Carl Jung is an INFJ?

Then perhaps the biographer was an INFJ. If you said you'd read it from his "AUTOBIOGRAPHY" then that'd be different...

 

Shai, did you even click on the link to read the first few sentences?

 

Carl Jung is typed as an INTP, the builder of the theoretical framework (in his case, it's neo-analytical psychology).

I heard Carl Jung was displeased to be typed as an INTP. I heard he himself thought was more of an INTJ. According to http://www.intj.org, Carl Jung is an INTJ. The webmaster is the advocate of Dario Nardi's analysis of Jung.

 

Jesus Christ! Of course I didn't.

 

LOL.... classic Shai :lol:

 

That's my girl! Up just as late as I was, once again . . . (genetic links)

 

It is my theory that Carl Jung was a self actualized human being, meaning that he probably got on with all types; but I would type him INTJ. Think about it; he crafted a completely new theory through self reflection and analytical analysis from scratch, and his philosophy on life would most likely lay inline with that type. On a side note, I would have loved to have seen the interaction between him and Freud.

 

I always thought he's a P. His thoughts are just all over the place in his writings! His many definitions of anima and animus are enough to confuse his readers..

 

To me (after reading his autobiography) he is definitely Ni. I thought he was INFJ because he can be so wacky and obsessed with the occult, turning tables and and believing in ghosts which I thought was more NF than NT... Religion and spirituality were also very important to him... The way he dealt with his patients also seemed more infj than intj, in a very personal and different way for each of them (especially compared to Freud who was a T).

In his researches maybe he could seem more intj, very very precise and thorough and brilliant at analyzing. But I don't know. He seems too esoteric to me (he is VERY esoteric). My guess would be an INJ with a slightly stronger F but it's just my opinion.

edit : though when I think about it Ni Te for him would probably make more sense than Ni Fe... Probably just me wanting him to be INFJ haha.

 

I highly doubt Jung was an INFJ. He was an analytical empiricist and always claimed to have inferior feeling.

I think people's tendency to mix Ti/Ni up along with not having enough information on him causes them to think this way. Jung naturally explored esoteric things in order to analyze them and understand the human mind/patients more. Not only did he say his Feeling was inferior but he also mistook Ni for craziness in a woman..because as an ISTP/INTP, he worked with analytics and objective data. He called himself an ISTP once. Imagine a Ti dominant who seeks to analyze patients to treat them. Ti/Se is the empiricist who uses reality to confirm ideas. (Easy to mix with INTJ) Ti needed to explore all avenues patients were dealing with in order to pick their brains. He was an analytical psychologist.

 

I wonder what reading Jung could do for me. I have never put much stock in his work.

 

Personally, I think there is quite a strong case for typing Jung as an INFJ. I don't think he was an INTJ. The way he crystallised his insights into a theoretical and systematic structure (this is going by my reading of 'Psychological Types') was highly characteristic of introverted thinking. His theory of the mental functions, for example, has a structural symmetry which I would associate with Ti. And, of course, he identified himself as an introverted thinking type. So, I would say, much more likely to be either an INFJ or a Ti-dominant type.

I think he may have been an INFJ with a highly-developed tertiary Ti that he identified with so much as to believe it to be his dominant function. From what I've learned of the way that he dealt with his patients (there are some good documentaries on YouTube), it seems to have been an almost mischeviously Ni-Fe-based approach; he seemed to be able to identify people's defence-mechanisms and attitudes and provoke them in order to strip away the various psychic defences and civilised inhibitions which prevent people from admitting to their real motives and feelings.

But that's my theory. I may be wrong.

 

For what it's worth, the idea that Jung is an "empiricist" was promoted by himself generally in situations where he contrasted the approach of just telling facts as they are, however strange and unexplained, vs needing to have a theory of them (as he felt Freud was often tied to). This has all the flavor of irrational vs rational and not sensation-orientation.

It wasn't in the sense of publicly observable phenomena a-la most academic science, and Jung was and is a more mystical sort of psychologist than traditionally scientific.

That's why I've come to agree with his revision of his self-typing from T+S to T+N (latter in the Freeman interview) with weak sensation (as he phrased it, he was at variance with reality).

I think the real concept he was going for when he said he was telling facts wasn't that he was oriented by sensation so much as he had a healthier respect for the irrational side of the irrational-rational distinction than many of the classic Te-dom scientists.

Jung was brilliant, but far from the most unbiased man, and on reflection, I do think his clash with "traditional" science led to some weirdness in his typology's formulation that I've since found is best to revise. I think his concept of extraversion/introversion is overly conflated with the concept of sensation/intuition in his own work, and I wrestled with whether he had a truly clear line to draw between them, but really it seems like the issue is hopelessly confused. Both have a flavor of a "sense datum vs mind" dichotomy, and clearing this up in a more precise way has in my experience a lot to improve the typology.... and also explains why he might've misdiagnosed himself/corrected it later. Although there's also the possibility that he never considered himself a S type and was just nervous not to out himself as anything but a traditional scientist.

I'd say along with the attitude of the auxiliary, this is one of the most major clarifications his work needed. The attitude of the auxiliary is ambiguous precisely because the question of whether the aux is conscious is quite ambiguous and presented in a contradictory way in his work.

If conscious, one would surmise it is in the same attitude, and this was usually how Jung presented it himself. However, still, it's left unclear/over time I've found the better way is to adopt an 8-function model with