given context, as using "attitude" differently in that context would not make much sense - not even by the quoted definition.

The quotation of "attitude" provided by you from his collective works could seen as the general use of "attitude", meaning it's more of an "outlook" or "mindset" a person has. For example someone being a pessimist, optimistic or what-have-you. That definition would not make any sense in a function-talk context. 

It is the same word, but given the word's context it should be rather evident what has been meant with no ambiguity involved.

At least that's where I think your (or in actuality his and PaladinX's) disconnect took place anyway.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Hitler had his own inner conflict, and it had to be played out on the world stage. He so avoided himself, that we would rather reckon with the world, than reckon with himself. Vader too. And that is why Luke is the true hero, because he reckoned with himself. Reckoning with the world is easy, it is reckoning with yourself that is hard.


FYI: Hitler was an INFJ. Also, if Vader was Luke gone wrong, then he would have been INFJ too.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

Miya said:


> If he's not a Ni-dom with a healthy Ti-muscle then I don't know who is... This automatically rules out any love for Te in my limited understanding.


Oh, now I understand why I get along so well with my ISTP bf! Since we both have Ni and Ti, we rage against the machine.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ameeker said:


> FYI: Hitler was an INFJ. Also, if Vader was Luke gone wrong, then he would have been INFJ too.


Yes, I have said before that INFJ make the best heros, and the best villains. No better friend, no worse enemy.

Bin Laden is also INFJ supposedly. And I don't really have issue with that. All these people are protectors. It was never about him, it was about the cause. Hitler and bin Laden were sensitive to the plight of the people around them. They weren't just sociopaths fulfilling their own needs. They had dreams of a better world. All these people are dreamers. 

An example of this one place is the X-men. Both Dr Xavier and Magneto could be seen as INFJ. They are protecting the same thing in fact --mutants. But they go about protecting them in totally different ways.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Although I may be mistaken with my assessment I think what @Functianalyst tries to say is that whenever Jung used the term "attitude" in context of functions or letters (N S T F) it is equivalent to E/I in that given context, as using "attitude" differently in that context would not make much sense - not even by the quoted definition.


Well, first, whatever Functianalyst was "trying to say," I responded to what he said, which was that "Carl Jung's Psychological Types makes it extremely clear that when he uses the word 'attitude' and/or as being 'oriented' that he is using it to describe E/I." And he followed up with a specific request: "Does anyone have their copy of collective works to indicate exactly how he defines the terms?"

And I was happy to oblige his request.

In your post you say "that whenever Jung used the term 'attitude' in context of functions ... it is equivalent to E/I in that given context." But both PaladinX and I have offered quotes from Psychological Types where Jung's use of the term "attitude" with reference to the functions was _not_ "equivalent to E/I."

As noted in my last post, Jung's reference to "a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude" (in the "Attitude" definition) was _not_ a reference to the E/I orientation of those functions. And PaladinX cited Jung's "Orientation" definition, where he said: "Every attitude is oriented by a certain viewpoint. ... A power attitude is oriented by the power of the ego to hold its own against unfavorable influences and conditions. *A thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic* as its supreme law; *a sensation attitude is oriented by the sensuous perception of given facts*."

And note that PaladinX's example shows Jung using _both_ the terms "attitude" and "oriented" (1) in the context of the functions, but (2) with reference to the functions themselves, rather than to the E/I attitude of those functions.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Essentially, what makes me distrust Fe-Ti in general as a function combination is that it seems irrational to me.


Well, since you're an INTJ, that could explain why my INTJ dad will never understand me. Personally, I find "reason" to stand on weak premises since "facts" are usually just opinions.



> I also find that I think Ti doms in particular often nitpick certain things just because they can nitpick at it, but tend to miss out on the bigger picture because the point isn't say that particular phrase, word or whatever, but the point is how it all strings together and formulate a concept or an idea.


Perhaps that's true for ISTPs, but an ENFJ who uses Ti does think big picture.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

reckful said:


> As noted in my last post, Jung's reference to "a typical thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive attitude" (in the "Attitude" definition) was _not_ a reference to the E/I orientation of those functions. And PaladinX cited Jung's "Orientation" definition, where he said: "Every attitude is oriented by a certain viewpoint. ... A power attitude is oriented by the power of the ego to hold its own against unfavorable influences and conditions. *A thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic* as its supreme law; *a sensation attitude is oriented by the sensuous perception of given facts*."


This is the perfect example even; if you replaced attitude by "outlook" or "mindset" it'd still hold true, while I/E in that context would not. It works the other way around, too. In that sense, no ambiguity involved for as long as one reads these things in their context.

Granted, that'd make Functianalyst's absolute assertion false, for what little that may be worth - I thought that the whole struggle was more about possible ambiguity, which I don't see is a realistic scenario when reading contextually - except that their communication divide caused the whole thing to blow up over literally nothing anyway.

However, looking at it this way, going back to your example: He talks about a natural "attitude" embedded into S / N / F / T - These attitudes _may_ still differ from the the individual "attitude" (I/E) the function specifically is governed by. So T's are logic driven, but logic can obviously be broken down in at least two camps, deductive and inductive reasoning. Overall both being governed by logic would hold true, though.

It's all a matter of which layer is being portrayed and perhaps nothing worthwhile arguing over at the end of day, whatsoever. Personally, I don't see the issue, I merely tried to offer an explanation which may have caused displayed disconnect.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I for example often hear my Fe family members tell me that of course we care about you because you're family which leaves me a little cold because I don't care that you care about me as family, because it would be so much nicer if you actually cared about me as a _person_ based on the personal feelings of mutual intimacy that we share.


Are you sure that's not just the expression they're choosing rather than a particular sentiment they're feeling? There have been times when I've had to explain why I care about someone and have put it a similarly simple way. The reality is that I care about them because the interactions we share mean something significant to me, whether because they make me feel a certain way or because something about their character strikes me as likeable, admirable or in some other way positive. For whatever reason, however, it feels more natural for me to reference the external aspect of the relationship when drawing attention to its significance. I perhaps feel that the bond itself holds value because without it I would be without the person and the aspects of their character that I appreciate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Khiro said:


> Are you sure that's not just the expression they're choosing rather than a particular sentiment they're feeling? There have been times when I've had to explain why I care about someone and have put it a similarly simple way. The reality is that I care about them because the interactions we share mean something significant to me, whether because they make me feel a certain way or because something about their character strikes me as likeable, admirable or in some other way positive. For whatever reason, however, it feels more natural for me to reference the external aspect of the relationship when drawing attention to its significance. I perhaps feel that the bond itself holds value because without it I would be without the person and the aspects of their character that I appreciate.


Yes, and that's because you are an Fe type. That's why you do that. I value Fi. I don't value external aspects but internal. They express themselves exactly the way they do because they are Fe. If they were Fi they would do it differently.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, and that's because you are an Fe type. That's why you do that. I value Fi. I don't value external aspects but internal. They express themselves exactly the way they do because they are Fe. If they were Fi they would do it differently.


Of course. I only mean that when you're told "of course we care about you because you're family", I think they're skipping the step where Fi might focus its attention, rather than caring nothing for it. If I express the value of a relationship I do so _because_ I value the individual with whom I share it, rather than doing so regardless of how I actually feel about them. So when you say "it would be so much nicer if you actually cared about me as a _person_ based on the personal feelings of mutual intimacy that we share", I believe that may be what they're intending to convey.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Khiro said:


> Of course. I only mean that when you're told "of course we care about you because you're family", I think they're skipping the step where Fi might focus its attention, rather than caring nothing for it. If I express the value of a relationship I do so _because_ I value the individual with whom I share it, rather than doing so regardless of how I actually feel about them. So when you say "it would be so much nicer if you actually cared about me as a _person_ based on the personal feelings of mutual intimacy that we share", I believe that may be what they're intending to convey.


But that's not how it feels like. They may care but how deeply? I get a sense that this is pointless as you don't understand. What is there to care about if we never speak?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Fi, eh?

Hmm. Do I only care about people because caring about people is a personal concern of mine?

Not really.

Humans are fragile. They need stuff like love and mercy, or they perish. Be it socially, emotionally, psychologically or whatever.

Want is too weak a word.

So you needed it. I gave it. I gave help to a need. Was I selfless? Almost everything I do I can see indirect benefit for myself and for others. The distinction seems... small minded, like a stunted and finite imagination. That which happens has consequences that spark consequences, which can come around and touch everyone in some way.

That is basically how I see it. A small scale butterfly effect, where self and other live in the same world of interwoven reactions.

But then again I want to love. I am concerned about others. I wish to be concerned about everything, including the management of concern. 

I don't see how one without concern can have love. To perform for others is the same excuse used by dictators. That isn't to say making it personal lets someone off the hook. To perform for reasons that don't give dear concern and take good care of others isn't exactly love to my reasoning either, despite being a common sort of substitute.


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I have a theory for why Jung was biased against Te. Jung was Ti Dominant, and Ti and Te are opposed to eachother. I say they are opposed because I believe Ti and Te are advancements of the emotions of Fear and Anger, respectively; and Fear and Anger are opposed to eachother. Fear is about escaping from threats and Anger is about attacking obstacles. An imminent attack triggers a threat stimulus in the defender, which ultimately triggers an escape reaction. This escape is viewed as an obstacle by the attacker, which stimulates them in another attack, and so on and on. (We could change it so the fear dominant's escape is the initial trigger, so as not to be biased against the anger dominant).

All pairs of introverted/extroverted functions (i.e. Fi/Fe, etc.) have a similar opposed relationship.

I can tell you as a fear dominant that if an anger dominant's attention is not directly on me, then we can get along. However, inevitably I do something that triggers them to sense weakness, or an obstacle and they will respond with an attack. I don't mean they physically attack me, I mean they engage in an argument/debate/etc. that has the form of an attack against me. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. If I have made an error in judgement, stated a false claim, or some other clear weakness then it makes sense for them to attack it. However, the attack tends to trigger a primal Fear response in me, instead of my normal higher-level Ti thinking. And my primal response tends to trigger them into a more primal Anger response. It's an endless cycle: the lion vs the gazelle.

I suspect Jung had similar experiences with Te dominants and so formed a bias against them.


----------



## stormyapril (Sep 18, 2013)

Love this post! This thread correlates directly to a new format I am using to evaluate all functions and types. I am still hashing through it and want to get more feedback, but as I was building it and also from my own experience, I realized I have the same bias.

Some things became apparent in comparing the functions and I am trying to validate the broad generalities:
Te is likely to be more dominant compared to Fe - almost stacks the functions themselves in terms of extroverted "power"
Ti, while more "cold" that the Te Fi combo, is usually found within the heart of large complex organizations and typically drive the machine - think mastermind behind the new discoveries

I have seen strong Te used both by extroverts and introverts in productive ways, but frequently and especially in a technical field, problems are rarely all nails ready for hitting with this Te hammer. Long gone are the days when Te was required weekly/monthly for raiding your neighbors or opposing tribe. I wonder what it is like to be in an environment that requires finesse when all you have is dynamite?

I have a bit more appreciation for Te personalities' plight than I used to. In the end though I usually end up working harder when a Te user is in the mix, mainly because they require additional "management". I want to find more self aware Te users who have learned to balance this knee-jerk reflex with shared knowledge and more detail.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

well he was an INFJ of course he didn't like Te. roud:


----------

