Jung May Have Been More Accurate Than Appears

[serenesam]

Theoretically speaking, as an INTJ, I am supposed to be attracted to the ENFP journalist or the ESFP entertainer. Yet the typical relationship expert will tell you that it is much better to have more commonalities than differences. In other words, an introvert should be with an introvert and an extrovert should be with an extrovert. There is evidence to suggest that people like other people with similar views and similar behaviors. This is what I find very frustrating about the various fields of behavioral science, social science, social theory, and the like. I find so many interesting research out there in the world wide web including scholarly journals suggesting that the notion that opposite attracts is false yet at the same time I am able to find other scholarly journals suggesting the opposite like that one social psychologist (forgot his name) who wrote a book saying that first born people in a family should not have a relationship with someone else who is also a first born person. He suggested that first born people should have a relationship with someone else who is the youngest in the family. It is as if the first born person is conditioned to have the personality as a caretaker and the last born person is conditioned to have the personality as being taken care of by someone else. Obviously, these personalities oppose each other and yet they can make a great relationship?

Personally for me as an INTJ, I will admit that at heart, I have usually been attracted to a lot of extroverted females more so than introverted females and so therefore, I believe Jung may have been more accurate contradicting the evidence suggesting the reverse (of course those of you who have been here for a while know I am a huge fan of Freud more than Jung though I still think Jung is up there on my list).

Sources:

http://www.suite101.com/content/how-birth-order-changes-your-life-a34596
http://www.essortment.com/characteristics-last-born-child-37018.html

 

[roxtehproxy]

You can have both commonalities and differences. Look for an ENTP.

 

[VH]

Actually...

ENFP, and especially ESFP, are not opposites to INTJ. They are common inverses.

INTJ's functions are Ni, Te, Fi, Se. ESFP's functions are Se, Fi, Te, Ni. There is a LOT of common ground between these two types, and more importantly, there is mutual inspiration as both types' strengths are the others' areas of development. INTJ and ESFP have a lot to teach each other (INTJ teaches Ni and Te while ESFP teaches Se and Fi), and a great ability to help one another become balanced cognitively.

Meanwhile, ENFP shares INTJ's Te and Fi - making them able to understand each others' reasoning yet still inspire and help one another grow. However, ENFP uses Ne and Si, two functions that will constantly notice things that INTJ's Ni and Se will seldom pick up. This creates a situation where ENFPs are able to reason with the INTJ but constantly make life new and interesting - which creates a situation of constant growth as Ne and Ni continue to teach one another. Also, ENFP and INTJ are both N dominant and S inferior, making their opposed functions actually harmonious. INTJs and ENFPs are a constant source of fascination for one another, yet their minds actually flow in a very similar way.

In other words, they (Jung and the relationship gurus) are both right.

;-)

 

[roxtehproxy]

That's true. It can be much more exciting if it's Mirror Relations, although I think it wouldnt teach you to use or honor your tertiary and inferior function as much as your two main ones.

It just depends on what you're looking for.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

I tend to find I get on better with the inverses as well. Particularly ISTP and ENFJ. I'm not sure there's really anything to say introverts like introverts and extraverts like extraverts. I don't think its quite that simple.

There's some studies to suggest that we are attracted to people of the same level of attractiveness as we are (always debatable of course) and strong evidence to suggest we go for people who look like our family or remind us of someone in our family. I would say the second one is something I see everywhere in all of my friends and their partners and me and my partner as well. You can see a kind of "family connection" both in personality and looks.

I'd say, try to get ideas of accuracy out of your mind. MBTI is an arbitrary system of classification of an abstract concept imagined only in consciousness, which is always a step away from reality. When you look at it like that, it's never going to be accurate. Neither is any social science (or, you could argue, any science, seeing as consciousness gets in the way). It's probably better to look at MBTI as the imposition of blurred lines on what is actually an non-demarcated spectrum.

 

[Nixie]

I tend to find I get on better with the inverses as well. Particularly ISTP and ENFJ. I'm not sure there's really anything to say introverts like introverts and extraverts like extraverts. I don't think its quite that simple.

There's some studies to suggest that we are attracted to people of the same level of attractiveness as we are (always debatable of course) and strong evidence to suggest we go for people who look like our family or remind us of someone in our family. I would say the second one is something I see everywhere in all of my friends and their partners and me and my partner as well. You can see a kind of "family connection" both in personality and looks.

I'd say, try to get ideas of accuracy out of your mind. MBTI is an arbitrary system of classification of an abstract concept imagined only in consciousness, which is always a step away from reality. When you look at it like that, it's never going to be accurate. Neither is any social science (or, you could argue, any science, seeing as consciousness gets in the way). It's probably better to look at MBTI as the imposition of blurred lines and what is actually an non-demarcated spectrum.

*is tickled* love this

 

[Lea]

I tend to find I get on better with the inverses as well. Particularly ISTP and ENFJ. I'm not sure there's really anything to say introverts like introverts and extraverts like extraverts. I don't think its quite that simple.

There's some studies to suggest that we are attracted to people of the same level of attractiveness as we are (always debatable of course) and strong evidence to suggest we go for people who look like our family or remind us of someone in our family. I would say the second one is something I see everywhere in all of my friends and their partners and me and my partner as well. You can see a kind of "family connection" both in personality and looks.

I'd say, try to get ideas of accuracy out of your mind. MBTI is an arbitrary system of classification of an abstract concept imagined only in consciousness, which is always a step away from reality. When you look at it like that, it's never going to be accurate. Neither is any social science (or, you could argue, any science, seeing as consciousness gets in the way). It's probably better to look at MBTI as the imposition of blurred lines on what is actually an non-demarcated spectrum.

In other words it's gobledygoop Sorry don't now how to spell that lol...