Let's make this place better

(Just throwing this out there.)

Firstly, I want to opine that I do not agree with PerN's interpretation of Jung, or Jungian Typology. A month of lurking and occasional posting on that forum has taught me that their approach is more theoretical than heuristic, and care if the theory is consistent with Jung, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with reality. This is not my modus operandi and I would not like to see the same approach here on INFJf.

Secondly, there's inconsistencies in some of their interpretations such as the Jungian function definitions that are practically insufficient when applied to the four-function model, as well as relations and interaction between functions that do not exist in the real world (e.g. Le and Li not having an inspirational relationship with one another, among others). This again, is in relation with the previous point of putting more emphasis on theory than experience.

I would not like to see INFJf be dominated by these rigid, absolute set of standards that are based on subjective interpretations by a small group of people. While I appreciate that the people at PerN want to encourage others to read and understand Jung, with due respect, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of typology, and putting down others on behalf of their interpretation is rather elitist. (@Limit, specifically.)

While it is important to have an objectively verifiable set of standards, it is more important to verify the authority of the people who define these standards, and whether or not these standards are consistent in the first place. It is my opinion that:

1. Typology is a very subjective discipline and the only way to have an objective standard is for everyone to uniformly agree on the same definitions and work through that. JCF can be that objective standard, however:

2. If it does not align with one's real life experiences, it does not exist.

I do not trust the 5 admins over at PerN to have complete authority over typology, especially when not everyone agrees with your interpretation, myself included.

----

With that out of the way, here's what I would like to see on this forum:

1. A guide to exploring typology: list of books, articles, websites and such in aid those who want to learn.
2. A guide to exploring Jung: the definitive reading list of Jung, Jungian lexicon, and more.
3. Discussions on CFs as defined by various Jungian analysts and the common consensus among them. (note: no articles)
4. Discussions on types, as per the previously defined concepts of CFs.
5. Discussions on the distinction between INFJ and other types.

And more, but this should be a good starting point.

/My two cents.
 
(Just throwing this out there.)

Firstly, I want to opine that I do not agree with PerN's interpretation of Jung, or Jungian Typology. A month of lurking and occasional posting on that forum has taught me that their approach is more theoretical than heuristic, and care if the theory is consistent with Jung, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with reality. This is not my modus operandi and I would not like to see the same approach here on INFJf.

First off, you can’t group one member’s (even if they are an admin) post and say that it accounts for an entire population. I don’t see you taking SimulatedWorld’s Introduction thread and agreeing and disagreeing with it.

Secondly, Yukawa wrote that in November. He is constantly studying Carl Jung’s texts and his ideas have evolved; however, I still think that introduction thread is pretty good for newcomers.

Third, I think that would be ridiculous to say our approach is only theoretical when there are miles and miles of detailed information on applying the types to certain people and especially members.

Fourth, I have yet to see where Jung’s theory is not consistent with reality in any LESS fashion than MBTI, Lenore’s Interpretation, Nardi’s Interpretation, etc. ESPECIALLY since Carl Jung did more research than Bebee, Lenore, Nardi, etc.

Fifth, if you don’t go back to the Horse’s mouth and work up, then you’re going to be the same as other personality forums... might as well just keep MBTI and JCF in the same forum. You have to identify all definitions from all sources and measure each one to another.

Secondly, there's inconsistencies in some of their interpretations such as the Jungian function definitions that are practically insufficient when applied to the four-function model, as well as relations and interaction between functions that do not exist in the real world (e.g. Le and Li not having an inspirational relationship with one another, among others). This again, is in relation with the previous point of putting more emphasis on theory than experience.

Stating something is inconsistent does not actually make it inconsistent. For someone who posted there and lurked, I don’t recall you pointing any of these “inconsistencies” out. Excuse? Are you too elitist (since we want to throw around assumptions) to point out discrepancies to help further the information? I don’t recall a single time Yukawa has ever turned down a question involving typology, and I think that goes the same for Calysco and myself. I have more than a few examples of people asking me questions just to go write an article about it on another forum. XD

Ok, you want to put it towards “emphasis and experience.” I’m going to put you towards “very unconscious to material.” This insert explains how much you do not know....


I would not like to see INFJf be dominated by these rigid, absolute set of standards that are based on subjective interpretations by a small group of people. While I appreciate that the people at PerN want to encourage others to read and understand Jung, with due respect, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of typology, and putting down others on behalf of their interpretation is rather elitist. (@Limit, specifically.)

Hey Pot::Kettle. Thanks for being elitist back. Anyways, nobody is stating that you have to believe what we put out; however, after reading what you have put down............

If you want everyone to make up their own ideas about typology and have a haywire frenzy of what basic definitions mean, then INFJs can be the same as PersonalityCafe! It’s great for a forum, because the amount of confusion that continues to happen will keep people making topics over and over again.

There are really NOT that many different interpretations of JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES. There are a lot of consistencies actually...

I think it’s ludicrous to sit there and frown upon people’s interpretations of typology. We have a member who has written an “Enneagram” with 12 types. He wants me to endorse his interpretation of the enneagram where it is grossly misinterpreted and misconstrued to the point that it shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as enneagram. He is still welcome to work on it; however, he continually asked me questions about the enneagram and we kept having debates on what explains what because he has NEVER picked up a single enneagram book ever. If he had actually read ONE book, then he probably wouldn’t be making his 12 Enneagram types to explain his own ideas. He would realize that THEY WERE ALREADY WRITTEN AND DIDN’T NEED 3 OTHER TYPES.

While it is important to have an objectively verifiable set of standards, it is more important to verify the authority of the people who define these standards, and whether or not these standards are consistent in the first place. It is my opinion that:

1. Typology is a very subjective discipline and the only way to have an objective standard is for everyone to uniformly agree on the same definitions and work through that. JCF can be that objective standard, however:

2. If it does not align with one's real life experiences, it does not exist.

I do not trust the 5 admins over at PerN to have complete authority over typology, especially when not everyone agrees with your interpretation, myself included.

Sorry, who says you can’t question us???? Who says you have to subscribe to our thoughts to be part of the forum?

I mean you’re just slandering and I think you might be upset because you have an abundant amount of “unconscious” information. :D

Especially since there are only 3 admins (the other two are those who work on our mods), and none of us claim complete authority over typology.

Linking INTPf, means nothing. I sat through and read a huge discussion on how Jung is still an INTP despite the fact that Jung himself claims to be an ISTP. *claps*




----

With that out of the way, here's what I would like to see on this forum:

1. A guide to exploring typology: list of books, articles, websites and such in aid those who want to learn.
2. A guide to exploring Jung: the definitive reading list of Jung, Jungian lexicon, and more.
3. Discussions on CFs as defined by various Jungian analysts and the common consensus among them. (note: no articles)
4. Discussions on types, as per the previously defined concepts of CFs.
5. Discussions on the distinction between INFJ and other types.

And more, but this should be a good starting point.

/My two cents.

I agree. Those would all be nice. Who is going to write all that? O.O


2. If it does not align with one's real life experiences, it does not exist.

You and Carl Jung would get along just fine then. An “INTP" stating, “if it does not align with one’s real life experiences, it does not exist.”
 
This is an IXFX forum.
<Big wall of yelling and formalities>

The website is called infjs.com
1. Test everything
2. Go read a book
3. Your analysis suck

MBTI is based upon Epistemology not blind analytics.

Go back to your university and stay there your big fonts do not scare me! You can keep on being a follower all you want hope you like the look of my behind. If you want sparring don't bring words to a gunfight.

***

Aww your wittle buddy Indigo left the forum? So you think to take your feelings out on everyone like a little child. Isn't that just adorable. If you want to stop perpetuating bad or incorrect information how about shutting your mouth?

Your little machievellian INTJ mind thinks only to divide and conquer with these assumptions it is pitiful. You have yet to compromise the integrity of these forums. They were before and will be after. Bye bye Indigo.
 
Last edited:
It's funny because indigo later realized he wasn't infj
 
giphy.gif

*Annexes forum with rocket-tanks*
 
Back
Top