I love the debates here! I've updated the thumbnail and title to better reflect Marie's insights. Personally, I find myself relating more to Robert Moore's mapping of the Self and psyche-building on Toni Wolff's work and expanding Jung's eight-fold structure - the double quaternio, as detailed in Aion-than to MBTI. I'm working on a video about it. Here is a short where Jung reminds us that typology is just a map: ruclips.net/user/shortsYvWAZmtNaOY . And here Jung elaborates on how people schematized his theory of the types: ruclips.net/video/BDcoY_EJwoI/видео.html . Lastly, a video I've made about Introverts, where Jung reads (a created voice) from his tenth chapter, “General Description of the Types“ (Collected works, vol.6): ruclips.net/video/03NGtWj0q1k/видео.html . We shouldn't confuse the map with the territory.
As someone who has related to INFJ and INFP, I do find Jung to be one of the most relatable and inspiring people I admire. I also feel this way about Marie-Louise, I think she’s incredible to listen to.
Read Psychological Types, Jung's model was substantially more nuanced, complex, and ultimately different than MBTI, or Socionics. A consciously wielded auxiliary (not everyone had one) shared the same attitude as the dominant (IIEE, or EEII) because the attitude-type informs conscious orientation. The attitude opposite of the dominant is primitive, and/or unconscious. We can gather that Jung was introverted from various quotes, and when asked about his type he, and von Franz are saying the same thing Introverted attitude, with thinking, and intuition as his conscious functions. That equals Ti Ni with Se and Fe as his unconscious, and inferior functions. What MBTI fanatics need to understand is in Jung's typology the PSYCHE has an attitude-type, and functions. The functions don't have personal attitude-types as that would require completely ignoring conscious orientation to work. The Harold Grant cognitive function stacks (IEIE, or EIEI) didn't exist until the 1980s, and the West didn't really get ahold of translations of Socionics until the mid 90s to early 2000s, because it was developed in the USSR. Both models that spawned out of Jung's typology cut out parts of the theory for expediency of making a "test" that people can take. Jung himself showed so little interest in being involved with MBTI that it could be considered bordering on contempt, and in correspondence letters he criticized MBTI calling it a "parlor trick", or something to that effect.
@@acrylicqualia It is an uphill battle, because the incentives (financial and ego) are to keep to the Grant stacks for a number of reasons. Online communities form around these group identity labels, which has a strong reinforcing consensus mechanism. Once people latch their sense of self onto these labels, and the function stacks then criticizing it, or explaining why it is based on false premises becomes a personal attack. Also of course there is the whole business model of typing people based on function stacks, or the letter dichotomies. Originally I just wanted the clearest definitions, because everyone online was using the same abstract jargon, but were saying slightly different things. Which ultimately led me to read the source material of Psychological Types, and learning as much as I could about the history, particularly before the Grant stacks. Marie-Louise von Franz and J.H. van der Hoop clearly never used "flipping orientation function stacks", but you have to read a bunch of old books to know that. Sadly now a days many laypeople learn MBTI from memes which is even further from clarity than MBTI is to Psychological Types.
@@Vacuous_Bubkis I don't know much about the classical mbti. From observation of myself and other people I have the opinion that the first and third functions in the letter code are the stronger functions at the beginning. In the case of an classical INTJ that would be Ni-Fi. Later, when the parent (2) function is established (in this case Te), it becomes stronger than the child (3) function and displaces it to a degree.
@@Corvin2696 What I am writing about is from the theory that ALL typology, MBTI, and Socionics etc. draws from. Which is decades upon decade older than modern cognitive function stacks (btw official MBTI didn't come up with them, and functionally ignores for letter dichotomies). They lack key components of the source theory, and get things fundamentally wrong in the process. The attitude-type (E/I) is linked to conscious orientation. To have a secondary function that is consciously under use of the will requires that it have the primary attitude. In the type descriptions Jung even explicitly describes the types with only a single conscious function (IEEE, or EIII), then in the auxiliary chapter he explains that he did this to emphasize the shared characteristics within types. Though many would develop a second function of co-determinate influence, but that the "governing principle would remain the decisive one". In common English you can't have an auxiliary that is extraverted as an introvert, and visa versa, because the attitude-type represents the conscious psyche, not connected to individual functions. We CAN piecemeal integrate the lesser attitude and functions, but it is extremely personal, and challenging. Most would rather identify with a group label, than experience the arduous process of individuation.
@@Vacuous_Bubkis 1. I wasn't arguing. 2. I didn't talk about the consciousness of a function, but the prevalence of its usage. 3. The reason all of that looks so complex is because its wrong. I think the 4 sides of the mind explain the psyche much better than some overcomplex system where some things can be but somehow don't need to be. Just my opinion, you are free to disregard it.
I would have thought that the learned professor arriving at the door of the lady in question with a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates would have been more of a heart felt apology…then again , what would a simpleton like me know ….? and knowing my wife as well as I do , if I had blamed my bad behaviour on my animus , I know where she would have stuck the flowers ….
Both Jung and Von Franz were INTP not INTJ. This is an incorrect title. She says they were Thinking Intuitives and she says they had Inferior Feeling. This means that Thinking is the first function and Feeling the fourth. Intuitive would then be the second. Jung identified as an introverted type. Thus Ti Ne Si Fe - INTP
@@Jjj21574You're using a theory of cognitive function axes which necessitates the opposition of dominant (1st) and inferior (4th) functions. This is not the same as the model outlined in Jung's 'psychological types'
@ And where exactly does Jung say the Inferior function does not directly oppose the Primary function? If you want to talk in purely Jung’s words with definitiveness, not extrapolated by other I think we can say he and Von Franz would be introverted with Thinking primary and an auxiliary Intuition. The Feeling of each would be the fourth function as distinct from the tertiary. So we can say T, N, S, F where the T has an introverted attitude if you are a stickler for this kind of thing. The title of the clip is still incorrect and misleading. I’d recommend that the author would amend it.
@@Jjj21574 Appendix: Four Papers on Psychology Typology, 3. A Psychological Theory of Types (1931): "The inferior function does not directly oppose the primary function."
Triple J has meaning to me hello (lots of things work in 3s) 1 whole divided by 3 is 3.333…… I am INTP. The joker in the pack the jester the fool the clown. Intuition= psychic - psych…ect
@@acrylicqualiamlvf mentions this in more detail on her lectures on jung's typology book..! she even writes examples from her own life for the introverted thinking type :)
thanks for these short videos, youtubers now try to milk the subject with 30 min videos and Ai voice overs which expand on one thing in 50 sentences which could be done in 1 sentance
😂 YES 👍 Jung was most likely INTJ. The reason most won’t see it is that living in our age of the superabundant information, most INTJs are too busy out there building on it, or fully devoted to making money, thus completely alienated from society due to growing up in an infinitely complicated social damaged time of human history. In this kind of environment finding a harmonising version of the INTJ (INTJ-H according to Dario Nardi) that hasn’t taken their own life is next to impossible due to the harsh reality of our times. But there must still be some if I am still here…INTJ-H
He clearly created a logical deductive system based on narrowing ideas... Because he was an obvious INTP lmao. Fi-Ni users are not that logically creative
Jung is INFJ and Von Franz is INTP. They were understandably bad at typing themselves because the theory was just being developed. But people today thinking Jung in particular was INTJ is sloppy thinking. He's very obviously an INFJ
It’s not like Mbti is an expansion to Jung’s work, like its more fulfilled or what. They just vary abit in their constellation. I for example find Jung’s description of his 8 types to be more accurate, more telling.. than Myers and Briggs managed with their 16 types.. Jung is an Intp, he said that himself in that famous interview that he was „most characterized by thinking“ „had a good deal of intuition“ and had „a definite difficulty with feeling.“ So how did you come to know you have a better understanding of this typology than the originator himself? That shall make an interesting explanation..
I long thought Freud was INTJ and Jung was INFJ. I guess I was wrong! I am an INFJ and was married to an INTJ for 25 years. These two personality types can be quite fascinated with each other and can match intellectual curiosity and depth, but the arguments are epic.
I love the debates here! I've updated the thumbnail and title to better reflect Marie's insights. Personally, I find myself relating more to Robert Moore's mapping of the Self and psyche-building on Toni Wolff's work and expanding Jung's eight-fold structure - the double quaternio, as detailed in Aion-than to MBTI. I'm working on a video about it. Here is a short where Jung reminds us that typology is just a map: ruclips.net/user/shortsYvWAZmtNaOY . And here Jung elaborates on how people schematized his theory of the types: ruclips.net/video/BDcoY_EJwoI/видео.html . Lastly, a video I've made about Introverts, where Jung reads (a created voice) from his tenth chapter, “General Description of the Types“ (Collected works, vol.6): ruclips.net/video/03NGtWj0q1k/видео.html . We shouldn't confuse the map with the territory.
As someone who has related to INFJ and INFP, I do find Jung to be one of the most relatable and inspiring people I admire. I also feel this way about Marie-Louise, I think she’s incredible to listen to.
Marie-Louise looks so very healthy for her age. And that lush green grass is awesome.
I love Carl Jung, the true father of psychology.
100%
Read Psychological Types, Jung's model was substantially more nuanced, complex, and ultimately different than MBTI, or Socionics. A consciously wielded auxiliary (not everyone had one) shared the same attitude as the dominant (IIEE, or EEII) because the attitude-type informs conscious orientation. The attitude opposite of the dominant is primitive, and/or unconscious. We can gather that Jung was introverted from various quotes, and when asked about his type he, and von Franz are saying the same thing Introverted attitude, with thinking, and intuition as his conscious functions. That equals Ti Ni with Se and Fe as his unconscious, and inferior functions. What MBTI fanatics need to understand is in Jung's typology the PSYCHE has an attitude-type, and functions. The functions don't have personal attitude-types as that would require completely ignoring conscious orientation to work.
The Harold Grant cognitive function stacks (IEIE, or EIEI) didn't exist until the 1980s, and the West didn't really get ahold of translations of Socionics until the mid 90s to early 2000s, because it was developed in the USSR. Both models that spawned out of Jung's typology cut out parts of the theory for expediency of making a "test" that people can take. Jung himself showed so little interest in being involved with MBTI that it could be considered bordering on contempt, and in correspondence letters he criticized MBTI calling it a "parlor trick", or something to that effect.
@@Vacuous_Bubkis Thanks for phrasing this so well. I've taken a screenshot for future reference against Grant/Brownsword purists
@@acrylicqualia It is an uphill battle, because the incentives (financial and ego) are to keep to the Grant stacks for a number of reasons. Online communities form around these group identity labels, which has a strong reinforcing consensus mechanism. Once people latch their sense of self onto these labels, and the function stacks then criticizing it, or explaining why it is based on false premises becomes a personal attack. Also of course there is the whole business model of typing people based on function stacks, or the letter dichotomies.
Originally I just wanted the clearest definitions, because everyone online was using the same abstract jargon, but were saying slightly different things. Which ultimately led me to read the source material of Psychological Types, and learning as much as I could about the history, particularly before the Grant stacks. Marie-Louise von Franz and J.H. van der Hoop clearly never used "flipping orientation function stacks", but you have to read a bunch of old books to know that.
Sadly now a days many laypeople learn MBTI from memes which is even further from clarity than MBTI is to Psychological Types.
@@Vacuous_Bubkis I don't know much about the classical mbti. From observation of myself and other people I have the opinion that the first and third functions in the letter code are the stronger functions at the beginning. In the case of an classical INTJ that would be Ni-Fi. Later, when the parent (2) function is established (in this case Te), it becomes stronger than the child (3) function and displaces it to a degree.
@@Corvin2696 What I am writing about is from the theory that ALL typology, MBTI, and Socionics etc. draws from. Which is decades upon decade older than modern cognitive function stacks (btw official MBTI didn't come up with them, and functionally ignores for letter dichotomies).
They lack key components of the source theory, and get things fundamentally wrong in the process. The attitude-type (E/I) is linked to conscious orientation. To have a secondary function that is consciously under use of the will requires that it have the primary attitude.
In the type descriptions Jung even explicitly describes the types with only a single conscious function (IEEE, or EIII), then in the auxiliary chapter he explains that he did this to emphasize the shared characteristics within types. Though many would develop a second function of co-determinate influence, but that the "governing principle would remain the decisive one". In common English you can't have an auxiliary that is extraverted as an introvert, and visa versa, because the attitude-type represents the conscious psyche, not connected to individual functions. We CAN piecemeal integrate the lesser attitude and functions, but it is extremely personal, and challenging. Most would rather identify with a group label, than experience the arduous process of individuation.
@@Vacuous_Bubkis 1. I wasn't arguing. 2. I didn't talk about the consciousness of a function, but the prevalence of its usage. 3. The reason all of that looks so complex is because its wrong. I think the 4 sides of the mind explain the psyche much better than some overcomplex system where some things can be but somehow don't need to be. Just my opinion, you are free to disregard it.
I would have thought that the learned professor arriving at the door of the lady in question with a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates would have been more of a heart felt apology…then again , what would a simpleton like me know ….? and knowing my wife as well as I do , if I had blamed my bad behaviour on my animus , I know where she would have stuck the flowers ….
She is a Cool woman
Jung was whole.
Those four letters are fragments of the individuation process
No one is whole. As long as we live we are a working progress.
@
We come into this world whole, forget it, then rediscover it has always existed in the moment at hand.
Both Jung and Von Franz were INTP not INTJ.
This is an incorrect title. She says they were Thinking Intuitives and she says they had Inferior Feeling. This means that Thinking is the first function and Feeling the fourth. Intuitive would then be the second. Jung identified as an introverted type. Thus Ti Ne Si Fe - INTP
@@Jjj21574You're using a theory of cognitive function axes which necessitates the opposition of dominant (1st) and inferior (4th) functions. This is not the same as the model outlined in Jung's 'psychological types'
@ And where exactly does Jung say the Inferior function does not directly oppose the Primary function?
If you want to talk in purely Jung’s words with definitiveness, not extrapolated by other I think we can say he and Von Franz would be introverted with Thinking primary and an auxiliary Intuition. The Feeling of each would be the fourth function as distinct from the tertiary. So we can say T, N, S, F where the T has an introverted attitude if you are a stickler for this kind of thing.
The title of the clip is still incorrect and misleading. I’d recommend that the author would amend it.
@@Jjj21574 Appendix: Four Papers on Psychology Typology, 3. A Psychological Theory of Types (1931):
"The inferior function does not directly oppose the primary function."
Triple J has meaning to me hello (lots of things work in 3s) 1 whole divided by 3 is 3.333…… I am INTP. The joker in the pack the jester the fool the clown. Intuition= psychic - psych…ect
@@acrylicqualiamlvf mentions this in more detail on her lectures on jung's typology book..! she even writes examples from her own life for the introverted thinking type :)
thanks for these short videos, youtubers now try to milk the subject with 30 min videos and Ai voice overs which expand on one thing in 50 sentences which could be done in 1 sentance
Dear ppl.. Jung himself said he's an INTP. So you may stop the mistyping now XD
Thinking/intuitive type. Inferior feeling. They could also be INTP.
😂 YES 👍 Jung was most likely INTJ. The reason most won’t see it is that living in our age of the superabundant information, most INTJs are too busy out there building on it, or fully devoted to making money, thus completely alienated from society due to growing up in an infinitely complicated social damaged time of human history. In this kind of environment finding a harmonising version of the INTJ (INTJ-H according to Dario Nardi) that hasn’t taken their own life is next to impossible due to the harsh reality of our times. But there must still be some if I am still here…INTJ-H
He clearly created a logical deductive system based on narrowing ideas... Because he was an obvious INTP lmao. Fi-Ni users are not that logically creative
Jung is INFJ and Von Franz is INTP. They were understandably bad at typing themselves because the theory was just being developed. But people today thinking Jung in particular was INTJ is sloppy thinking. He's very obviously an INFJ
It’s not like Mbti is an expansion to Jung’s work, like its more fulfilled or what. They just vary abit in their constellation. I for example find Jung’s description of his 8 types to be more accurate, more telling.. than Myers and Briggs managed with their 16 types..
Jung is an Intp, he said that himself in that famous interview that he was „most characterized by thinking“ „had a good deal of intuition“ and had „a definite difficulty with feeling.“
So how did you come to know you have a better understanding of this typology than the originator himself? That shall make an interesting explanation..
They were both INTPs
Carl Jung is INTP. Freud was INTJ.
Jung is INFJ
I'll send Marie an update.
@@The_Jungian_Aion→‿→
Are you saying Jung got his own type wrong?
They are both N-Ts not INTJ not INTP
N-Ts
@@The_Jungian_Aion Thank you for this video!
I long thought Freud was INTJ and Jung was INFJ. I guess I was wrong! I am an INFJ and was married to an INTJ for 25 years. These two personality types can be quite fascinated with each other and can match intellectual curiosity and depth, but the arguments are epic.
Jung was INFJ
Love this.