Understanding Jungian cognitive functions will not tell you who you are. It will give you an objectively verifiable framework for understanding how your mind works. This subtle but crucial point makes all the difference, and is missed by every criticism of it I have come across.
Indeed. I have not found a more consistently predictive model for human behavior.
-
-
But, Jung specifically warned against doing that with his typology (see Collected Works, Volume 6, "Psychological Types").
-
Do what? I am merely stating it is predictive to support my claim that it is objectively verifiable.
-
Jung's typology was never intended to be used as a predictor of human behavior.
-
I did not say it should.
-
Then, why did you say "I have not found a more consistently predictive model for human behavior"?
-
You misconstrued my statement. I said it is a predictive model, not a predictor, in the same way that weather forecasting is a predictive model for the weather.
-
You cannot tell me what any given INFP will do tomorrow based off of their past behaviour. You can post-hoc rationalise their behavior for sure.
-
The point is not what an individual does, but what an individual's cognitive makeup is. Given that knowledge, a reliable estimate of the general direction of their action can be made. Forecasting won't tell you the shape or position of a cloud, only if it will be there or not.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Jungian archetypes are only predictive in the same way human behavior is predictive as a result of habits. There is nothing in the archetypes which is falsifiable so any use of 'objective' is a misuse of the word
-
This has nothing to do with archetypes whatsoever.
-
The value of Jung's typology is the same as the value of Freud's unconscious and 'soul' of the ancients. It gives a new consistent and useful vocabulary to describe mental phenomena
-
This is more or less the way I view it. These phenomena are consistent across domains, hence, an objective reality. If a model can synthesize from a few data points to accurately predict traits and behaviors, it is both objective, and falsifiable.
-
Okay, I think we are mostly in agreement. My only problem is with your use of 'predict' and 'falsifiable' and 'objective' when, in my view, analysis of mental phenomena can at best be of a 'descriptive' nature, a domain separate from that of scientific analysis
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.