Myths of Type

["?"]

I was reading Jung

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by "?"

I was reading Jung

Yes, I've read most of psychological types. I can see what they (Jungians) mean about Jung contradicting himself now.

So do you mean, Myth, like misconceptions, or Myth, like the Norse Myths?

["?"]

I did not realize that any of this had taken. There have been problems with our server at work and last weekend while sanitizing my computer, I deleted my registry resulting in getting an error message that my TLDR is missing. I had writtent a plethora of information on Jung's theory v. MBTI, but don't have the time or inclination to redo it.

I will say that based on Carl Jung's theory certain things have to be considered about how we think about type;

1) Jung alludes to all people having a preference for each function and implies there is no unique function. Based on that, I think he would have argued that intuitive types are no more rare than sensing types.
2) Jung alludes to the dichotomies only to define how they work in unison as functions-attitudes.
3) Finally but not inclusively, Jung's discussion about the auxiliary function has to make one wonder whether Socionics is right that all judging/perceiving functions (regardless of attitude) will be primary and can be readily seen by an onlooker.

In reviewing his information again, I think that I now understand that most likely I had bought into the whole dichotomy theory and had taken the E/I too literal. I most likely use Se as my primary, however as someone stated here the auxiliary function may be the most easily recognized in ourselves.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by "?"

I did not realize that any of this had taken. There have been problems with our server at work and last weekend while sanitizing my computer, I deleted my registry resulting in getting an error message that my TLDR is missing. I had writtent a plethora of information on Jung's theory v. MBTI, but don't have the time or inclination to redo it.

I will say that based on Carl Jung's theory certain things have to be considered about how we think about type;

1) Jung alludes to all people having a preference for each function and implies there is no unique function. Based on that, I think he would have argued that intuitive types are no more rare than sensing types.
2) Jung alludes to the dichotomies only to define how they work in unison as functions-attitudes.
3) Finally but not inclusively, Jung's discussion about the auxiliary function has to make one wonder whether Socionics is right that all judging/perceiving functions (regardless of attitude) will be primary and can be readily seen by an onlooker.

In reviewing his information again, I think that I now understand that most likely I had bought into the whole dichotomy theory and had taken the E/I too literal. I most likely use Se as my primary, however as someone stated here the auxiliary function may be the most easily recognized in ourselves.

ahhhh, computer crap! (I still can't figure out how to stop the flow of junk mail). What is TLDR?

I've always suspected that if they did a world sample of psychological types, they would come back with an equal 6.25% of each type.
And I'm pretty sure biology doesn't respond as fast as culture, and if it did it wouldn't neccesarily go with the grain of a cultural trend.
Jung also claimed that almost all extraverted feeling types he knew were women, that was probably bullshit.
So Jung might not have argued that intuition types were just as common, (or male feeling types), but I would argue that based on his own stuff. The thing about a cultural modal type is that all types perpetuate that culture if they conform to it: for example, freud was probably an introverted feeling type, but his later work (what we know him for) has an oversimplifying extraverted thinking cast (freud himself saying he got bored with interpreting every dream the same way)-well, Freudian stuff made its way easily into mainstream culture.

For the auxiliary/dominant thing, literally ask yourself, 'which is more fun for me'? The dominant would be the answer- using the dominant function can acually be a net energy gain. On the other hand, everyone gets tired of using the auxiliary after a while (and people don't seem to use the auxiliary function for its own sake). When people want your help, which function (sensing or thinking) is better at helping them out, and if they come to you for help, which function do they expect to help them (the auxiliary) (have you already heard this?)

["?"]

Originally Posted by Gabe

ahhhh, computer crap! (I still can't figure out how to stop the flow of junk mail). What is TLDR?

Technology Loader. I think it is sometimes called NTLDR (New Technology Loader). It's actually what loads your operating system and boots your computer. Anyhow, I found out today that my OS has to be completely reloaded.

Originally Posted by Gabe

I've always suspected that if they did a world sample of psychological types, they would come back with an equal 6.25% of each type.

I had to do a double take on your type Gabe, since I have only heard ISTPs and ENTPs make identical comments. I agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Gabe

Jung also claimed that almost all extraverted feeling types he knew were women, that was probably bullshit.

Can't argue that he was a sexist.

Originally Posted by Gabe

So Jung might not have argued that intuition types were just as common, (or male feeling types), but I would argue that based on his own stuff. The thing about a cultural modal type is that all types perpetuate that culture if they conform to it: for example, freud was probably an introverted feeling type, but his later work (what we know him for) has an oversimplifying extraverted thinking cast (freud himself saying he got bored with interpreting every dream the same way)-well, Freudian stuff made its way easily into mainstream culture.

I agree with your summation Gabe, which is why I have argued that many people model themselves after their cultures, ergo we have until the past 16 to 18 years lived in what we consider a SJ culture. I think a paradigm shift has changed it slightly to a NT culture and may shift greater with inflation (rise of gas=more telecommuters).

Originally Posted by Gabe

For the auxiliary/dominant thing, literally ask yourself, 'which is more fun for me'? The dominant would be the answer- using the dominant function can acually be a net energy gain. On the other hand, everyone gets tired of using the auxiliary after a while (and people don't seem to use the auxiliary function for its own sake). When people want your help, which function (sensing or thinking) is better at helping them out, and if they come to you for help, which function do they expect to help them (the auxiliary) (have you already heard this?)

Agreed, however the question is which do we show to the world. It is Myers-Briggs' theory that introverts do not show the world their true selves, thus we see the auxiliary function. This is the basis of her pattened belief that dominant introverted judgers appear as perceiving types while dominant introverted perceivers appear as judging types. Jung says that introverts do show their true selves, thus we see the Ti, Fi, Ni, Si. Based on that, (and it really turns my stomach to even admit this) Socionics may be correct in how the four letter codes should be allocated for introverted types. If that is true, Jung may have most likely defined Ti/Fi dominant types as IJs and Si/Ni dominant types as IPs.

Since there is some validity in this theory, I can only say that I am Ti-Se since Jung goes no further in explaining how the remaining functions fall into place, except to say that our most inferior function must be the opposite in attitude and two similar functions cannot follow one another (i.e. two judging or perceiving functions). This in itself confirms additional myths that types using Ne or Ni will not have the other well defined in their arsenal.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by "?"

Technology Loader. I think it is sometimes called NTLDR (New Technology Loader). It's actually what loads your operating system and boots your computer. Anyhow, I found out today that my OS has to be completely reloaded.I had to do a double take on your type Gabe, since I have only heard ISTPs and ENTPs make identical comments. I agree with you 100%. Can't argue that he was a sexist. I agree with your summation Gabe, which is why I have argued that many people model themselves after their cultures, ergo we have until the past 16 to 18 years lived in what we consider a SJ culture. I think a paradigm shift has changed it slightly to a NT culture and may shift greater with inflation (rise of gas=more telecommuters). Agreed, however the question is which do we show to the world. It is Myers-Briggs' theory that introverts do not show the world their true selves, thus we see the auxiliary function. This is the basis of her pattened belief that dominant introverted judgers appear as perceiving types while dominant introverted perceivers appear as judging types. Jung says that introverts do show their true selves, thus we see the Ti, Fi, Ni, Si. Based on that, (and it really turns my stomach to even admit this) Socionics may be correct in how the four letter codes should be allocated for introverted types. If that is true, Jung may have most likely defined Ti/Fi dominant types as IJs and Si/Ni dominant types as IPs.

Since there is some validity in this theory, I can only say that I am Ti-Se since Jung goes no further in explaining how the remaining functions fall into place, except to say that our most inferior function must be the opposite in attitude and two similar functions cannot follow one another (i.e. two judging or perceiving functions). This in itself confirms additional myths that types using Ne or Ni will not have the other well defined in their arsenal.

heh, NT culture, that's interesting. I remember my INTP friend telling me that he thought in 2000 that "geeks" would rule the world (Not that geeks are NTs, per se, but when I asked this friend to summarize geek culture, he listed what basically what I now know are theorist temperment values).

Anyway; so that's how the socionics code works? (I really have been living in a cave when it comes to socionics). Myers' four letter code does (intentionally or unintentionally) emphasize the extraverted functions. But if you read the booklet with the original type descriptions, it gives advice into percieving types (in the original jungian sense of that) developing judging, judging types developing percieving.

Beebe actually suggested somewhere that in general there is a significant difference between rational and irrational types. He also suggests that because they are likely to interprete each other's judgements as perceptions and vice versa. Speaking of rational types, that same MBTI booklet by myers is put together verrry rationally. And when I realized that the type descriptions have basically a form-letter format I (possibly because I'm an irrational type) became bored. Rational types always want some kind of order in the situation.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Gabe

Beebe actually suggested somewhere that in general there is a significant difference between rational and irrational types. He also suggests that because they are likely to interprete each other's judgements as perceptions and vice versa. Speaking of rational types, that same MBTI booklet by myers is put together verrry rationally. And when I realized that the type descriptions have basically a form-letter format I (possibly because I'm an irrational type) became bored. Rational types always want some kind of order in the situation.

This is an interesting point you make Gabe. I would think that dominant rational types (regardless of attitude) would want some symbol of order. As a dominant Ti type, I want to create order from chaos when it affects my little world. Otherwise, I only seem to take advantage of opportunities when I see chaos in the environment. It is probably why I have a hard time distinguishing which comes first for me Ti or Se, but I know they are my two main preferences.