Why Carl Jung Didn't Believe In Personality Types

Get my online course on Jungian Alchemy and learn the secret origins of Jung's cognitive functions:
/ erikthor
Carl Jung was deeply critical of the idea of personality types, but fascinated with variations in functions and personality traits.
#personalitytypes #mbti #cognitivefunctions #carljung
Thanks for watching, liking and subscribing to my channel! I'm so excited that you've come along on this journey with me.
My goal is to create videos and books that help people Flow, become Self-Actualized, and eventually reach Transcendence. Flow comes from living in the present moment and achieving a balance between the challenges of the task and our own skill level. Self-actualization is about developing a sense of autonomy and understanding our true identity and purpose in life. Finally, Transcendence comes from achieving a state of being beyond physical boundaries to reach an enlightened spiritual awareness.
I hope that my content helps you set goals to improve your happiness, wellbeing, and sense of purpose and meaning. Thanks again for watching - let's Flow together! 🤗🤩😊
If you'd like to help support my channel, why not become one of my Patreon's? Your pledge would mean the world to me and help me to produce more content and reach more Flow, Self-Actualization, and Transcendence states together.
/ erikthor

[@Nerdy-By-Nature]

I really appreciate his view - that it is for practical purposes. It's for understanding one another more accurately, not boxing people in. This is how I've always approached any form of "profiling", but many people are resistant to the idea because they think they're being put in a box and not allowed to be a unique individual.

[@MichaelDamianPHD]

No one is being boxed in any way. It's always people who are emotional and don't understand the theory who are worried about being boxed in. They're worried about being boxed in when it's their own unconsciousness that boxes them in and makes them predictable. Mature people will say "yes this is my personality style" without fear because they're not so unconscious and they freely admit we all have one.

[@Marco_Venieri]

You're right, there exist only individuals not group of people

[@buddyacesmxbc1055]

​@@MichaelDamianPHDwell of course everyone is looking for a foothold by letting someone else speak because they are not sure if they fit in and there lies in the fear of being in a mood that can change like I can say a reality from myth does it make it true? Well in a sense it could be true but not accurate that is the risk of being a liar of a tale although does it make me the creator or the tailor? Heads or Tales that's a good one like Anton and the coin flip he said something about destiny and he has been putting it up his whole life but the moment had arrived all he can do is call it. We predict that Anton will kill the man if he guessed wrong but no one would know that to be true we just seen him kill 3 men but the store clerk was digging into him with questions so he reversed the pattern and caught him in a lie making him uncomfortable with a guilty feeling like shameful of having to bare it so could we say feelings of guilt is feeble minded or a sense of embarrassment that goes away with time? It's 2 men having different conversations about liberty on the quarter is George Washington and the other side has an Eagle both have no teeth white Head and a tail which one is real?

[@MichaelDamianPHD]

@@buddyacesmxbc1055 Your comment is unintelligible

[@thomasmaughan4798]

A Box on you! How is that even a thing? If I put you in a box, how would you know? How would you get out? Would you want to? I find it amusing the people that resist the concepts of MBTI and IQ and pretty much any other categorization although right now being victim category seems important.

[@chickadddee]

People should know that MBTI is about temperament, not personality. As it gets terribly diluted via social media, people have not learned the difference. Temperament is not everything, but it is an important part of personality which includes a lot more. That is what Jung meant. It is merely a beginning, so classification as temperament cannot describe the whole of a person. We know this! Not every ISFJ or ENTP is the same as their own type!! That is why the original tests show percentages. When Myers-Briggs developed the test, Jung was skeptical of its' use. Well, it turned out to be very useful , took decades to create and was used for 15 yrs or so just as a tool for counselling, primarily understanding spouses and family members, but also for career counselling. That is what he was referring to. Jung died in '61, long before it was used by the general public. In the 80's it exploded into mainstream counselling and beyond. Cognitive functions as we know them today were developed later. And of course people started to take liberties with the beautiful original test - which is lengthy, designed so you can't fool it, and there are exact instructions for taking it so that it is accurate instead of telling someone what they would like to be. Sorry but a 25 question quiz doesn't cut it.

[@MichaelDamianPHD]

MBTI is about personality, not just temperament.

[@Mo0shii]

Comment without sayin a single shit, thats a skill.

[@trsitianniebla]

Bro couldn't decode if he wanted to say "a single thing" or "shit" so he said them both

[@ChristopherMHeaps]

WRONG

[@nickr688]

Where can I find something resembling the original test?

[@stevedoetsch]

Temperament is a broad category while personality is unique to the individual.

[@katieandnick4113]

All humans have the same base temperament, just like we have the same base skeletal structures. Just as there are slight differences between the base skeletal structure of males and females, there are slight differences in the base temperaments of males and females. Everything else is “nurture”, which begins even before we are born. If our skeletons are the way they are because that was the most effective structure, evolutionarily speaking, why would our innate temperament vary widely? We love to think of ourselves as individuals because of the way society is structured, but if we lived as nature intended, there wouldn’t even be a concept of “me” or “you”. We are all one, and the “self” is an illusion. I am you and you are me.

[@melanie7258]

I tend to agree. Trying to categorise a planet filled with millions of personalities into 16 categories is unfathomable

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Trying to categorise a planet filled with millions of personalities into 16 categories is unfathomable" Given that most people seem to type every human as one of only two types, having 16 is amazing! (Left, right; Democrat, Republican; rich, poor; oppressed, oppressor).

[@robertmusil1107]

The point of categories is to have a practical tool for treatment for certain personality patterns. For example, if I know how depression works in a lot of people, i can apply therapy methods that worked for other people. If you have to find an individual cure for every individual every single time you won't make progress.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@robertmusil1107 "i can apply therapy methods that worked for other people." Indeed. In my non-expert opinion, therapy usually does not work. EDIT: That is to say, at what point is a person "cured"? How often is "therapy" a life-long expense? "There is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to how long to stay in therapy. Some people feel better after just a few sessions and are ready to move on. Others need more time, and may require long-term care based on the seriousness of their mental health condition." "some patients come to therapy with broad, humanistic goals. These might include self-discovery, self-improvement, identity exploration, deepening of relationships, or tapping new emotions." And all that for only $100 per hour!

[@Jewellene]

I think it's because we are more than our egos. The more you're driven by your ego, the more typology applies. The more awake you are, the more intelligence you have access to.

[@MichaelDamianPHD]

That's not really true. Your personality type remains and shapes you even as you become more conscious and aware. In fact its strengths get refined and weaknesses get more balanced. You don't just go out of it and personality is not "ego."

[@dtr_cpg]

@@MichaelDamianPHD How do you know? Link to a peer-reviewed publication, please.

[@lilemont9302]

It's because of that, but also, it's likely there is no such thing as personality type. That has certainly been the consensus in personality psychology for a long time. Jung's work started as clinical profiles, and then he expanded it to differentiate some psychological+philosophical motivations, he never said- this is it. There is nothing concretely final in the Psychological Types, he says: might as well, perhaps there are more than four functions. Although he was spot on with attitude, introversion-extroversion is one of the most well-known and established traits in personality psychology now.

[@lilemont9302]

@@MichaelDamianPHD False. This has been contradicted over and over again. And in this case, Jung identifies type with the ego, absolutely.

[@fogk7613]

“To explain the husband to the wife” really ties the whole point together. What a way with words.

[@ErikThor]

I know, amazing thinker!

[@w.a.5101]

He says then or viceversa

[@env0x]

if Jung were still alive today i'm sure he would be very critical of all jungian analysts

[@MichaelDamianPHD]

I doubt he would only be critical and not have any appreciation for them

[@thewatcher7823]

He was quoted to be grateful to be Jung and not Jungian. Very relatable. Lol

[@vaxrvaxr]

He would probably have a KZbin channel and that would help demystify this knucklehead.

[@PoetryInHats]

This video needed to be much longer! However I will say this. Jung's "types" were the equivalent of what we call "neurodivergents." He even predicted that biological causes would someday be found for why they were that way. They were extreme characters, "real cards". Most people would not have been "differentiated" enough in his eyes to achieve likeness to a type. Rather, ordinary people might hew slightly to one "pattern" (the real meaning of the word 'type') or another. So we can see why he says that people are not divided into types. The types are rare examples of extreme psychology, which fall into a certain pattern - the eight types he identified. That pattern, because it results from the exaggeration of ordinary thinking processes, helps reveal what those thinking processes are. It's kind of like staining slides of microscopic cells. Yes, all cells are shaped that way, but only these cells are blue. The blue helps us see the ordinary shapes of all cells; but we should not go so far as to assume that all cells are blue. Likewise, the types are extremely different from each other and that helps us understand what, for instance, Introverted Thinking is. And yes, this type uses it almost to the exclusion of everything else. That doesn't mean everyone who uses Ti uses it to the exclusion of everything else. But hark! There's a twist! Most people who get into MBTI do it because they feel different. They are differentiated. They are neurodivergent to some degree or another. They are kind of typish! 😂

[@Nerdy-By-Nature]

"Most people who get into MBTI do it because they feel different". Yes, precisely!! When we look at the MBTI "communities", or video comments, we're hardly taking a sample of the general public. It's usually those of us who have gone through the heavily Si school or work systems feeling like a square peg in a round hole.

[@fghsrgu1100]

The heavy Si system does not exist (or at least is a majority) because most people are undifferentiated, therefor heavy Si users are also a minority

[@PoetryInHats]

@@fghsrgu1100 Entirely undifferentiated?

[@Nerdy-By-Nature]

@@fghsrgu1100 mathematical learning and process in typical elementary schools is a great example of an Si system. As is History/Social Studies. Grammar. Spelling drills. Physical Education is generally Sensory, not necessarily one direction or the other.

[@fghsrgu1100]

@@Nerdy-By-Nature Si is the subjective perception of concrete reality. I don't see how that's oriented towards elementary school learning. If anything, Si would be good for artistic subjects. And PE has absolutely nothing to do with sensing functions

[@baharmoadeli586]

I wish you answered your question as well😁

[@SeelenTaucher]

I Love that He did Not answer, this is clever 😊

[@thecoachzimm]

Just curious, are you asking for yourself or because you want him to educate his audience properly?

[@baharmoadeli586]

@@thecoachzimm I was genuinely curious but it was the other thing too

[@Pain544]

He made it for understanding human cognition and understand the depths of human mind better. Not argue about whos what and use the personality types to do random crap like what people usually do.

[@gertpostel1860]

Because the character of a man is indescribable he says and that these are just orientation points, but so he means orientation to what is

[@ameenashraf6211]

It's wholesome to hear from the very man who laid foundation for personality typology. Human beings are too complex and unique to be reduced into some set of labels.

[@billbruno7163]

This made me laugh. I met a woman, and in talking she said she was recently divorced, and had been married to one of the inner family Jung's. I was surprised, and my first question was, "wow, what were they like?". She said casually, "oh, they're all crazy!" Hahahaha

[@thewatcher7823]

Well... We've seen where sanity got us, haven't we?

[@brendawilliams8062]

Maybe there are ambiverts and maybeverts😂

[@noro3180]

I think it's only wrong if you put yourself into a box with the intent on staying there. But this is absolutely a personality system, since it's about finding that mirror that reflects your subconscious/unconscious through the patterns of others to better understand who you are & work to improve.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"I think it's only wrong if you put yourself into a box with the intent on staying there." Even that tendency can be typed.

[@junhaozheng5692]

Exactly. Because the whole idea ppl categorized into Personalities are just chulish and shallow understanding towards human soul. Exactly, everyone is unique because of their family background, life experiences. 2 infjs wont be ever same. And its also just brain function cognitive preferences. What makez a human uniques is its life itself

[@Gjakdjruknownhpjs]

Carl Jung's understanding of human psychology is beyond. Being an Fi Dom, I didn't struggle much to see why he made such observation.

[@itznav_sin]

Yeha but he isn't Fi dom He is an INFJ

[@Gjakdjruknownhpjs]

@@itznav_sin didn't say he was a Fi dom. He was actually a Ti dom not a feeler.

[@washedtoohot]

@@GjakdjruknownhpjsINFJ is Ni dom. INTP and ISTP are Ti dom. If you look up examples of famous people who are this type, Jung doesn’t seem to be like them.

[@kaleidoscopicvoid]

well you see how these different online communities treat each other? And very often its subtle. Yeah he was wise enough to warn us about his own work.

[@lobodurango2754]

Personality is a persona. Why believe it when it is a facade for you and me to see.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Why believe it when it is a facade for you and me to see." It reveals the underlying reason for the facade you choose.

[@lightaswing9381]

Now in South Korea they even refuse to hire someone because of their MBTI personality type. It's a critical situation of the abuse and misuse of personality types that I think Jung was wary about back then.

[@ErikThor]

We should look to hire people based on how well they have managed to individuated and develop emotional intelligence and cognitive flexibility, not based on whichever personality they best connect to.

[@Mage_Chartreux]

Because they're just boxes that we can use to organize reality. They don't exist, so they don't actually truly constrain reality.

[@kerrirae]

He likely feared certain types would be ostracized

[@thanksfernuthin]

Jeez. You can have personality types and still treat people as individuals, Carl. Lighten up!

[@ariespointproject]

Good vid man. Dynamic beings in the seasons of life cycles.

[@SQUIDBEARSTUDIO]

At least You could Say MBTI is a Great Gateway(To an End) to Jung. If you care to learn deeply about his work.

[@SilentJukebox]

Haha, it's crazy what people think when you edit out what they say. 😂😂😂

[@Kimani_White]

The "types" Jung describes are more like traits anyway, which are simply defined by which psychological function a person's center of awareness defaults to. This conditions how an individual's personality is liable to develop, but it's not identical to one's individual personality.

[@SD-rm5ty]

I see mbti as framework for a person but each person's life experiences are variables in how a person expresses.

[@anglkisez]

Always be yourself! Everyone else is already taken.

[@BlunT402]

That's exactly what i concluded by observing different people.

[@LookWithin-GrowBeyond]

Jung was all about energy. Introversion and extroversion were mere energetical states of the psyche. If Jung called someone an introvert, he expressed an energetical habit

[@ordinaryvalley]

Typology is just a tool among many other tools Jung used to understand human psyche.

[@jonomehigan451]

Any psychological framework for personality is only useful in the sense it helps one to understand oneself and others patterns or traits. But we have to also be careful about projection too, and not over extend the apparent usefulness of any model.

[@BrandonMcCurry1990]

Belief is irrelevant, attempting to describe mind And a framework in which to understand something is the point

[@XanderShiller]

Can I ask how you inserted stock footage of Jung and cut to you/the rest? And where do u get it? I'm struggling with editing. Many thanks in advance.

[@cynthiamarston2208]

I like the term temperament for such things and tendancies for such types. I always go to the idea many people are borderline on these tests. To me that is the ultimate best “type”

[@JustJess-xw5cr]

Personality types are stereotypical groupings. These types are how others perceive us on a superficial level. Everyone is different, on a deeper level.

[@CCootauco]

I didnt know Phase had TWO bird talents

[@cc1k435]

I can treat people as unique while understanding that we all have a tendency to approach life in certain ways. I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive. We all have different experiences working with or against those tendencies.

[@yugshende3]

I think the problem is that Carl Jung was a bit disappointed himself that what he had in his mind he himself couldn’t put it into words. That’s why perhaps he had this duality in his mind.

[@lilemont9302]

Yes, there is probably also this aspect. Type never quite fit with the rest of analytical psychology, always a little tension, or missing links, and he could never finish the circle with the work. It remained partly provisional until the end for Jung.

[@alexseo9305]

its to be able to recognizable yourself. we are all arvhetypes

[@bonni2267]

You can change quickly.

[@sameus11maximus]

Nice to know I have the same philosophy as Carl Jung ❤

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Nice to know I have the same philosophy as Carl Jung" So you are not an individual. It is important to have the same philosophy as someone else.

[@sameus11maximus]

Lol everyone is an individual.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@sameus11maximus "everyone is an individual." A more compelling way to put it is "each person is individual". Lumping them all into one box, "everyone", is exactly NOT individual. But yes, a great many people might as well be in the Borg Collective.

[@sameus11maximus]

@@thomasmaughan4798what are you actually on about?

[@sameus11maximus]

If you don’t think you’re individual you must be physically connected to someone.. some people comment on others comments and it is not required in the slightest. Maybe move on..

[@uncleterrydidntworkattheha6116]

This is a short clip without context. My guess is he is talking about personality types as described by his contemporary Alfred Adler.

[@ErikThor]

The source: Introduction to Psychological Types, argentinian edition, in the foreword by Jung, where he speaks about his goals and aims with his book. He claims to have been misunderstood, doesn't believe in types, just wants to map out tendencies. He reiterates this in a famous interview available here on KZbin "The types mean nothing, nothing at all!"

[@lichtm2053]

It helps to an extent. Even if it is only to an extent, that doesn't change the fact that it does help to an extent. A particular personality type may commonly feel aversive to something and arranging a place for those folks would be different compared to other types. So, in a similar way, it does have a practical use and it can also help us improve ourselves by giving us new options. I, personally, believe that the psychologist wishes to convey that we shouldn't 100% rely on the test and view others from an already constructed view of their personality type. It can cause us to discriminate certain types based on our likes and dislikes and lead us to creating a mental wall in front of that person

[@user-io4ty3cy7n]

Wonderful summary of psychology from founding father of psychology. Thank you. ! ❤

[@KingJorman]

it's a useful tool and framework. but no one IS their personality type

[@ms.rebecca7265]

I think is a good example, like many others, that his theories are not fully explored and we take soundbits of it thats sounds good.

[@Z0Z4W3]

I think what he criticizes is the polarization into the idea of personality types as an universal redeemer of psychological dilemma. I'm very sure you could change any aspect of your personality and consequently be changing between for example, MBTI types.

[@personalityhabits]

useful to keep in mind! If type is a practical tool for something like communication, then maybe it's worth learning about. Typology seen only through an abstract lens misses the mark.

[@MonaLisa-gv3ee]

Where can I find the interview in the first clip?

[@aiditariveratorres6429]

Of course, people can advanced, mature through experience and studies but no one is a rigid I am not open to possibilities, new options or alternatives.

[@between666]

At the club we had a committee but all were aware position didn't mean a lot.

[@ronin7786]

more like different traits that each individual takes on as part to present as part of their persona, each individual is a unique mix of these traits!

[@stephenmeier4658]

Psychologist: Personality type Carl Jung: NO, Universal ARCHETYPES

[@ejenkins4711]

Jung knew that the individual carries all types inside with one dominating the persona🍀🦍😜

[@lilemont9302]

The type dominates the ego, but yes.

[@bookzdotmedia]

People are clones of culture or bloodlines

[@user-dc4bl1cu2k]

Yes people are individually unique but some of their personality traits do indeed have a common category.

[@Michael0Yo]

He says why quite clearly in your video brah.

[@aiditariveratorres6429]

May every woman in this World could meet man close to her ideal of a handsome educated compassionate humanistic husband to marry.

[@EdmundFriedman]

The personality is Soul in separation from Source consciousness

[@karthusjack6857]

Because those personality archetypes are supposed to reside inside every human being. And everyone can get deceived by any of these archetypes.

[@ls2664]

Cause he’s brilliant! Meaning no human is alike and therefore humans as a whole can never be completely figured out

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"Meaning no human is alike and therefore humans as a whole can never be completely figured out" And that is why Democrats cannot define "woman".

[@elenilouarasi2828]

Just to begin with the psyche…a task that for thousands of years many beautiful minds left as a work in progress. Nowadays we are questioning these beautiful minds and we are skipping the task entirely, perhaps after all nowadays we developed few personality categories more, quite easily to analyze indeed 😊

[@peterdegrandis4630]

😂 He’s so fucking Brilliant! Dear Lord, thank you

[@ishmamnaveel2198]

I have bpd with no sense of self, but 50 thousand personas, im a chameleon. What to do guy? Send help

[@zabeardybeardy232]

It is because personality refers to personal characteristics that can be observed with some regularity. This means that you can have some characteristics that do not often appear, either due to circumstances not being right for it or due to biology or differences in how you evaluate that experience. Some even disappear with time and lived experience. However, even those "stable" often appearing characteristics are not impressive in themselves; everyone falls close to being in the middle of introversion and extraversion. It's when the extremes come into play; that is when personality types are useful in diagnosis, for example.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"It's when the extremes come into play" On the occasion that a human steps OUT of the normal box.

[@Hajzlobijecmisolamac]

He did not say he doesn't believe in personality types, or classification based on individual characteristic patterns in general. He said they exist as a tool or as he said "instrumentum" for practical psychology. It's just that he doesn't use it in a different setting, as looking at people and communicating your perceptions of them through a class system of behavioral and cognitive patterns would have 0 benefit to any goal you would want to reach in that scenario.

[@SeelenTaucher]

Maybe because IT can be limiting or lead to more understanding, depending on how U use those Tools.

[@AD4K8]

He's very open with Sense and Nonsense, you can't really critique his grasp of the human mental scape, period. Though your point of over labelling any human being evolutionarily passe, The Spirit of The Times would explain the varied descriptions of reality.

[@JohnSims-pn9ow]

I'm a Jungian not a Freudian....

[@au_clair_de_la_lune]

..."so there'll be no blaming mother today." 😂 If you weren't reaching for this line, im sorry i cldnt help myself.😅 (Niles Crane, Frasier)

[@tahsina.c]

Your gf/bf is the only person who can validate this

[@thewatcher7823]

All humans have the same palette of the psyche available to paint their lives with. All the archetypes and emotions and various thought types or mindstates are available to each person, and to simply label a person as one or a few of these is outright reductive. Some classifications can apply for practical purposes, but to dumb down the essence of a personality is more often with the purpose of controlling the person, which as an attempt to repress or severe any other part of their whole being tends to form more illnesses than heal them. Classifying a behaviour is one thing, but labelling a whole person reductively is not conducive to wellbeing, which is more definitively when the whole of a person is functional. How can a person function well when they can't operate as a whole person, or have to repress and severe themselves from who they are? There's plenty of things to label and deal with. Actions, habits, patterns, emotions, skills, syndromes, etc. It's better to bring our aspects to our attention and empower our own agency by helping to find ways of taking responsibility for all our shades. This isn't easy of course, there needs to be a neutral middle ground where people meet to work things out, and we all should deserve healthy boundaries.

[@ZenTradeGame]

It’s most likely because he believed people are a manifestation of energy. Some forms of energy fall into what is called a chaotic system. Very unpredictable on the micro level , but extremely predictable on the macro level. Like the the weather, like the stock market, and most likely the human psyche too. From the predictable archetype, to the unpredictable actions of an individual, That would explain the contradiction. Good video man, have a good day.

[@sunshower1972]

Pop culture has turned MBTI > Individuality. Because it's easier to just put your MBTI type in your iG bio instead of trying to come up with a witty bio by yourself.

[@RichardMCochran]

Because personality is made up by the ego, the ego is a construct given to one’s environment. All of those are illusory.

[@ErikThor]

nothing of the mind is illusory, just because it is a construct, doesnt make it an illusion, constructions serve important functions and are created for important reasons, we should avoid calling something an illusion just because it was created or is changeable. its still very real to the individual.

[@RichardMCochran]

Nothing is given.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"All of those are illusory." So is life itself. But, here we are in the "matrix" might as well go with the illusion.

[@lilemont9302]

@@thomasmaughan4798 You know about illusions?

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@lilemont9302 "You know about illusions?" Yes, the seeming of a thing when it is not what one thinks it is. In this context, everything a human thinks exists, MIGHT exist, but it might not, only the illusion existing. So a choice is made whether to treat the illusion as if it is real, with real consequences for failing to consider the possibility of reality being approximately equal to its illusion.

[@lilac624]

For me, personality types mean something...For me, as an INFP, I can't go well with thinking types although I can learn from people with thinking types

[@ryder1658]

It shouldn’t be controversial that each human is unique. Most humans literally are unique, in that they have different dna. Even identical twins have epigenetic and experiential differences. I don’t know. Maybe nuance is harder for people to grasp than I realize. No human is completely different or completely the same. You will have details in common with others, yet no one will have all the same details as you. How else can I put this. An apple and a cherry have details on common and details in contrast. They’re both red, round, and sweet. But apples are bigger, have pale and firm flesh, and a milder flavor. If you look at another person, no matter who they are, it is true to say you are like them in more ways you can ever know. And equally true to say you are different from them in more ways you can ever know.

[@Doherty0182]

Quite a lot of Jung’s ideas are misunderstood and spun into grifts. Myers brigg’s personality doctrine was origin derived from Jung’s work and now it’s become psychology’s version of the horoscope. Person 1: “I’m an INFP what are you?” Person 2: “OMG I’m an LMNOP! We’re so compatible” Same as Person 1: “I’m a libra what are you?” Person 2: “OMG I’m a caprisun! We’re so compatible” Lot of websites make money from these tests by locking the answer behind a pay wall or from ad revenue. While in reality if the tests aren’t skewed anyway they are still inaccurate because of judgement bias, whatever you think you are doesn’t always correlate to how you actually are. As a 2nd example the phenomena of synchronicity is a real thing I’ve witnessed them happen quite frequently however it gets misconstrued with people thinking if a you see a red car three times or a particular sequence of numbers then it equates to a sign from and angel and ooooh this is your angel number, your angel or higher self is trying to tell you that you have haemorrhoids. Latest one is psychopaths using the idea of interpreting the shadow to justify being a psychopath. It’s a shame really because he had some very nuanced ideas that are way ahead of our time and they get parred off because grifters invent fluff using them as the basis.

[@sebastiangheorghemagdas4644]

Because maybe it was so hard for him to make a conclusion maybe ? 🤔

[@REV1517]

He was never against what he had proven about how the brain is formatted for people. He was against people taking his work and using it for ill intentions. He also didn't want people being discriminatid against because of how they process information. Example:We shouldn't look down on ENFP personality types because they wont stay focused on task at hand and tend to live a very carefree lifestyle. He wanted you to treat everyone as an individual because a shadow driven person that doesn't wish to control their subconscious mind will do horrible things, but a controlled mind will keep a shadow at bey. They don't want business to use MBTI to hire people because, only INTJ would get computer and science jobs, INFJ would be the only counselors in the world, so on and forth. From personal experience of studying MBTI, I only need to be around you long enough to see you extremely mad and extremely happy then I know what your cognitive functions are. Then I am able to convince you of doing things you doubt yourself of and also able to manipulate you into doing things you would never imagine yourself capable of doing good or bad. All because I know how you process information and what does or doesn't motivate you. It is actually quite scary to use zero charisma and just simply talk someone into doing things. Knowledge is the real power of the world, everything else fallows.

[@ErikThor]

It went beyond that. I recommend you read his foreword to his book Psychological Types, where he calls the idea of labeling and categorizing people into types a childish game, as pointless as dividing people into those who have long or small noses. It suggests he would be very critical of the MBTI. But you're right that he was especially afraid it would be used with bad intentions, and you bring up real problems with its application. He wanted to map out psychological forces that can drive us and our decision-making. The safest way is to use the MBTI as just a tool and to use the word best-fit personality type to explain that personality types don't exist but that we can use them as a tool to understand people. We should study how we relate to each of the 8 types he mapped out in ourselves instead of looking for just the top one. Finally, we should listen to Jung when he said, "When you meet a person, meet them as a human soul."

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"only INTJ would get computer and science jobs," A better choice is INTP for the actual analyst; INTJ's tend to be bossy. Ignore MBTI at your peril while choosing geeks.

[@michaelhenault1444]

Aristotle wrote about introversion and extraversion in ancient times. Jung revived timeless vocabulary. The terms have a functionality or "intrumentarium" (sp?) I for one don't argue about words in the dictionary. 😂 Seems to me the need is to distinguish what the relationship between temperament and what psychology defines as personality. Semantically they are related. Your question is something I've thought of frequently. "means nothing" was perhaps hyperbole.

[@ErikThor]

yes it was, ofcourse! but what he meant to me was: don't take it too seriously. it's not the truth. it's a method or instrument to decipher the truth. alchemists recognize that the concepts and dichotomies they come up with are merely useful insofar as they can understand the real world, and just the map, not the place.

[@skyjuke2006]

Carl Gustav JUNG (pronounced like YOU, not like YOUNG). He was Swiss, not English.

[@nasrinvahidi5515]

Because! Do you know anything about Jung?

[@myfriend280]

MBTI is incredibly accurate which is why it is being institutionally attacked.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Agreed. It is very good at what it is good FOR. If you want someone to tend computers in a server farm, INTP is a very good choice and ESFJ is not going to work very well.

[@lilemont9302]

@@thomasmaughan4798 Ridiculous. You are way up there if you think type is more important than competence.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@lilemont9302 "You are way up there if you think type is more important than competence." These are not on the same axis. Is weight more important than length? In some setting, it might be (rocket launches for instance). Competence is a scalar value along a single axis (how much does it weigh; how long is it). Type describes which axis. I believe a specific setting benefits from a highly competent introverted thinker rather than a highly competent extraverted feeler and in a different setting it would be just the reverse. I do not see much value from incompetence. Thus, competence is *important* whereas type is just a type, an axis, and can become important depending on whether you need a competent whatever axis you are considering.

[@VYMQGSOH]

We may be wired a certain way, still is mostly our experiences that shape us for us to choose what we will truly become that is far more than a personality type that we can just label. When you even consider the 16 personalities and noticed the common things amongst people who are like them, most of the things they can relate to that are common are small and simple things in life. But what those small and simple things mean to even two individuals with the same personality type in mbti, they will like the same things for an entirely different reason often. They both might like cake but they both like cake for entirely different reasons due to their experiences that give them a different reason because they are a unique individual. Yet even though we have experiences, the same experiences don't shape everyone or even the people with the same personality type the same way. I know some people who would have my type and we have many things in common but for different reasons. Someone who has gone through something traumatic in their childhood as I have reacted to it entirely the opposite way than I did. Though we were so alike, though we basically focused on life in a similar way for similar reasons, we did not react to those experiences the same way because they didn't mean the same thing to us because we are just our own Unique Individuals, and some of us are even willing to confront those things and work through them sooner than others will and more than others will and some of us don't even if we basically have the same personality by how we are wired. Even with things less complex than humans that don't even have a soul, such as a car, you can buy two of the exact same models and treat them exactly the same way but one may have malfunctions and problems before the other does. Being so alike doesn't make us the same as if we can expect to just for everyone in a certain category.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

I was born a geek. I can adapt, but geek is what I am.

[@pro5702]

MBTI lacks robust psychometric properties and predictive validity compared to other personality assessments. In contrast, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) has demonstrated superior reliability, validity, and predictive value across various domains, making it more scientifically credible.

[@lilemont9302]

MBTI and FFM are highly correlated. Still, I agree it is superior.

[@davideskilsson2859]

There’s is no personality types, only personality traits

[@RoseAllDay789]

Exactly

[@yellow4525]

That's because measuring certain personality traits and trying to fit those traits into types is unessary and reductive

[@badreddine.elfejer]

Wise

[@jima3345]

There's only one of any one of us.

[@iamadrunkguy]

OK thanks for yourrr short.

[@gallevran]

You're missing the whole point. He didn't object to it...he meant that it's instrumental. He says it clearly. The MBTI community is misusing it and has very little to do with Jung's theory to begin with. They're using dichotomies, instead of what Jung specifically said - cognitive functions.

[@ErikThor]

That's my point, too. He saw it as instrumental, but Jung used both functions and dichotomies. His theory of functions was based on his theory of dichotomies. The MBTI took on the dichotomies but ignored the functions.

[@lilemont9302]

Plenty of Jungians have been just fine with dichotomy-like thinking, and Jung would know nothing about "cognitive" functions- a neologism from 2005.

[@MaximumDull]

Isn't is just that people interpret archetypes differently?

[@moondancer4660]

Do you know if Carl Jung stayed with Tony wolf all his life? Also, I heard that he became mentally ill for a while but showed himself not with drugs.

[@lilemont9302]

I'm not sure to which incident you're referring to, but most likely you mean in his childhood, when he developed quasi-epileptic symptoms, but sort of "snapped out of it", to paraphrase Jung

[@Fonch117]

You need to look better at how each individual uses the 8 different cognitive functions. That will help you type them MUCH BETTER than just slapping the 4 letters on them... However, I can't speak for the others but that Ni cognitive function when used constantly can often cause people to be quite different and deviant from the norm especially depending on where it is focused. As Jung himself said, it may appear "uncanny" or like some kinda "ESP" like to others unaware of it. And I agree hole heartedly on that one. You don't get that result from using Si, Se, or the rest of the cognitive functions.

[@ErikThor]

I use both, Jung used both, and I’ve studied this model for more than 10 years. I use the letters to keep my videos accessible to beginners and to keep things practical for one minute shorts.

[@Fonch117]

@@ErikThor yes. It's a useful simplification that shouldn't be over relied upon.

[@alkeryn1700]

i agree with him tbh, 16 personalities test is bs lol.

[@Hundura-k3y]

Type guy is too much. Please let's not be critical of that scholar. Carl Young deserves a noble price.......

[@elishawomack]

💯💯💯💯💯 I'm gonna be a bot today fr lmao There's no way to summarize the human experience into 16 boxes or even 8 with enneagram... Even though enneagram has a little more going for it

[@gerardogalvez2371]

Or maybe you just don't understand, the Paradox of Life, yin and yang. Two parts of one hole, you're welcome

[@Magik1369]

You obviously don't know Jung and have not studied his material. His theory of personality types is world famous and revolutionized personality typology. The MBTI is the most widely used typology survey in the world and it is based precisely on Jung's theory of personality types.

[@ErikThor]

I’ve read all his books 📚😅 I’m not disputing what you said, I’m just adding nuance as he warned against the use of types and classification systems in his introduction to his book on personality psychology. Most people agree Jung would have been critical of the mbti today.

[@lilemont9302]

How are you not patient enough to watch a 30-second video?