Knowledge is a tree, not a conclusion, and it has been a tree for all of time. Sometime, however, it verboten in the Bible with a didactic “tale” apparently by oligarchs telling the average religious person to view the tree of knowledge and its information as verboten. This is the beginning of the limits and control of information necessary for oligarchic dominance, as opposed to capital-type control which is more commodity-based --though information is now a commodity as “intellectual property.” (With “intellectual” being a strong word for the slurry capital pumps into the population.)

The most important extension of this type of information control currently exists as academia with its early revival of control as the dialectic and didactic by academy founders Socrates and Plato in ancient Athens, and recently by Hegel to fit current capital. Important is that these instructors specifically used sexual abuse to control, which survived to our time as, for instance, the Aboriginal residence schools openly, and covertly elsewhere.

Causality is a rational reduction of the complexity of life saying that “if something happens in relation to something else, that something else caused the first thing.” As a rational reduction, it is a “dumbing-down” of all the highly sophisticade life-system that affect us. Knowledge is naturally structured both in society and in our minds in tree structures, also called “complex data structures” Personally, I have never been “causal” (I believe) because I have been influenced by aboriginal knowledge organization, and also abstract art and music early on as a child with access to all of New York’s museums and libraries (access has since been restricted to children.)

If I something is unavoidably causal, I say “simple math” --this causes that, w/o making a bid deal about it.

Empiricism is the scientific method (and system) built from causality and is considered the only (measurement) science, even by scientist who should know better. It suffers from being highly-fractured, as it is built from independent causal conclusions that also tend to be ego-vehicles from empiricist scientists. Another widely-misused term is “objective” as a synomym for “cruel” such that normal human thinking, such as the recollection of experiences, is excluded from empiricist conclusions; only empiricist numbers are used, often as an output of highly-purposed statistical systems. Dependance on statistics is such that statistics now often produce hypothesis and theory, that is validated by the same statistical systems. Information from other sources such as experience and observation, no matter how detailed, cannot test well against conclusive information produced specifically to test well by statistical systems. This statistical reality is most true for current control of the mind (both human and animal) in cognitive-behavioral strategies of CBT. Interestingly, in CBT, the dialectic method as the socratic method is also key for (as they say) “thought control.”

Objectivism, such as Ayn Rand’s and (current-capital’s) Adam Smith’s objectivism simply “objectify’s” people to make then inanimate numbers rather than feeling people to allow for capital exploitation. As it happens, capital-supporting empiricism, as info-oligarchic, also leverages this, and fills its capital-supportive role by defining and maintaining it as its own from of exploitation, originally sexual abuse.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Jungian personality types

Jungian personality types
Personality traits are described in Jung's personality code as letters are biopolar in that they represent opposing traits along a linear measure.  They measure the distance along a pole an individual tends to that trait, and away from the opposing trait.  Jung described introversion and extraversion as the key polar traits and refered to them as attitudes; they comprise the first letter of the code.  The next two letters in the code measure sensing versus intuition, and feeling versus thinking; Jung referred to them as functions.  The final pole, perceiving versus judging, comes from the Myers-Briggs typographic model, and is also a function.

For Jung, an attitude "plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life" (1921, para. 1).  The two factors for this pole, extraversion and introversion, describe how a person draws mental energy.  The extravert draws mental energy from the surrounding environment, or from a crowd..  The introvert draws mental energy internally from the ideas that develop within his mind.  The mental energy, or "psychic energy," is called libido in Jung's model.  An individual's approach to life, or attitude, is determined by his prefered way to obtain libido; either externally from the surrounding environment, or interally from personal thoughts (Jung, 1976).

Libido: Nutrition for the mind
Jung describes the need for libido as a driving force, or what BF Skinner might think of as a hunger; libido is effectively nutrition for the mind.  Jung describes the extravert as absorbing llibido from the surrounding environment by attaching to it as an "object."  To Jung, the extravert is, hence, objective, as the psychic energy is based on surrounding reality.  The introvert, conversely, develops this nutrition within his mind from the "subject" of his thoughts; the introvert is subjective to Jung, and his psychic metabolism (to extend the nutrition analogy) is synthesis.

Bi-poles as a "bent universe"
Jung is emphatic that mental health hinges on a person's adaptability along the poles of his bipolar model.  Thinking problems may result for extraverts when they are overwhelmed by the information that they pull in, whereas introverts may attempt to "coerce facts" to resemble a preconceived image that they have created (Jung, 1921, para. 87).  When individuals tend to extremes along either pole, and neglect the qualities of the other end of the pole, they will very likely compensate for the trait of the pole they have neglected (Jung, 1976, p. 3) and move towards the counter-pole (p. 291).  His three pole model can be thought of as a "bent universe" because those at polar extremes will ultimately compensate in some way.  In his "bent universe," the extreme extrovert cannot help but return to the subject of his thoughts, or his "soul" (p. 293).  In the opposite polar direction, the introvert cannot help but crash into reality, or the "object" that defines surrounding reality.  If the extravert is intent on his attachment to the object (as the participant self-reported that he has experienced at times), then he creates a mythology that serves as a substitute for introverted thought, or the subject.  However, if he is not careful, the compensating restoration of the "soul" may ultimately destroy the material benefits that extroversion may have provided (p. 340).  In a similar sense, the extreme introvert creates a facsimile of reality that Jung describes as a "dream" (p. 169).

Jung's two other bipolar measures describe how an individual functions with respect to his role. They are "function-types" (1976, p. 330), and describe how an individual collects information and makes decisions based on how he "attends.".  Information can be collected through the normal senses, which is sensing, or through a "sixth sense" (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.) of intuition.  Intuition is how the unconscious perceives.  Decisions can be made logically and in a detached way, or in a personal value-oriented way, creating the thinking/feeling bipole.

The fourth pole from the Myers-Briggs model adds a third functional dimension that describes prefered lifestyle in terms of either judgement, which is rigidly well-ordered and highly-organized, or perception, which is flexible as it allows for spontaneity, providing an ability to shift between tasks.

Plato and Aristotle: Jung's approach to subjective- and objectiveness
To help illustrate the fundamental importance of the introvert/extravert pole, and to show that Jung's theory was not entirely his own invention, but was based on others' supporting ideas, including the classics, Jung inserted a passage by Heine at the very beginning of the book describing Plato in introverted terms, and Aristotle in extraverted terms.  Plato, in Heine's passage, is mystical, and hence subjective in Jung's model; and Aristotle is orderly and practical (presumably with respect to information organization).  Aristotle is openly attached to the "object" of his surrounding environment, and hence an extravert and objective.  This assessment contradicts the common perception of both Plato and Aristotle being objective, but in different ways.  Plato's Forms created a basis for orderly science, and Aristotle's disciplined observational approach contributed to the scientific method.  Both of them are further perceived as highly objective because of their resistance to sentimentality.  The Similarminds questionaire makes a similar distinction with questions that define a rational/sentimental bipole ("Personality Test," n.d.).  Jung further contradicts the common perception of Plato as objective by attaching the concept of "empathy," and hence sentimentality, to objectivity (p. 48), and by showing that empathy's antithesis, abstraction, is used by the introvert to synthesize a version of the world within his mind--as he may be afraid of the real world (p. 505).  As Jung's ideas are the basis for the instrument of this assessment, this conclusion by Jung underscores the necessity to assess the individual in the context of his personality and experiences, and not in the context of contemporary society with its many preconceptions. 

Sense/intuition and thinking/feeling
Jung's two functional bipoles, sense/intuition and thinking/feeling, also obey the rules of his "bent universe" that forces compensation at the extremes.  Intuition can be thought of as an added, or sixth sense.  This implies that unintuitive individuals who are sense-oriented rely on superficial cues from the surrounding environment, and hence may not be able to interpret the meanings of surrounding phenomena, and therefore are distanced, and possibly afraid (p. 505).  "Sense," therefore, might be counter-intuitively interpreted as an introverted pole and "intuition" an extroverted, and also empathic, pole.  Jung self-debates the extra- and introverted nature of the sensing/intuition bipole, but agrees that intuition is important, along with empathy, for understanding others (p. 473).  Thinking and feeling are even easier to explain; thinking is the domain of the introvert.  Jung describes it as thinking of subjects, and, as thinking is the polar opposite to feeling, the thinking/feeling bipole further attaches Plato to subjectivity.

In Psychological Types, Jung describes a dichotomous bipolar model of opposing traits that not only explains personality phenomena along the established poles used by the Myers-Briggs, but introduces many related descriptors that can create a flexible matrix that is applicable to diverse therapeutic scenarios (Jung, 1976).
  Jung built his theory by critically examining other theories being developed during the early 20th Century, and further supports it with classical anecdotes.  Jung's writing is self-critical in a way that creates possibilities for alternate analyses, which allowed the participant to modify his interpretation of the intuitive/sensing bipole to improve his self-assessment.  Psychological Types gives advanced insights into the relationships between many psychological concepts.  The most important of these are empathy, abstraction, and conceptualization (Jung, 1976, p 48), as he reported seeing these concepts being implemented to define emotional intelligence.


Jung, C. (1921). Psychological types. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from

Jung, C., (1976). Psychological Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2002). Alternative ways of measuring counselees' Jungian psychological-type preferences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(2), 173. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

No comments:

Post a Comment