Do what? I am merely stating it is predictive to support my claim that it is objectively verifiable.
-
-
I would say that the main point here is that peoples behavior is habitual and so when habits are stable, Jungian types describe those habitual behavious by assigning functions to different flavours of behavior. Then the function stack can account for any abnormalities
-
Making it descriptively useful of mental phenomena, but ultimately unfalsifiable as a predictive model.
-
The function stack explaining abnormalities doesnt render the model unfalsifiable. If you know your type and can assess your behaviour honestly - you’ll see all sorts of falsifying evidence.
-
If you saw falsifying evidence you would stop using it as a credible model. Any totalising mental model must necessarily be unfalsifiable, otherwise you would stop using it. Survivorship bias
-
Falsifying evidence is not evidence that the model doesn’t work. It is evidence that how it works for one person is *not* how it will work for another person.
-
But...you don't have access to another's mind to see the falsifiable evidence

-
I have access to mine and I can see the difference.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Then, how do you address the very first pages in Jung's "Psychological Types" where he discusses the deliberate change of their superior functions by the early Church Fathers - Tertullian through the sacrificium intellectus and Origen through the sacrificium phalli?
-
Their behaviors (keeping in mind the Wikipedia definition, though in an academic discussion, you should not use Wikipedia) were completely at odds with their type in that they followed Christ's example of the sacrificium.
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.