Carl Jung/Jungian Psychology

[muffler dragon]

Conscious awareness of self. Freud did not believe that personal choice influenced actions at all.

Interesting. For me, personally, this would discount Freud's psychology or at least diminish it greatly.

Different. Jung's basis for internal conflict was conscious perception of self. Freud's was unconscious desires being sedated.

Got'cha.

Prominent. He was partially responsible for the movement away from pure Unconscious analysis- Rorschach tests and dream interpretations, etc.- and towards conscious discussion of a patient's problems. When Freud was discussing a patient's history, he was probing for Unconscious influences.

Another prominent developer of humanistic psychology was Karen Horney, who popularized the theory of self-actualization.

Very informative. Thank you.

Jung's work was located primarily in the psychodynamicist tradition. He was, however, open to some dimensions of personality (e.g., values and other cognitive dimensions) that were not given much prominence by Freud and other psychodynamic theorists. In that way, Jung did open the door to the possibility of a humanistic psychology, but I would attach much less importance to his role in humanism than DontHateOState.

Humanistic psychology emerged in the domain of cognitive psychology and was more influenced by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, although theories such as George Kelly's (Ohio State) personal construct theory also deserve recognition.

If you are interested in psychology, then I would suggest that you begin with a good overview of the various theoretical traditions that have emerged over time (psychodynamicism, behaviorism, cognitive psychology, etc.). All of the theories have interesting implications about understanding people and why they act as they do.

Thanks for the thoughts. Any recommendation(s) on what to read for succinct summations of each?

If you take the Myers-Briggs test and don't like the result or feel that it is inaccurate, don't worry too much about it. Typologies are open to much criticism in psychology. As tests go, Myers-Briggs is among the best, but personality tests should not be over-interpreted as representing "deep truths". Myers urged that his test be used to identify hypotheses for further testing and verification rather than an infallible indicator of a behavioral type. It also may not give you the same answer in a few days time! Test-retest reliabilities typically are in the range of .50 to .80, meaning that if you take the test in a few days, you have a 50% to 80% chance of the same classification. Tests have shown that the Myers-Briggs test has reliabilities even lower but it generally falls in that bound.

FWIW, my Myers-Briggs result was right on. I do understand what you're saying about repeatability and such.

 

[DontHateOState]

Jung's work was located primarily in the psychodynamicist tradition. He was, however, open to some dimensions of personality (e.g., values and other cognitive dimensions) that were not given much prominence by Freud and other psychodynamic theorists. In that way, Jung did open the door to the possibility of a humanistic psychology, but I would attach much less importance to his role in humanism than DontHateOState.

Humanistic psychology emerged in the domain of cognitive psychology and was more influenced by Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, although theories such as George Kelly's (Ohio State) personal construct theory also deserve recognition.

If you are interested in psychology, then I would suggest that you begin with a good overview of the various theoretical traditions that have emerged over time (psychodynamicism, behaviorism, cognitive psychology, etc.). All of the theories have interesting implications about understanding people and why they act as they do.

To be fair, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. :tongue2:

I have taken classes in the field before, and I personally know a psychological historian (he trained to be a psychologist, but is now elsewhere in his professional life) who views himself as a humanist Jungian.

Jung, in my opinion, should be viewed as a primary driver of humanistic psychology because he offered the first respected alternative to Freud or Behaviorism. He legitimized cognitive psychology and thus built a relationship between patient and physician that was lacking beforehand.

 

[Taosman]

Timothy Leary was advancing pharma psychology by a decade until G. Gordon Liddy developed political aspirations.........

 

[DontHateOState]

Interesting. For me, personally, this would discount Freud's psychology or at least diminish it greatly.

Freud did more for the legitimization of psychology than any single other individual. The amount of discussion his theories, even the disproved ones, have generated is tremendous and a huge part of the advancement of future theories.

While it sounds like I'm criticizing him in previous posts, I really hold him in the highest regards. Without his theories, it is very possible that we are still in the dark ages of psychology today.

 

[DontHateOState]

Personality Types by %.

Thought this might be of interest to those who have taken the M-B Test.

 

[Steve19]

Thanks for the thoughts. Any recommendation(s) on what to read for succinct summations of each?

FWIW, my Myers-Briggs result was right on. I do understand what you're saying about repeatability and such.

I work and conduct much of my research in this domain. I suspect that just about anyone who takes the survey will feel about the same as you do.

The problem with all of these typologies is that the reports describe common characteristics that we all have to varying degrees. So, we see ourselves in any report very easily. I am very sure that some aspects seem "a bit more like me" than others. To illustrate this point, some of my colleagues, who were respected researchers in their own right, set out to fool a room filled with people that use these tests in their work.

Colleagues at a market research convention asked professional marketing researchers, who conducted psychological and sociological research, to complete a psychological survey with more than 100 questions.

Unbeknown to the respondents, my colleagues then threw the completed surveys away without processing them in any way. Instead, my colleagues randomly assigned each respondent to a Myers-Briggs type personality and provided a standard personality assessment for that type.

Each respondent received a written report for their personal reflection and then were asked to comment on their personality analysis.

Without exception, the respondents--remember they were professional market researchers who should have been much harder to fool that others--reported that the written assessments were accurate in most respects.

My colleagues had trouble not laughing as respondents told the conference that the report they had received helped them understand themselves like never before. People refused to believe it when my colleagues revealed the truth and presented witnesses to back up their story. A few respondents were very embarrassed to have been fooled so easily. Years later, some of the respondents continued to assert that the real trick is that my colleagues were lying when they said they had not really used the surveys in any way.

If professional market researchers can be conned, so can we all.

Anyway, as I posted earlier, your chances of being typed the same in three months time by Myers-Briggs or any other personality trait survey are not very good. So, don't take this stuff too seriously.

 

[muffler dragon]

Freud did more for the legitimization of psychology than any single other individual. The amount of discussion his theories, even the disproved ones, have generated is tremendous and a huge part of the advancement of future theories.

While it sounds like I'm criticizing him in previous posts, I really hold him in the highest regards. Without his theories, it is very possible that we are still in the dark ages of psychology today.

Thank you for the explanation. I understand completely what you're saying. Being a pioneer is still a pioneer even if the initial work is not the foremost at a later date. I wasn't trying to disparage Freud, FWIW.

I work and conduct much of my research in this domain. I suspect that just about anyone who takes the survey will feel about the same as you do.

The problem with all of these typologies is that the reports describe common characteristics that we all have to varying degrees. So, we see ourselves in any report very easily. I am very sure that some aspects seem "a bit more like me" than others. To illustrate this point, some of my colleagues, who were respected researchers in their own right, set out to fool a room filled with people that use these tests in their work.

Colleagues at a market research convention asked professional marketing researchers, who conducted psychological and sociological research, to complete a psychological survey with more than 100 questions.

Unbeknown to the respondents, my colleagues then threw the completed surveys away without processing them in any way. Instead, my colleagues randomly assigned each respondent to a Myers-Briggs type personality and provided a standard personality assessment for that type.

Each respondent received a written report for their personal reflection and then were asked to comment on their personality analysis.

Without exception, the respondents--remember they were professional market researchers who should have been much harder to fool that others--reported that the written assessments were accurate in most respects.

My colleagues had trouble not laughing as respondents told the conference that the report they had received helped them understand themselves like never before. People refused to believe it when my colleagues revealed the truth and presented witnesses to back up their story. A few respondents were very embarrassed to have been fooled so easily. Years later, some of the respondents continued to assert that the real trick is that my colleagues were lying when they said they had not really used the surveys in any way.

If professional market researchers can be conned, so can we all.

Anyway, as I posted earlier, your chances of being typed the same in three months time by Myers-Briggs or any other personality trait survey are not very good. So, don't take this stuff too seriously.

I can see this happening. Btw, I should note that I don't put stock into these things (when taken for fun or employment) other than enjoyment. It's neat to sometimes see what different things produce. As one in the scientific field, I follow you on the repeatability 100%.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I work and conduct much of my research in this domain. I suspect that just about anyone who takes the survey will feel about the same as you do.

The problem with all of these typologies is that the reports describe common characteristics that we all have to varying degrees. So, we see ourselves in any report very easily. I am very sure that some aspects seem "a bit more like me" than others. To illustrate this point, some of my colleagues, who were respected researchers in their own right, set out to fool a room filled with people that use these tests in their work.

Colleagues at a market research convention asked professional marketing researchers, who conducted psychological and sociological research, to complete a psychological survey with more than 100 questions.

Unbeknown to the respondents, my colleagues then threw the completed surveys away without processing them in any way. Instead, my colleagues randomly assigned each respondent to a Myers-Briggs type personality and provided a standard personality assessment for that type.

Each respondent received a written report for their personal reflection and then were asked to comment on their personality analysis.

Without exception, the respondents--remember they were professional market researchers who should have been much harder to fool that others--reported that the written assessments were accurate in most respects.

My colleagues had trouble not laughing as respondents told the conference that the report they had received helped them understand themselves like never before. People refused to believe it when my colleagues revealed the truth and presented witnesses to back up their story. A few respondents were very embarrassed to have been fooled so easily. Years later, some of the respondents continued to assert that the real trick is that my colleagues were lying when they said they had not really used the surveys in any way.

If professional market researchers can be conned, so can we all.

Anyway, as I posted earlier, your chances of being typed the same in three months time by Myers-Briggs or any other personality trait survey are not very good. So, don't take this stuff too seriously.

interesting anecdote. i don't disagree with your assertion. i had interest in pursuing psychology when i was in school, took classes, etc.
i went to talk to a psychologist. one time. that pretty much ended that.

my question, however, is regarding the degree of difference in test results. i periodically take the political compass test, and while the results are never identical, they don't vary by much. a degree or two at most. i realize that the tests results vary pretty much by default. we're all individuals, and no one fits any type 100%. i might not be ENTJ if i take the M-B again in a few months, but i'm pretty damn certain i'll show up as NT. i'm an intellectual, after all...

tia. :)

edit: yeah, just took a different one. lol. ESTP, go figure. i'm in love with a girl. results may vary...

edit2: took the first one again. ENFP. dang, Steve. you are totally right. we're all pretty much two different people: the one that interacts with others, and the one in our heads (and hearts). i find it interesting that the only constant for me is the E, since i consider my extraverted side to be 'not the real me.'

edit3: took the MMDI test. it came back ENFJ/INFP. i guess that means i'm a pretty nice guy. i already knew that though, lol. nice that the 1st two people on the 'famous persons lists' were King David and Mother Theresa. i guess i'm in pretty good company. :)

 

[lvbuckeye]

i'm in love with a girl.

i hate my life.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Myers urged that his test be used to identify hypotheses for further testing and verification rather than an infallible indicator of a behavioral type.

Shouldn't that be "Myers urged that her test"

 

[lvbuckeye]

i hate my life.

...came to grips with it. i feel much better. :)