A friendly reminder that Jung's original work has no P or J... Within SOJT, which it's its own typology system, Jung would have been a SOJT IT-N type. Notice that SOJT tracks differentiation and individuation - whereas MBTI is a different system meant to track preferences in external dichotomies for business application... Apple and oranges... I'd say that SOJT informs of someone's MBTI temperament - aka about the first three letters of someone's MBTI code - whereas for P/J you can use the MBTI cluster letter traits (NP, NJ, TP, TJ and so on...) with P/J indicating how open-ended/ closed-ended someone is. I add that the so called "functions" of MBTI are nothing more than cluster letters traits (ex. MBTI "Si" = SJ traits = manifestations of sensation auxiliary in SOJT) and have nothing to do with Jung's original definitions in Psychological Types (ex. Jung talked about SOJT introverted irrational types as "from the extraverted and rational point of view those types are considerable the most useless of men" ). Reynierse did a whole analysis in which he debunked Type Dynamics - The Case Against Type Dynamics - feel free to check it out. Anyways I agree that Carl Jung would be an INTJ within the MBTI framework. I add that Enneagram wise Jung was an intellectual sx 9 so unsurprisingly he gets often mistyped to 5 as the intellectual 9 got lost in dissemination.
It is so nice to read or listen to INTJs because their brain works so similar... It's refreshing to hear thoughts that are automatically processed without effort. The small experience with Jung I had... I have tried to read 2 of his books and I didn't finish any of them. My brain was bleeding... I tried to find any semblance of Te data (some argument, a fact, or a claim at least) in the flood of spirituality interwoven with stories about experiences/behaviors of random people. I skipped a lot of "empty" paragraphs in the hope to find some distillation of what his conclusion is from those examples... But I didn't find any. Everyone can make his own subjective conclusion? That is not how a Te user works. Maybe it's just an INTJ with the worst Te in the world... :) But hey, he had some co-authors, so maybe I didn't even read his words. As said, I don't know much about Jung to type him. I just have my suspicions on a small sample of data that he might be NiFe. Just my $0.02. If I find 4 hours maybe I'll take the journey. :)
@@friendlyanomaly6109 By Te data I would put describing how something work, usually without unnecessary related details. As an example of how I would imagine an INTJ to write a book are books from Dario Nardi. I wanted to give you an example from Jung's book and I found a version which has a table of content at the beginning and there are the types described reasonably hidden away way down at chapter 10. 😅So his writing isn't "that bad", it's just the mythological content he chooses to write about... But I would still question INTJ as the type for Jung after watching the video linked here. Beebe puts him as INTJ, but the way he describes him... For example: - Jung made statements like "Why should we listen to someone from France, who can't even read German?" That is something that would be considered Aristocratic on the Aristocratic (NF+ST) vs Democratic (NT+SF) Reinin dichotomy. It is also an argument from feeling instead of logic, which would reduce the NF+ST category to NF. - Jung made ridiculous connections from his dreams. - According to Beebe, Jung didn't use thinking in his writings until later in his life. (I can't find this one quickly to confirm, so it's possible that I remember it incorrectly.) There was stuff like that that makes me still think INFJ is a better match. But I haven't really seen Jung to type him properly. All this data is what other people say about him. It might be handpicked or taken out of context.
@@fadingintent "Jung made statements like "Why should we listen to someone from France, who can't even read German?" I think it is too much to infer aristocratic v. democratic from one statement alone
"This is one instance where you actually have an expert speaking on the topic." ... Say (if you don't mind sharing), would you rank expert opinion above critical thinking? (There is no wrong answer here - I'm just curious about how your brain works. 🙃)
@@xaosects I think this can be argued from many different angles and they all could be perceived as valid. One random angle could be that here we have Beebe challenging Jung's own typing of himself. So we have 2 masters against each other. So while you can feel small to challenge either master (Jung or Beebe), since they ought to have more knowledge than you do, you can just pick a side and claim your favorite master's wisdom. 😁 Edit: I guess Jung had only 8 types, so he didn't distinguish between NiTe and NiFe. So there might be a weakness in my argument there... 😋
@@fadingintentMy point is it's a bit like rooting for a football team when you know nothing about football, its teams or its players. What's the point, beyond entertainment? Do you understand the positions and plays? Wouldn't it be more interesting if you had studied both Jung and Beebe thoroughly before comparing their ideas? Would it not lead to a completely different conversation? Sure, this channel is "Arm Chair" Typology - we're not doctoral Jungian analysts - but the game is much richer when you've first studied the playbooks and strategies.
I lack the proper context to give a truly informed comment on this (I feel like I could afford to read more of Jung's work, and that I could listen to the entire lecture for the full context) but my opinion at a glance is that it is a bit difficult to tell if Jung is actually an INTJ or not. My initial impression of him is that of an INFJ, but honestly, a relative 'mastery' of one's critic function - while unorthodox and not really often recommended as top advice in the typology community - is absolutely possible. You could definitely argue that it's more likely to have an INTJ with developed Fi and Ti, than it is to have an INFJ with developed Ti and Fi, but both are possible (though uncommon, as it requires conscious recognition of a normally unconscious weakness/bias that also runs counter to a top function). That being said, with Jung you have in one person (whether he is INTJ or INFJ), someone who also would need a decent understanding of his PoLR / Trickster function in his work, which is where things get murky. Even if you try to actively develop your trickster function, most of the time it's the equivalent of a blind person learning to read braille and then proclaiming "Ah, I can now see!". There's a lack of awareness of the dimensions of the trickster function itself, like you're trying to measure something but the rulers you use have no markings nor indicators. The challenge of the trickster function is not being aware of how deep the rabbit hole goes, nor will you be aware of the dimensions of that proverbial burrow. So to me the million dollar question would be: "If Jung is indeed an INTJ, why is he so strongly compelled to take psychological / philosophical concepts and to apply them broadly to humanity?". It seems like an Fe sentiment at a glance (NiFe in particular), so *to actually find this out* you'd have to know Jung's motivations for writing and studying psychoanalysis as he did. If it's more along the lines of "He had 'x' personal reason / value for it" and/or "It would further his career or meet some end, while also doing good for others" then INTJ is on the table. But to be the Devil's advocate: I would think it's easier to hand the scientific method (i.e. a Te oriented 'cheat sheet') to an INFJ and say "Just always reference this, and never stray from it in your professional work", than it would be for an INTJ to both understand and suddenly value Fe concepts enough to try to *then* NiTi and/or TeSe these broad solutions, purely for the sake of informing people. My impression is that if he is indeed INTJ, then that needs to be verified in his actual motivations, as at a glance Jung's work in psychoanalysis seems Fe oriented despite his profession as a doctor / clinician (which would imply both a strong preference for empiricism and a high regard for known facts). I'm not claiming absolute certainty in any case, just wanted to give my opinion as part of the peanut gallery. ... oh yeah, and there is pretty much no chance Jung is INTP. People who assert that likely don't understand the difference between Ni and Ne, lol. Ne is seeking emergent qualities (ex. lots of insects build mound-like nests, the qualities of those mounds and the insects within differ situationally and are difficult to equate, and they might suit different analogical purposes), Ni is all about convergence (ex. the tower constructed by insects is just another form of archetypal civilization, on a lesser scale, but yet it is still within the grasp of life and at the mercy of* nature).
As always I could read pages and pages of these rants. Just because I don't also type one back doesn't mean I don't read them over autistically. I like this video as it's an Fe trick, since it's out of context. Within the context of the first hour of the lecture, it's probably one of the best long form rants on typology that you can find on RUclips. The presentation is Te because I've already distilled and edited the parts summarizing the topic covered in 1 hr in ~ 15 minutes. There's also the troll aspect that I've left so much out that it's almost impossible to apply introverted thinking conclusively here in this case based on the 15 mins of content. Which leads some people to still write the long introverted thinking rants and speculation out of almost thin air that I enjoy reading. It also attracts people that know the other required information and have been exposed to other content etc etc that are not mentioned.
@@ArmChairTypology I am glad I figured out that there is no conclusive data in just this video to begin with, and it's one of those situations where I understood initially there is a definite lack of context... but I find it fun to speculate with what I'm given just to see what I can find within those bounds. I find the rambly Ti comments to be genuinely fun to draft up, so I take pretty much any excuse, even if I do worry about it annoying the crap out of people sometimes. I'm happy to hear that you enjoy them! 😎 In this case (well, in all cases) context is pretty much everything. If I write five science reports and people read them and then determine I am an INTJ, they are drawing that conclusion from an incomplete dataset. Because I need to draft a science report in a specific way, utilize Te parameters, and prove my conclusions with strong evidence, I don't actually have the freedom to just write it however I want. So I took the same logic, but inverse, for Jung's case. Assuming Jung is INTJ invalidates the common assumption of INFJ, so therefore stronger reasoning is required as to why he would be INTJ than was presented in those 15 minutes (to be certain). If it's at all asserted that Jung could be writing to cater to his field or audience, then broader evidence is necessarily required to make either case for his cognitive type I am not emotionally attached to either outcome, I find it interesting to consider but not so interesting I am going to start cracking open books and cross referencing things (... yet, lol). I definitely need to tune in to the whole lecture though, if it is as good as you say it should be worth it. I recall listening to another lecture from Beebe (I think you sent it in the discord) when playing 'theHunter: Call of the Wild' a few months ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it! Thanks again for another interesting video / 'thought experiment'
@@friendlyanomaly6109 That sounds pretty interesting actually, do you remember which interview? I'd be curious to find out if he had finalized his theory on type before he said that, and if he gave any reasoning about that conclusion
@@gaving7825 I remember his hair being all gray, whereas he wrote psychological types when he was in his 40s if I recall correctly, so quite a bit of time had passed. For the life of me, I can't find the original video I watched where he said he was an Introverted thinking type. But here's a different video of him talking about his type. ruclips.net/video/Siac4QsB3VM/видео.htmlfeature=shared From this, you can see that he's saying he's most likely a INTX type. Considering how often he wrote/spoke about his difficulty figuring out the Introverted Intuitive type, I think it's safe to say he found them a bit foreign and unlike himself, indicating he saw himself as an INTP. (Ti + Ne)
So if Jung were INTJ he would have both Ni and Fi, right? Not that I agree or disagree with that particular notion myself. However, factors of personality can be viewed through lots of different lenses. Through Fi you can sympathetically "know" others' feelings by knowing yourself well, with Fe you can empathetically and holistically read emotional reactions and by effect feel (or at least comprehend) the conclusion, with Ni you can judge recurrent patterns within someone or around a situation, with Si you can look at what you experienced and how that impacts your own values (reminding yourself via totemism, usually) and you can sympathetically impose that understanding on others in an attempt to understand them. Every personality will have a means to understand themselves and others, even if it is not a default strength of theirs. If any type had an inability to understand either part of the human condition entirely, it would cease to make them 'human' in the conventional sense of the term (which borders on impossible, unless someone is a psychopath/sociopath).
![GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- Season Pass 4 Playable Character #1 [Queen Dizzy] Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXDsAgYXXv4/mqdefault.jpg)
A friendly reminder that Jung's original work has no P or J... Within SOJT, which it's its own typology system, Jung would have been a SOJT IT-N type. Notice that SOJT tracks differentiation and individuation - whereas MBTI is a different system meant to track preferences in external dichotomies for business application... Apple and oranges... I'd say that SOJT informs of someone's MBTI temperament - aka about the first three letters of someone's MBTI code - whereas for P/J you can use the MBTI cluster letter traits (NP, NJ, TP, TJ and so on...) with P/J indicating how open-ended/ closed-ended someone is. I add that the so called "functions" of MBTI are nothing more than cluster letters traits (ex. MBTI "Si" = SJ traits = manifestations of sensation auxiliary in SOJT) and have nothing to do with Jung's original definitions in Psychological Types (ex. Jung talked about SOJT introverted irrational types as "from the extraverted and rational point of view those types are considerable the most useless of men" ). Reynierse did a whole analysis in which he debunked Type Dynamics - The Case Against Type Dynamics - feel free to check it out. Anyways I agree that Carl Jung would be an INTJ within the MBTI framework. I add that Enneagram wise Jung was an intellectual sx 9 so unsurprisingly he gets often mistyped to 5 as the intellectual 9 got lost in dissemination.
Going from Te to Ti is a enormous stretch?
The hell?!
This video got me "triggered" fr fr.
Lol. Good job.
It is so nice to read or listen to INTJs because their brain works so similar... It's refreshing to hear thoughts that are automatically processed without effort. The small experience with Jung I had... I have tried to read 2 of his books and I didn't finish any of them. My brain was bleeding... I tried to find any semblance of Te data (some argument, a fact, or a claim at least) in the flood of spirituality interwoven with stories about experiences/behaviors of random people. I skipped a lot of "empty" paragraphs in the hope to find some distillation of what his conclusion is from those examples... But I didn't find any. Everyone can make his own subjective conclusion? That is not how a Te user works. Maybe it's just an INTJ with the worst Te in the world... :) But hey, he had some co-authors, so maybe I didn't even read his words. As said, I don't know much about Jung to type him. I just have my suspicions on a small sample of data that he might be NiFe. Just my $0.02. If I find 4 hours maybe I'll take the journey. :)
What is "Te data"?
@@friendlyanomaly6109 By Te data I would put describing how something work, usually without unnecessary related details. As an example of how I would imagine an INTJ to write a book are books from Dario Nardi.
I wanted to give you an example from Jung's book and I found a version which has a table of content at the beginning and there are the types described reasonably hidden away way down at chapter 10. 😅So his writing isn't "that bad", it's just the mythological content he chooses to write about...
But I would still question INTJ as the type for Jung after watching the video linked here. Beebe puts him as INTJ, but the way he describes him... For example:
- Jung made statements like "Why should we listen to someone from France, who can't even read German?" That is something that would be considered Aristocratic on the Aristocratic (NF+ST) vs Democratic (NT+SF) Reinin dichotomy. It is also an argument from feeling instead of logic, which would reduce the NF+ST category to NF.
- Jung made ridiculous connections from his dreams.
- According to Beebe, Jung didn't use thinking in his writings until later in his life. (I can't find this one quickly to confirm, so it's possible that I remember it incorrectly.)
There was stuff like that that makes me still think INFJ is a better match. But I haven't really seen Jung to type him properly. All this data is what other people say about him. It might be handpicked or taken out of context.
@@fadingintent "Jung made statements like "Why should we listen to someone from France, who can't even read German?" I think it is too much to infer aristocratic v. democratic from one statement alone
@@yucheung5853 I agree. 🙂
So good!
"This is one instance where you actually have an expert speaking on the topic."
... Say (if you don't mind sharing), would you rank expert opinion above critical thinking? (There is no wrong answer here - I'm just curious about how your brain works. 🙃)
Saying your an expert to further validate your point instead of sticking with your good reasonining gives me insecurity vibes hehe
It's a bit like listening to Feynman speak on physics: if you were going to challenge his opinions you ought to do your homework.
@@xaosects I think this can be argued from many different angles and they all could be perceived as valid. One random angle could be that here we have Beebe challenging Jung's own typing of himself. So we have 2 masters against each other. So while you can feel small to challenge either master (Jung or Beebe), since they ought to have more knowledge than you do, you can just pick a side and claim your favorite master's wisdom. 😁
Edit: I guess Jung had only 8 types, so he didn't distinguish between NiTe and NiFe. So there might be a weakness in my argument there... 😋
@@fadingintentMy point is it's a bit like rooting for a football team when you know nothing about football, its teams or its players. What's the point, beyond entertainment? Do you understand the positions and plays? Wouldn't it be more interesting if you had studied both Jung and Beebe thoroughly before comparing their ideas? Would it not lead to a completely different conversation? Sure, this channel is "Arm Chair" Typology - we're not doctoral Jungian analysts - but the game is much richer when you've first studied the playbooks and strategies.
@@xaosects That is one of the beautiful takes on my question. 🤗
I lack the proper context to give a truly informed comment on this (I feel like I could afford to read more of Jung's work, and that I could listen to the entire lecture for the full context) but my opinion at a glance is that it is a bit difficult to tell if Jung is actually an INTJ or not. My initial impression of him is that of an INFJ, but honestly, a relative 'mastery' of one's critic function - while unorthodox and not really often recommended as top advice in the typology community - is absolutely possible. You could definitely argue that it's more likely to have an INTJ with developed Fi and Ti, than it is to have an INFJ with developed Ti and Fi, but both are possible (though uncommon, as it requires conscious recognition of a normally unconscious weakness/bias that also runs counter to a top function).
That being said, with Jung you have in one person (whether he is INTJ or INFJ), someone who also would need a decent understanding of his PoLR / Trickster function in his work, which is where things get murky. Even if you try to actively develop your trickster function, most of the time it's the equivalent of a blind person learning to read braille and then proclaiming "Ah, I can now see!". There's a lack of awareness of the dimensions of the trickster function itself, like you're trying to measure something but the rulers you use have no markings nor indicators. The challenge of the trickster function is not being aware of how deep the rabbit hole goes, nor will you be aware of the dimensions of that proverbial burrow.
So to me the million dollar question would be: "If Jung is indeed an INTJ, why is he so strongly compelled to take psychological / philosophical concepts and to apply them broadly to humanity?". It seems like an Fe sentiment at a glance (NiFe in particular), so *to actually find this out* you'd have to know Jung's motivations for writing and studying psychoanalysis as he did. If it's more along the lines of "He had 'x' personal reason / value for it" and/or "It would further his career or meet some end, while also doing good for others" then INTJ is on the table.
But to be the Devil's advocate: I would think it's easier to hand the scientific method (i.e. a Te oriented 'cheat sheet') to an INFJ and say "Just always reference this, and never stray from it in your professional work", than it would be for an INTJ to both understand and suddenly value Fe concepts enough to try to *then* NiTi and/or TeSe these broad solutions, purely for the sake of informing people. My impression is that if he is indeed INTJ, then that needs to be verified in his actual motivations, as at a glance Jung's work in psychoanalysis seems Fe oriented despite his profession as a doctor / clinician (which would imply both a strong preference for empiricism and a high regard for known facts). I'm not claiming absolute certainty in any case, just wanted to give my opinion as part of the peanut gallery.
... oh yeah, and there is pretty much no chance Jung is INTP. People who assert that likely don't understand the difference between Ni and Ne, lol. Ne is seeking emergent qualities (ex. lots of insects build mound-like nests, the qualities of those mounds and the insects within differ situationally and are difficult to equate, and they might suit different analogical purposes), Ni is all about convergence (ex. the tower constructed by insects is just another form of archetypal civilization, on a lesser scale, but yet it is still within the grasp of life and at the mercy of* nature).
As always I could read pages and pages of these rants. Just because I don't also type one back doesn't mean I don't read them over autistically.
I like this video as it's an Fe trick, since it's out of context. Within the context of the first hour of the lecture, it's probably one of the best long form rants on typology that you can find on RUclips.
The presentation is Te because I've already distilled and edited the parts summarizing the topic covered in 1 hr in ~ 15 minutes.
There's also the troll aspect that I've left so much out that it's almost impossible to apply introverted thinking conclusively here in this case based on the 15 mins of content. Which leads some people to still write the long introverted thinking rants and speculation out of almost thin air that I enjoy reading.
It also attracts people that know the other required information and have been exposed to other content etc etc that are not mentioned.
@@ArmChairTypology I am glad I figured out that there is no conclusive data in just this video to begin with, and it's one of those situations where I understood initially there is a definite lack of context... but I find it fun to speculate with what I'm given just to see what I can find within those bounds.
I find the rambly Ti comments to be genuinely fun to draft up, so I take pretty much any excuse, even if I do worry about it annoying the crap out of people sometimes. I'm happy to hear that you enjoy them! 😎
In this case (well, in all cases) context is pretty much everything. If I write five science reports and people read them and then determine I am an INTJ, they are drawing that conclusion from an incomplete dataset. Because I need to draft a science report in a specific way, utilize Te parameters, and prove my conclusions with strong evidence, I don't actually have the freedom to just write it however I want. So I took the same logic, but inverse, for Jung's case. Assuming Jung is INTJ invalidates the common assumption of INFJ, so therefore stronger reasoning is required as to why he would be INTJ than was presented in those 15 minutes (to be certain). If it's at all asserted that Jung could be writing to cater to his field or audience, then broader evidence is necessarily required to make either case for his cognitive type
I am not emotionally attached to either outcome, I find it interesting to consider but not so interesting I am going to start cracking open books and cross referencing things (... yet, lol). I definitely need to tune in to the whole lecture though, if it is as good as you say it should be worth it. I recall listening to another lecture from Beebe (I think you sent it in the discord) when playing 'theHunter: Call of the Wild' a few months ago and I thoroughly enjoyed it! Thanks again for another interesting video / 'thought experiment'
There's a video where someone asked Carl Jung what type he was & he basically said IXTP.
@@friendlyanomaly6109 That sounds pretty interesting actually, do you remember which interview? I'd be curious to find out if he had finalized his theory on type before he said that, and if he gave any reasoning about that conclusion
@@gaving7825
I remember his hair being all gray, whereas he wrote psychological types when he was in his 40s if I recall correctly, so quite a bit of time had passed.
For the life of me, I can't find the original video I watched where he said he was an Introverted thinking type.
But here's a different video of him talking about his type.
ruclips.net/video/Siac4QsB3VM/видео.htmlfeature=shared
From this, you can see that he's saying he's most likely a INTX type.
Considering how often he wrote/spoke about his difficulty figuring out the Introverted Intuitive type, I think it's safe to say he found them a bit foreign and unlike himself, indicating he saw himself as an INTP. (Ti + Ne)
Ni knowing others personalities… fi knowing your own personality ;)
So if Jung were INTJ he would have both Ni and Fi, right? Not that I agree or disagree with that particular notion myself.
However, factors of personality can be viewed through lots of different lenses.
Through Fi you can sympathetically "know" others' feelings by knowing yourself well, with Fe you can empathetically and holistically read emotional reactions and by effect feel (or at least comprehend) the conclusion, with Ni you can judge recurrent patterns within someone or around a situation, with Si you can look at what you experienced and how that impacts your own values (reminding yourself via totemism, usually) and you can sympathetically impose that understanding on others in an attempt to understand them. Every personality will have a means to understand themselves and others, even if it is not a default strength of theirs.
If any type had an inability to understand either part of the human condition entirely, it would cease to make them 'human' in the conventional sense of the term (which borders on impossible, unless someone is a psychopath/sociopath).
So true and good 😮
Jung as a conscious Te user is absolutely hilarious.