>>83965708
No, not one single quote, but the entirety of Chapter I (One). He doesn't look so nice on a refrigerator, but he has a good personality, so i ask you give him a chance.
I even went and got you two table at Dorsia, so don't waste it ---> https://jungiancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vol-6-psychological-types.pdf

>but you will concour that relying on assuming Joong's feelings, not even being able to properly interrogate the subject doesn't lead to anything resembling a solid argument.
It's called textual criticism, and it's fairly reliable. But, if you don't believe in such things, then it ends at "Jung changed his mind", which is useless, meaningless: It's an impasse.
>Keep your Dunning Kruger in check next time, other people have read more than you did.
I don't presume to be the most well read JVNGIAN SCHOLAR; i never claimed he never said that, only asked you sauce the quote. Someone asking for source doesn't necessarily mean they disbelieve you, but it's necessary to a conversation like this where the topic is a contradiction between two sources.
>>83965787
>*I* am not cute, only my rosy cheeks and big bright eyes are, baka!
Tsundere
>let loose on the chans because that is a place where an inferior function can exist without any real threats
What boards are you using that introverted sensation has something to do? Certainly not this one.

File: letters volume 2 page 347.png (190 KB, 484x803)

190 KB PNG

The one time the bastards let the thread stay off the board is the one time i want to post.
>>83965941
So, it's real, but not legit.
>>83967921
IN(x)
>What motivates you?
Evidently, spite, sunk cost, and avoidance. I need to feel some obligation, but i hate having obligation 'imposed' on me, so i'll make up my own obligations to avoid those 'imposed' ones. Spite is maybe being harsh on myself, it's more like a "because it's there" type feeling.
>Do you have a bad habit? What makes it bad, and how did you pick it up?
4chan.org is my bad habit. It isn't bad in and of itself, it's just the way i use it that's bad. I waste too much time online. I'm not sure how i picked it up. The story i just typed up, upon reading, seemed fake, so i deleted it. Though it's least precises, perhaps the most honest answer is that i was lonely, stifled, and stupid. These days i'm just mostly just lonely and stupid, which i suppose is enough to keep the habit, and to fall back into it at certain times.
I can't fix lonely, but there must be some way to unstupid myself...

File: 20260215_160143.jpg (552 KB, 2000x1789)

552 KB JPG

>>83967924
>It's an impasse.
As much as trying to assume that the second typing is not legit because maybe Jung got nostalgic.
Kobayashi would be proud of such theorizing.

>i never claimed he never said that, only asked you sauce the quote. Someone asking for source doesn't necessarily mean they disbelieve you, but it's necessary to a conversation like this where the topic is a contradiction between two sources.
Can give you the benfit of doubt here, especially since *him* was involved too and threw a melty over it.

>Tsundere
Sort of? The stereotypical tsundere is somewhat of a Te-groid. But I have seen my fair share of tsuns who were any other type to be fair. The funniest part is when they are a Fi-groid but overcompensating the shit out of the inferior function.

>What boards are you using that introverted sensation has something to do? Certainly not this one.
Always posting cute things around should clue you in.
Not going to spoil how that is related though, up to you figuring out what kind of malfunction causes the mahoushoujoism in my case.

File: 3bae8019f7255d583a47549c0(...).png (217 KB, 500x800)

217 KB PNG

>>83968049
>but there must be some way to unstupid myself...
Protip: you have to fuck up, big time. May not help though.
>I can't fix lonely,
Protip: you have to fuck up, big time. May not help though.

>>83967921
>>your type
IN(T)
>>What motivates you?
...pretending to be motivated.
>>Do you have a bad habit?
It certainly exists, and it's certainly questionable, from my viewpoint. I certainly don't have a name for it.
>What makes it bad,
...
>and how did you pick it up?
God's miracles, they are boundless and endless.

>https://paste.fo/raw/287d5fb6f7b6
It's expired.
I reuploaded to pastebin. It's in one of latest archived OPs.

Easy Rundown on C.G. Jung's Depth Psychology
https://pastebin.com/1PYUQTpP

>>83967921
>>your type
ESFP-T
>>What motivates you?
Being happy and making other people happy.
>>Do you have a bad habit?
Sugary beverages and other sweets.
>>What makes it bad, and
Unhealthy.
>>how did you pick it up?
Parents always had a lot of it around.

File: Shigure.Kokoro.full.4506073.png (508 KB, 1050x1400)

508 KB PNG

Page 10? Not on my watch.

File: look at this remarkably d(...).png (1.32 MB, 1432x1186)

1.32 MB PNG

>>83968392
>As much as trying to assume that the second typing is not legit because maybe Jung got nostalgic.
It's not an assumption, it's a deduction. The guy was in his 80s at the time of the letter, he had published Psychological Types nearly 40 years before, hadn't been around Freud (who had been dead for around 20 years) for longer than that, and thought he his reply would be privet. If someone told him that whatever he put in that letter would be sold at auction, sitting on people's shelves, and plastered all over the internet (it's like if the T.V was also the mail) after he died, i don't imagine he would have said what he did. It seems the editor of his letters agrees with me on that. It's more of a leap to assume that typing is legit. I bet i can find in MDR some (other) account which contradicts it. Hell, even in the letter, that line about his love of 'precious stones' reads more like extraversion and inferior feeling than the opposite to me.
>Sort of? The stereotypical tsundere is somewhat of a Te-groid. But I have seen my fair share of tsuns who were any other type to be fair. The funniest part is when they are a Fi-groid but overcompensating the shit out of the inferior function.
This is my joke.
This is your head.

>>83968049
Thanks for at least posting a picture, I can't find letters vol. 2 anywhere.
A link would have been nice though, so I can get the full context. >:(

But, he's doing the same thing here he does in PT when he talks about Freud. He's using him as an example, and not saying he is or isn't one type or another.
The example he's being used as is to demonstrate the flexibility of psychological development and how it can change, or even distort someone's type.
He's also being used as an example for how neuroticism can blur your type because the unconscious and conscious are themselves undifferentiated. The ego and shadow have not yet been separated cleanly enough for a solid foundation for the ego to build its identity.

He's also saying something very subtly, that Freud could be a number of different types, in reality. Because his neurotic over identification with thinking is obscuring his real psychology. His own thinking has become a persona for him to shield the more vulnerable parts of his psyche.
That neurotic persona could any number of different aspects of his psyche which have possessed his psyche. But as outside observers, we cannot clearly differentiate the two without stripping the layers of defense of Freud's psyche. But by trying to strip the layers, what you get is more psychological resistance because Freud is neurotic. Which blurs the lines even further.

The real point is that it's extremely difficult to type someone who's neurotic, because their psyche is undifferentiated and the neurotic behaviors act as compensation for that lack of differentiation.

>>83970030
lmaao the pic. But ahem, differentiated feeling doesn't mean "positive" feeling in the sense of being kind to everything and everyone. In fact, Freud there quickly deflected to his feeling judgement of the woman. A thinkoid wouldn't even bother focusing on that aspect because... dood who cares about whether the woman is ugly I'm trying to explain you a cool theory...

As for the rest, being nostalgic is fine on its own, but there is still a leap in assuming that immediately it would lead anyone to make a mistake while typing somebody.
In fact, I'd be almost more willing to say the opposite. Trying to type people without Feeling could mean getting the conscious attitude and unconscious one mixed, because you try to focus on flaws and faults especially, things that appear unreasonable and defective, without allowing the person to have a saying in it. And if you ask me, PT is very much inferior Fe-driven at its core.
On a more philosophical note, both rational functions should be employed to deduce and trust the truth, when one fails, then judgement is still operating at half-capacity. If type were a purely logical problem, then sure, but something as complex as human nature could never be properly solved that way.

I wonder if Freud was actually an Se type and that's why he was so obsessed with SEXO

>>83967921
>>your type
INFP
>>What motivates you?
Nothing anymore. I miss when I believed there was love out there for me and had hope of finding it.
>>Do you have a bad habit? What makes it bad, and how did you pick it up?
Alcohol I guess. It makes everything feel further away which is just too appealing to me. And I picked it up out of curiosity.

>>83970140
Well he DOES have a lower aux Sensation... And as per Jung, less differentiated functions get mixed in with the rest of the unconscious attitude(extraversion for Freud in this case).
Do note though, Freud's obssession isn't really, well, the sensory side of the sex. But rather, building up his thought(and everyone's else) on the basis of it. That is a very theoretical concern, the realm of Thinking.

>>83970082
>link
https://files.catbox.moe/ckbqjl.pdf

Wow is someone new making the op? They didn't steal my cognitive labours this time.

"It's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't believe."
t. some huge ENFPoid, most likely

And I would have answered to them:
"It's not that you lack in devotion, it's that it still doesn't make sense to you rationally. The method is still not fully comprehended, even if you can tell it will be "good" if it worked."

>>83970436
>new
I don't know if that would be better or worse.

>>83967921
>INxP (likely INFP).
>Too much of a pussy to end it plus life's good things feel too good to give up on them forever.
>Laziness, procrastination, bad cos...well, you can guess it.
I'm considering going to another psych clinic, psychiatrist's suggestion. Hopefully this time I won't get kicked out because of alcohol.

>>83970557
>Laziness, procrastination
Not really habits, but more a mode of being. Alcohol is the habit.

File: 1770140855772600.jpg (64 KB, 523x749)

64 KB JPG

>>83967921
>your type
INTJ, probably
>What motivates you?
1. Fear of death
2. Comfort
3. Search for meaning
4. Recognition
5. Spite
>Do you have a bad habit? What makes it bad, and how did you pick it up?
Lying a lot. Its a habit I picked up from having to lie to avoid my mom beating me up but now I lie for every little thing, even if it doesn't really help for anything besides making me look slightly better in someone's eyes or being convenient in the moment. Even if someone gets something mistaken about me, I won't bother to correct them and I'll simply roll with whatever it is they assumed about me, hoping they'll stop talking to me soon enough that they won't actually see through my lie.

>>83970159
The less differentiated doesn't get mixed up with the rest of the unconscious attitude, it gets mixed with everything.

But, you're also defying one of Jung's core points by asserting that Freud is definitely a certain type, or of a particular disposition.
>>83970181
What's interesting about this is that he's not typing Freud. He's using Freud as an example to show that type is generally flexible. Freud may have started off in his early life as an introverted feeling type, but changed his attitude through compensation of his inferior function.
He's not making a prescriptive declaration about Freud's type. He's making an observation and using that observation to point to the ontological differences between Kretschmer's types, which are somatic and relatively fixed, and Jung's own types types; which are more fluid and change throughout your life, depending on your own psychological development.

This is why I hate it so much when people take a single line out of context and assert the sentence means something.

LLM sloppa-tier post aside, that reminded me I just used a certain analogy to somebody who's reading the Jvvvng.
"Conceive the type as a starting point, and keep in mind that growing up tends to differentiating what was already not differentiated, in other words it's rather normal to tend to your opposites naturally and as a way to adapt better to both inner and outer reality."

And I should have added
"Overcompensation isn't differentiation though, maybe you can convince yourself of the opposite with enough copium but to everyone else your inferior function stays inferior, and they will tell you if they feel like hitting the sore spot, either accidentally or intentionally. Which is ultimately why the type does not have perfect flexibility, and why the thing matters in determining something important about the person, otherwise its validity is denied both on macro and micro context."

>>83970599
That's funny, i have the same habit, only i no longer consider it bad in and of itself. It's part of why i gravitated to 4chan, and the anonymous web in general.
>>83970082
I don't disagree, only propose these additions. Firstly, that Jung's "typing" (which it really isn't, for reasons put forth last thread, and now in this one) in that letter is less of a considered, worked out thing, but how he felt in reminiscence, how he thought at that moment he would have liked Freud best, what he considered his best quality. Secondly, that having a type at all is a sort of small neurosis.
>This is why I hate it so much when people take a single line out of context and assert the sentence means something.
Even within the quote you can tell that's what he means because of the "have been originally". I share your sentiment, i just wanted to point out that even out of context it isn't as it was made out.

It looks like everyone is posting llm slop

>When you spend so much time consuming LLM slop you think everything is LLM slop.

>>83970729
But when it comes down to it, what you are trying to do here is to denounce the role of feeling when it comes to typing, claiming the mere possibility of it's existence automatically leads to less truthful judgment. Not to mention, doing it in reverse: an extraverted feeling returns to the object, not the subject! There is no "how I'd want to it to be", both because that implies there was some ego in it(the "want", a conscious standpoint), and because it implies a subjective determinant(the object matters as it appears to me) became more important for the final valuation.
As hilarious as it might be for me to channel the inner Kokoro, you don't believe in Jung enough, you are no Greatest Fan, and merely seek to conform to your previous understanding to avoid admitting it's simply fucking wrong.

All while carefully ignoring facts such as V.F. also claiming the very same typing, spotting a differentiated feeling function (that she associates to gentlemanliness and dealing well with patients at least on a personal level, not theoretical one) and inferior thinking (as per usual a reductive idea that is overreaching the shit out of everything).

Here is the text with all non-ASCII characters (like the curly quotes and specialized punctuation) removed or replaced with their standard ASCII equivalents:

It sounds like you're frustrated with the influx of low-effort AI content. It's a common sentiment lately; when everyone uses the same tools without much personal input, the internet can start to feel a bit repetitive and "gray."

Here are a few "slop-free" options for you:

Option 1: The Minimalist
"Dead internet theory in action."

Option 2: The Witty Jab
"Bold of you to assume this comment wasn't generated by a prompt too."

Option 3: The Direct Critique
"Quality over quantity is officially a relic of the past."

What I did:
Ensured all characters fall within the standard 0-127 ASCII range.

>I'm projecting my own LLM usage onto everyone else

>>83970817
>extraverted feeling returns to the object, not the subject! There is no "how I'd want to it to be"
"How Jung felt Freud would have best served himself and society, a state of being that would be pleasing to all involved", or "How Jung thought Freud should have been", is what i meant. "Want" doesn't factor into it, save only in the most literal sense of "missing". It isn't a purely feeling judgement, but also an assessment of his qualities, his strengths and weaknesses, and how they could have been better employed "i know you can do better than this". Jung's thinking resonating with Freud's feeling, and his feeling with his thinking. He's remembering his old friend fondly, i wouldn't call that especially related to any one function, rather the great wheels of attitude working on the natural processes of age.
>what you are trying to do here is to denounce the role of feeling when it comes to typing
Maybe some bias is leaking through, but that's not my intent. I mean only to explain why he came up with Introverted Feeling instead of any other type. I could just as easily say it was because it was useful for making his point about the mutability of types, and he chose Frued simply because he was promoted to, and Introverted Feeling because it provided the most clear example. In saying that, would i have devalued thinking in the role of typing?
>ignoring facts such as V.F. also claiming the very same typing
That doesn't mean much to me. She was 19 when he died.
>merely seek to conform to your previous understanding to avoid admitting it's simply fucking wrong.
Is is not As. I am trying to protect something, but it's the integrity of Psychological Types as a text, not some pet idea.
>you are no Greatest Fan
Very true, because while my aim here is not to protect it, i am trying to reveal a pet idea, one that i know to be more Keirkegaardian than Jungian. I think the idea is comparable with the Jungian mode, but if it's not i'm willing to accept that.

>>83970991
He's just sad you've stolen my attention.

>>83971273
Anon's mad jelly that he's getting mogged?
I'd believe that.

Are you people legit jungians?

File: 1740649831815596.png (1.59 MB, 2500x3000)

1.59 MB PNG

>>83971206
Your assessment makes more sense if Jung himself was working from Intuition mainly, not Feeling or Thinking, but even then the intuitive doesn't automatically mix the current form of the object with the perceived potential for development.

>In saying that, would i have devalued thinking in the role of typing?
Not quite. The standpoint that would devaluate Thinking here looks more "Freud broke Jung's trust as per PT, which is why he got mistyped supposedly, and then in the letters he trusted in Freud's actual good traits, motives and intentions instead of focusing on the cause of conflict", in other words, he never actually thought about this and typed by feeling alone, genuinely no other theoretical consideration other than first picking something he would conflict with(as established by himself though), then picking something he didn't explicitly conflict with, which fairly enough leads to the feeling reality of the two things involved instead of mere sentimentality.
But to save my more conscious position here, I will claim that it maps the theory better anyways.

>I am trying to protect something, but it's the integrity of Psychological Types as a text, not some pet idea.
The integrity of PT is preserved in the sense that what's being described for the types is quite right, but when it comes to Freud's typing it's not even really there.

>I think the idea is comparable with the Jungian mode, but if it's not i'm willing to accept that.
Issue I have with that is, as said before, if you are willing to accept that Jung considers type reversal not on behavioral grounds (this one is fine), but in the actual sense of inverting conscious and unconscious attitude, along with somehow also inverting the degree of function differentiation, and all of this is describing the compass itself as opposed to simply Freud deciding to walk straight into the direction of the shadow, then you can quickly see how the the theory becomes null and void.

>>83971445
As opposed to one, illicit Jungian? I do like this label actually.

Sorry, "illicit" triggered it. Genie in a bottle and all that.

>>83970800
thats because they are
>>83970802
projection, i never used an LLM and can still tell, uninteresting, uninspiring, unimaginative, just words words words im not human

>>83970802
doenst take Einstein to pattern recognise the lamelanguagemom drivel, or are you just so developmentally slow you assume only daddygpt would know? And even if it want a LLM just know you sound like an old underdeveloped llm like the llm isnt filling in the gaps in your brain enough because you sound like a deadbeat history teacher

>>83971522
>but when it comes to Freud's typing it's not even really there.
Yes it is. It's woven into the fabric, it's in the very blood of the work.

Every time i feel like we're getting somewhere, you circle back. Just swallow your pride and reread PT already. When's the last time you read it anyway?

"Type Change" is not my pet idea.

I replied as if it was to INFJ-A. I can't talk you to you two the same way.

File: IMG_7799.jpg (125 KB, 736x806)

125 KB JPG

>Your type
>Do you find yourself playing applied -meaning-games/lying to yourself to motivate yourself to do your daily activities?

"If I dehumanize you in your own voice by mockery I'm not being dehumanizing you're just literally subhuman sorry bro this is you. In quotes," said you, sounding like yourself.

File: Feel(er) It All Around.jpg (398 KB, 828x823)

398 KB JPG

Oh, that's another reason not to (You). Commenting sideways on an exchange between two people who aren't you.

This place is for exhibitionists and voyeurs of conversation. Don't forget.

I guess you'll take this frustration as some kind of win, but you should know it's really a loss for all involved. It doesn't matter if you read PT, or anything else. In fact, it's probably better if you don't, or rather hadn't. Each new idea is like a stranger, some of which turn out to be monsters. One must be careful of what he admits into his city.

Maybe tomorrow, in the day, when i have more energy and less discernment. I hope i've learned my lesson, and stop trying to play with people who don't want to play.

>>83971830
>applied -meaning-games
When I Google this phrase/term nothing appears. It is fictional or not a well established idea.

>>83970729
>but how he felt in reminiscence
That's not how I would word it, but I agree with the sentiment. It's less of a statement about Jung, though. It's more about Freud and how he obscured himself through the neurosis.
But, it could also be Jung saying that his earlier framing of Freud was less developed, and as he got older and his understanding and practice of typology grew, so did his understanding of the compensation he was faced with while interacting with Freud.
There's this strange... remorseful energy in what Jung's saying too. Do you pick up on that?
>Secondly, that having a type at all is a sort of small neurosis
Even with the qualifier "small" that's still a bit of an overstatement, mostly because type itself isn't a neurosis. But I get what you're aiming for.
Typology itself is an indictor of one sided, asymmetrical development. And if you lean too far into that one sided development, neurosis is sure to arise.
>just wanted to point out that even out of context it isn't as it was made out.
For sure. The surface of the statement is not what it appears as.

>>83972039
Take the concept of applied meaning/shared meaning in epistemology, rhetoric. Combine it with Timothy Leary's "Game Realities" model.

There you go.