[Amphorian]

Oh calm down. I just didn't elaborate as much as you did. But the MBTI (the first complete test) did come out during WWII to help place people into the workforce.

I'd didn't mean 'simple' as in 'a shell of the real thing', but meant a test that was simple enough that anyone could take it and quickly learn about their base type. Simple enough because very few people are interested in understanding Jung's actual work. Not to mention the way Jung writes isn't the easiest piece of literature to read.

[reckful]

	Originally Posted by Amphorian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh calm down. I just didn't elaborate as much as you did.... Not to mention the way Jung writes isn't the easiest piece of literature to read.

I'm rarely one to pass up an opportunity to elaborate.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And we are in total agreement on the Jung-reading experience.

[titi monkey]

For Jungians, typing a person's dominant function is useful for approaching the unconscious. You want to avoid going directly after the inferior function because the ego may not be secure enough to absorb so much that is new and different.

By knowing the dominant function, the secondary or tertiary functions can be developed first, thereby strengthening the ego for the serious work of approaching the unconscious (which should be avoided, for various reasons, if not necessary).

In Jungian psychology (as I understand it: I'm not a therapist and have not undergone analysis. I just find the approach remarkably explanatory and elucidative -- and I've read nearly the entire collected works), the goal of therapy is wholeness, which means taking your starting point (your MBTI type) and then developing those areas that have been neglected.

So long as you cling blindly to your type and fail to develop as an individual (face those situations that make you uncomfortable -- in baby steps of course), you are not honoring the original intent of why personalities needed defining to begin with.

This applies equally to a majority type who may be oppressing a minority for no good reason (or equally as bad, projecting evil onto "the enemy"), as well as a minority type who cannot understand why he never seems to "fit in", or feels personally persecuted. In these situations, therapy is a good thing and knowing one's personality type gives the therapist a good place to begin.

No doubt (in my mind) that old Jung himself spent a lot of time developing those areas of his personality that weren't native to his type. By the time the theory was fleshed-out, he would probably have had a difficult time applying it to himself. This may explain some of the discrepancies in his self-reporting.

[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find it hard to believe that anyone who's read Psychological Types with any care could describe it as "crystal clear and definitive."

Some day I might even let you touch me, just so you'll believe I'm real.

[reckful]

Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In Jungian psychology (as I understand it: I'm not a therapist and have not undergone analysis. I just find the approach remarkably explanatory and elucidative -- and I've read nearly the entire collected works), the goal of therapy is wholeness, which means taking your starting point (your MBTI type) and then developing those areas that have been neglected. So long as you cling blindly to your type and fail to develop as an individual (face those situations that make you uncomfortable -- in baby steps of course), you are not honoring the original intent of why personalities needed defining to begin with. ... No doubt (in my mind) that old Jung himself spent a lot of time developing those areas of his personality that weren't native to his type. By the time the theory was fleshed-out, he would probably have had a difficult time applying it to himself. This may explain some of the discrepancies in his self-reporting.

Based on my admittedly more limited reading than yours, I have the impression this is another one of those issues where what you think Jung thought can depend on which passage in which work you decide is the real Dr. Jung.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Your post seems to point to a Jungian perspective that says we'll find a typical person at a relatively early stage of their development with their dominant function at, say, 87% conscious differentiatedness and their auxiliary at 57% and their tertiary at 27% and their inferior at 9%, and then, over a lifetime of self-exploration and self-development, they can potentially increase all those percentages (or at least the lower ones) until they achieve a "whole" (as you put it) self that looks more like, say, 94%-88%-83%-74%.

But in Psychological Types, Jung actually criticizes Schiller, for example, for having what Jung characterizes as a somewhat naïve perspective concerning the ability to bring introversion and extraversion (first and foremost) into some kind of lasting reconciled unity. Jung seems to suggest that any kind of transcendent unity where two of the opposing psychic axes are reconciled can only be a more or less fleeting thing — most typically, as I understand it, a temporary transition from a phase dominated by the one side to a subsequent phase destined to be dominated by the other. And Jung saw this as true for individuals and cultures both.

To Jung, the development and differentiation of any function at the expense of its opposite was always destined to be, to a substantial degree, a tragic tradeoff, where any balancing that occurred — involving the development of the disfavored side of the duality — would pretty much inevitably involve a corresponding decrease in the strength of the dominant side. As Jung put it:

Originally Posted by Jung

It would be a hopeless task ... to transform an inferior function directly into a superior one. It would be as easy to make a perpetuum mobile. No lower form of energy can simply be converted into a higher form unless a source of higher value simultaneously lends its support; that is, the conversion can be accomplished only at the expense of the superior function. But under no circumstances can the initial value of the higher form of energy be attained by the lower forms as well or be resumed by the superior function: an equalization at some intermediate level must inevitably result. For every individual who identifies with his one differentiated function, this entails a descent to a condition which, though balanced, is of a definitely lower value as compared with the initial value. This conclusion is unavoidable. All education that aspires to the unity and harmony of man's nature has to reckon with this fact.

Now, all that said, I agree that Jung also unquestionably said that it was possible for a person to achieve real progress over the course of a lifetime in terms of the extent to which he somehow gradually became more whole and complete by way, among other things, of coming to grips with the more neglected aspects of his psyche and somehow incorporating more of his unconscious/archaic self into his conscious self. So it isn't fair to interpret that passage I quoted as meaning any gain in one psychic department will necessarily always involve an equal offsetting loss in one or more other departments (leaving you no better, overall, than you were before).

But I'm also skeptical about your suggestion (if I'm understanding you correctly) that, if Jung developed his own psyche in the way his theory suggested a person could, he might well have ended his life with something like the equivalent of four dominant functions.

The video interview linked to and described in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
seems to find Jung, at 84, describing himself more as a guy who has always had (and, by implication, continues to have) difficulties with Feeling and Sensation than as a guy who has pretty much left his dom/aux/tert/inf caterpillar behind and become some kind of whole-self butterfly.

Since Fecal McAngry finds Jung's writing "crystal clear and definitive," perhaps he can explain to what extent Jung believed some kind of unity-of-opposites "whole self" was realistically achievable.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[titi monkey]

Jung believed that a certain amount of Libido (or life energy -- here he differed with Freud that libido was only sexual energy) over the ages was broken-off from instinct and made available to the individual as a guidable energy, or will power. Some people have a greater degree of disposable energy than others, by nature. However, there is not an unlimited amount of energy available to any individual (nor time in a single life).

If your dominant function is Thinking, you could theoretically develop it to a fine degree, beyond its natural limits. But it would be at the expense of Sensation, Intuition, and Feeling. Essentially you are robbing their energy to pay for the increase in Thinking power. The converse is also true.

To develop auxiliary and inferior functions, energy must be taken from the dominant function. To be a more well-rounded person, you must sacrifice that which you hold most dear (and trust and rely on most). This is what Jung means when he says we are not gods: humans have limits that must be respected for the sake of wholeness.

This is a simplified explanation. Essentially, the dominant function is still the dominant function, just reined in for the sake of being a multidimensional person as opposed to a shallow, one-sided person.



As an aside, Jung's writing style is very circumfluent; he talks all around a subject but rarely comes right out with a definitive statement. It is difficult reading, requiring time and patience. There are other writers who expound his principles much more clearly.

[scorpiomover]

Going back to address these points:

	Originally Posted by jonathanb To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	scorpiomover, I concur most with item 2 on your argument list. That being said, if we assume Jung wasn't INFJ, I'd still buy more into reckful's pro-INTJ arguments than your pro-INTP arguments. Jung showed a lot of Judgement, wouldn't you say?

He does draw some conclusions. However, the majority of INTJs are of the opinion that one should state only conclusions, and only provide reasons IF challenged. In a book, that might suggest requiring just enough reasoning to buy one's arguments. Jung provided copious reasoning for every single point. In much of the chapter on types, his need to explain his reasoning for everything, makes many of his points almost unintelligible.

In addition, it is evident that lots of INTJs here found his work very hard to understand. Yet, INTJs seem to understand each other here, very, very well.

I would also point out that reckful already noted that Jung wrote in an exploratory way, as if he expected his work to be continued, and was not the conclusion. INxJs have Te or Fe, making them talk very decidedly, as if the final solution has been reached (not how they actually think, but how they talk).

	Originally Posted by jonathanb To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In addition, he created a classification system, based on combining aspects from many fields of study, which is very INTJ thing to do.

Look at some other forum, for 3 different complete theories of MBTI. One covers a complete visual identification system for all MBTI types. Look at some other forum, for a complete classification system for every type of INTP.

Then look here for any complete classification systems, for just about anything. There are a few like "24 flavours of INTJ", mimicking what an INTP already did. Apart from that, there really isn't anything in the way of complete classification systems here at all.

	Originally Posted by jonathanb To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	His Ni dominance also shows up in his creation of many new terms and explanations in order to elucidate his inner world to other people.

INTPs are known for making up terms all over the place. One only has to look here, to see that there are almost no examples here whatsoever of any INTJs making up any new terms at all.

INTJs here have often written that they were pleased to find that their intuitive ideas of words usually turned out to be their official definitions. It seems that they are quite happy to stick with existing linguistic systems.

	Originally Posted by jonathanb To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Item 4 - wouldn't that support the idea that Jung was INFJ, as he supposedly used Fe traits to treat patients?

True. I have had Fe counsellors an therapists. They always want me to talk about my feelings. Jung favoured re-psychoanalysing one's perceptions of one's past, as if changing one's inner vision, like changing Ni, could resolve a psychological disorder entirely.#

---------- Post added 07-02-2012 at 01:27 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Jung

"Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential. Based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions, Jung believed that this journey of transformation, which he called individuation, is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to our well-being."

	Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	INTJs, yes. INTPs, generally no. The above is Ni.

Ni-doms have spoken here often. They usually present that they have their own theory, and reject all others. Hence, there are a lot of INTJs who were raised as Xians, who reject Xianity, and all other alternatives, except for the one theory they agree with. There are also a few INTJs who are Xians, and present as if their views are the only ones. There are also a few INTJs who are Xians, and who simply do not present any theory of their own at all, and usually stay out of the subject, but occasionally drop in, only to defend their POV.

It seems to be an Ne-thing, to look at lots of different religions, as if each has something to contribute. None of them are what Jung do. Jung borrows from them all, as if all religions have something valid about them, and so it is in one's interest to value many theories, and not just one.

In Jung's interview, he is very apolitical. He says that all cultures have a saviour mythology. He sees a common idea between all religious ideologies, and then observes that this idea is not only true of most religions, but also of most cultures, including a-religious cultures. Such insights are not complete in any way, and could never be complete enough for an Ni idea. Nor are they introverted as ideas, stretching across all cultures. They are only patterns, patterns that match across a great many religions, and even other things as well, spilling over from their original context, into the broader aspect of real life.

Jung's conclusion about spiritual experience being necessary to our well-being is quite odd. It does not offer a solution in itself, no complete Ni idea. It only describes a necessity, what must be present in any Ni idea, for it to work as a system of our well-being, as if Ti was checking every possibility that might be suggested by Ne, and leaving a conclusion that must be a facet of them all.

This has the calm certainty found in Ti, rather than the enthusiasm of Ni.

[Fecal McAngry]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In Jung's interview, he is very apolitical. He says that all cultures have a saviour mythology. He sees a common idea between all religious ideologies, and then observes that this idea is not only true of most religions, but also of most cultures, including a-religious cultures. Such insights are not complete in any way, and could never be complete enough for an Ni idea. Nor are they introverted as ideas, stretching across all cultures. They are only patterns, patterns that match across a great many religions, and even other things as well, spilling over from their original context, into the broader aspect of real life. Jung's conclusion about spiritual experience being necessary to our well-being is quite odd. It does not offer a solution in itself, no complete Ni idea. It only describes a necessity, what must be present in any Ni idea, for it to work as a system of our well-being, as if Ti was checking every possibility that might be suggested by Ne, and leaving a conclusion that must be a facet of them all. This has the calm certainty found in Ti, rather than the enthusiasm of Ni.

Ah, so...

Jung's extroverted function is quite obviously Te--it's used as the organizational structure for all of his written ideas--so in your view he must also use Ti (and Fe?). Amusing.

What's interesting is that you've just described Ni to a "T" above, quite nicely.

Wonderful clip showing the contrast between Te and Ni:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[reckful]

^ Is it your view that Jung was "crystal clear and definitive" that the functions of an Ni-dom with a T auxiliary would be Ni-Te-Fi-Se?

[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	^ Is it your view that Jung was "crystal clear and definitive" that an INTJ's functions would be Ni-Te-Fi-Se?

If I recall correctly, Jung had screwed up the attitudes of the last two. It was one of several areas where he didn't fully develop or explore his own theory. Obviously he only described eight types, didn't explore the last four function/attitudes at all, etc.

As is often the case with INTJs, a system is only developed to the extent that it serves a greater end. Jung's primary interest was not the development of a perfect theory of unified typology.

Reckful--why, in your view, do some people seem to treat Jung as some holy figure who is, or must be, infallible? He was obviously incredibly bright, insightful, and innovative--why is he getting The Brian Treatment?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[reckful]

Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I recall correctly, Jung had screwed up the attitudes of the last two. It was one of several areas where he didn't fully develop or explore his own theory. Obviously he only described eight types, didn't explore the last four function/attitudes at all, etc. As is often the case with INTJs, a system is only developed to the extent that it serves a greater end. Jung's primary interest was not the development of a perfect theory of unified typology. Reckful--why, in your view, do some people seem to treat Jung as some holy figure who is, or must be, infallible? He was obviously incredibly bright, insightful, and innovative--why is he getting The Brian Treatment? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd say the most controversial question is whether the auxiliary function has the opposite attitude or the same attitude as the dominant function. Is it your view that Jung was at least "crystal clear and definitive" that an Ni-dom with a T auxiliary would be Ni-Te rather than Ni-Ti?

On your "holy figure" question, my impression is that the current population of ardent Jungians (outside of MBTI forums especially) is very small, which is as it should be. Any figure whose writings deal with eligible categories of spiritual/self-development topics and who becomes sufficiently famous is not unlikely to have at least a small following of ardent followers for at least a few generations.

Plus I think a pretty large percentage of the people invoking Jung on MBTI-related forums don't realize how removed their notions of introversion/extraversion and the functions are from Psychological Types — so a lot of those Jung "followers" are quite a bit less Jungian than they think.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He does draw some conclusions. However, the majority of INTJs are of the opinion that one should state only conclusions, and only provide reasons IF challenged. In a book, that might suggest requiring just enough reasoning to buy one's arguments.

Um, no.

Don't mistake casual conversation and arguments on the fly as how an INTJ would typically write a book, in particular any sort of academic book trying to describe an overall idea or point.

	Jung provided copious reasoning for every single point. In much of the chapter on types, his need to explain his reasoning for everything, makes many of his points almost unintelligible.

INTPs do this more than INTJs, but it isn't exclusive. Most INTJs drop trying to explain the reasoning because people start looking at them with puzzled/blank expressions.

	In addition, it is evident that lots of INTJs here found his work very hard to understand. Yet, INTJs seem to understand each other here, very, very well.

This is perhaps the best evidence pointing to INTP.

I find it to be a persuasive point, with one caveat: it's translated German. How much of the English language version is really how Jung was saying things in his own language, vs how the translator chose to phrase things. German has some odd grammatical features that tend to translate awkwardly into other languages.

I would also point out that reckful already noted that Jung wrote in an exploratory way, as if he expected his work to be continued, and was not the conclusion. INxJs have Te or Fe, making them talk very decidedly, as if the final solution has been reached (not how they actually think, but how they talk). Look at some other forum, for 3 different complete theories of MBTI. One covers a complete visual identification system for all MBTI types. Look at some other forum, for a complete classification system for every type of INTP. Then look here for any complete classification systems, for just about anything. There are a few like "24 flavours of INTJ", mimicking what an INTP already did. Apart from that, there really isn't anything in the way of complete classification systems here at all. INTPs are known for making up terms all over the place. One only has to look here, to see that there are almost no examples here whatsoever of any INTJs making up any new terms at all. INTJs here have often written that they were pleased to find that their intuitive ideas of words usually turned out to be their official definitions. It seems that they are quite happy to stick with existing linguistic systems. True. I have had Fe counsellors an therapists. They always want me to talk about my feelings. Jung favoured re-psychoanalysing one's perceptions of one's past, as if changing one's inner vision, like changing Ni, could resolve a psychological disorder entirely.#

It is interesting that you bring up Jung's typology being a classification system, and that INTJs don't do that. My close friend stock (ENFP on this forum, whom I know in rl) is of the opinion that Jung is Ni dom. She pointed out to me that Jung didn't only write about typology, he introduced concepts like synchronicity, the collective unconscious, and individuation. Jung spent a relatively short time on typology. So a contrary hypothesis might be a Judo move on yours: no, Ni doms might occasionally classify things and coin words, but mostly they write about processes and causes and effects and how things develop over time.

I'm still open to him being most any version of INxx other than FP, but I don't think any particular version has a lot of weight over the others. I lean Ni, but I can see Fe or Te as aux, for that. I admit the possibility of INTP, but I don't see any conclusively persuasive reasoning on anyone's part in that direction.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um, no. Don't mistake casual conversation and arguments on the fly as how an INTJ would typically write a book, in particular any sort of academic book trying to describe an overall idea or point.

I'm not. It's more that I have seen the topic of MBTI discussed here quite a lot, and in depth. IMHO, from the overall flow of discussion, the INTJs here would have written books that were much clearer than Jung's. Probably way more examples, and far less of abstract definitions, from what they've said here, and probably much easier to understand in light reading, something that is really hard to do with Jung.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	INTPs do this more than INTJs, but it isn't exclusive. Most INTJs drop trying to explain the reasoning because people start looking at them with puzzled/blank expressions.

Yes. But INTJs seem to know when people are getting bored, and stop, probably because of unconscious Se. INTPs just don't seem to be aware enough, to notice. Either we plan it all out to fit perfectly with people's concentration thresholds, or we end up going in there, and talking for 30 minutes, and bore the pants off of everyone.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is perhaps the best evidence pointing to INTP.

I have considered this. But it's not guaranteed.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find it to be a persuasive point, with one caveat: it's translated German. How much of the English language version is really how Jung was saying things in his own language, vs how the translator chose to phrase things. German has some odd grammatical features that tend to translate awkwardly into other languages.

It's the same problem with Freud. Reckful once mentioned that Jung said that the types were really an outgrowth of one's Weltanschauung, a word that I am familiar with, because of the influence of Samson Raphael Hirsch in the community that I grew up in. I know the concept. There are words in English that fit it. But these words are normally understood in other ways. There is hardly an equivalent mental construct in English that comes close to matching it. So it's very difficult to explain it, not because of the linguistic differences, but because of the cultural differences.

Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is interesting that you bring up Jung's typology being a classification system, and that INTJs don't do that. My close friend stock (ENFP on this forum, whom I know in rl) is of the opinion that Jung is Ni dom. She pointed out to me that Jung didn't only write about typology, he introduced concepts like synchronicity, the collective unconscious, and individuation. Jung spent a relatively short time on typology.

Ti-doms also talk about a great many subjects. INTJs often complain about INTPs going way off-topic, and investingating totally irrelevant things at work.

I can well see a very rational and scientifically-minded INTJ psychologist complaining about how his INTP colleague is spending a ridiculous amount of time studying astrology and shamanism, and they are probably warping his mind.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So a contrary hypothesis might be a Judo move on yours: no, Ni doms might occasionally classify things and coin words, but mostly they write about processes and causes and effects and how things develop over time.

This is another bizarre thing about Jung. I have thought about typology, synchronicity, and the collective unconscious in various ways myself over the years, partially because of Jung, but also because of my own observations. They are all evolutionary processes that develop over time. INTJs normally seem to talk as if they are dynamic processes. When pushed for a specific answer, they will give at answer that represents the true state of the system at the moment, knowing full well the system will change in the next second. Jung talks about them as though they are static concepts, and the answers they provide, are entirely dependent on their application to the situation, which he leaves almost entirely to the reader.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm still open to him being most any version of INxx other than FP, but I don't think any particular version has a lot of weight over the others. I lean Ni, but I can see Fe or Te as aux, for that. I admit the possibility of INTP, but I don't see any conclusively persuasive reasoning on anyone's part in that direction.

Ironic. I keep getting this nagging hunch, that he was really an INFP.

[reckful]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's the same problem with Freud. Reckful once mentioned that Jung said that the types were really an outgrowth of one's Weltanschauung, a word that I am familiar with, because of the influence of Samson Raphael Hirsch in the community that I grew up in.

Jung didn't say that types were an "outgrowth of one's Weltanschauung." The point Jung made is that your type (which Jung speculated was substantially inborn) affects how you view the world to a sufficiently deep and extensive degree that it makes sense to characterize type as a Weltanschauung ("world view").

Here's Jung, from a 1923 lecture that was included in the Collected Works edition of Psychological Types:

Originally Posted by Jung

The alteration of the conscious attitude [— i.e., balancing a too one-sided dominant function —] is no light matter, because any habitual attitude is essentially a more or less conscious ideal, sanctified by custom and historical tradition, and founded on the bedrock of one's innate temperament. The conscious attitude [— i.e., the dominant function —] is always in the nature of a Weltanschauung, if it is not explicitly a religion. It is this that makes the type problem so important. The opposition between the types is not merely an external conflict between men, it is the source of endless inner conflicts; the cause not only of external disputes and dislikes, but of nervous ills and psychic suffering. It is this fact, too, that obliges us physicians constantly to widen our medical horizon and to include within it not only general psychological standpoints but also questions concerning one's views of life and the world.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Jung didn't say that types were an "outgrowth of one's Weltanschauung." The point Jung made is that your type (which Jung speculated was substantially inborn) affects how you view the world to a sufficiently deep and extensive degree that it makes sense to characterize type as a Weltanschauung ("world view").

Yes. But that's how a Weltanschauung works. Take the geek Weltanschauung. A kid may start off being a bit more clumsy than his friends. So he starts being not so good at sports. So he is picked for teams less often. So he has more time doing nothing. So he starts reading, to keep from being bored. So he finds some of those books interesting. So he reads more and more, and finds books more and more interesting. So at the same time, he shows less and less interest in sports. So he doesn't develop in sports, like his friends do.

Fast fowards a few years, he knows lot of things in books, but is pretty weedy, and not that practised at sports. His friends know very little of things in books, and they are very muscular, and very good at sports, from playing all the time.

They don't even know the stuff he now takes for granted, and considers them Neanderthals. They see him as some guy who doesn't know that team sports an exercise are important, has no interest in how his lack of physique makes him appear to others, and even tries to make out like they are dumb and lacking, over things that aren't even really that important.

The Weltanschauung feeds the Type, and the Type feeds the Weltanschauung. Eventually, he can't remember which started which. It becomes like the chicken and the egg. All one knows is that the 2 come together.

[redBalloon]

Originally Posted by HackerX To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I find it so strange that people insist on trying to type other people based on externally visible attributes and totally ignore at least half of a person's personality. If Jung says he was a INTP, then he was an INTP. How is one to know? Who the fuck knows better than the person themselves? Especially of all people Jung. When he wasn't writing books or talking to people or wooing women, do you know what he was fucking thinking? Of course you don't. To (attempt to) type other person based on a biased and filtered view of their life is stupid. To latch onto one or more particular selective attributes and somehow insist on attributing them exclusively to some other type with the expectation that those within a type act consistently is stupid. Bah.

Thank you! I was beginning to think nobody would state the obvious solution to this 'plexer.' Judging cognitive function based on behavior is fallacious.

[jonathanb]

Watch the following:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is during Jung last year~ of life. He's pretty much describing himself as INTX.

[reckful]

^ That's the same video I linked you to in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm just pointing that out here because, if you missed post #5, you also missed some other links you might be interested in, including a thread with quite a bit of discussion about that video, as well as an arguably inconsistent (depending on how you interpret the video) conversation Jung had with a Jung scholar at around the same time.

[Tactical Panda]

I don't think Jung was wrong about his own type. Even if he didn't make it too obvious.

Unlike the internet.

[superflax]

As an INFJ myself....

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And incredibly persuasive. Their words are easy to understand, and appeal naturally to everyone's feelings.

Oh wow thanks -blushes-

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2) INFJs do not like to categorise people. They feel that to do so, would be putting people into a box.

Not really, I categorise all day everyday. Though I do not want people and things to be pigeonholed, my life is much easier when they are.

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3) INFJs do like to study lots of things that will help their Ni ideas. They don't seek mastery, but just enough to persuade people of their ideas, rather like INTJs do with Te. They prefer to leave the exact details to the more detailed people, like INTPs. As soon as they have got something that roughly works, they move directly on to persuading everyone to try their ideas out, and then let everyone sort out the details of how it works for them.

YESSSSSSSSSS! Amazingly said. You've put into words something I've been struggling to understand so thanks. I do this all the time haha.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	4) From what I know of INFJs, they like to use their Fe, the way you like to use your Te, directly, to the people in their lives. That's what makes them such good psychotherapists. They would rather engage people's emotions directly, and help them to express their emotions.

Amen. Psychotherapy for the win! Though, if studying to become one wasn't so damn hard, I would!

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	5) Your brother is an INFJ. To suggest that Jung was an INFJ, is to suggest that your brother has the ability to become a world-famous and very successful psychologist. That might be a noble Te method of an Ni idea to persuade your brother to be more successful.

Urm I am of the opinion Jung was INTP, his writing style just screams INTP. I don't think any other type would ever be as precise as he was in so many damn words.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	6) Your brother doesn't need your help. From what I know of INFJs, their natural intuition works as successfully for them as it does for INTJs, but with the added advantage that their auxiliary Fe helps them to persuade everyone to agree to try their ideas out anyway.

Yes, but what if his Fe is underdeveloped? Mine is shockingly underdeveloped but I have no idea how to develop it.

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

7) The only thing that INFJs crave, is appreciation. They want to know that you love them. As long as they hear that you appreciate everything you do for them, they'll do almost anything for you, and quite happily. But they need to hear the words. "Thank you", "I really appreciate everything you do for me", and "I love you", are what they feed on. Give them that, and they have the confidence to do almost anything.

Well you don't even need to be that soppy, just a smile or a "that's great" then I will be putty in someone's hands.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	8) If INFJs do not get regular verbal appreciation from anyone, they wither and wilt. Then they fall back on unconscious Se, and fall into patterns of anything sensory that will make them forget that they feel unloved and unappreciated, including drink, drugs, casual sex, gambling, and any other forms of addiction.

Urm... Yes I suppose I have to agree though my pattern tends to be sit in my room and sulk, and find people over the internet to create connections with.