New Article at Personality Junkie


#1

http://personalityjunkie.com/06/jungian-myers-briggs-typology-scientific/


#2

Thanks for sharing, @Stewart. I enjoyed this article, particularly the idea that MBTI has endured because it is “elegant.” This is a word that is very important to me and it comes as no surprise that it’s being used to describe MBTI.

What are your thoughts on the article?


#3

It appeals to me because it covers the “missing” half of human cognition and learning. Modern science and education have become too narrow and limited by only considering the “left brain” functions as valid and empirical.

In MBTI terms, these broadly equate to Sensing and Thinking (regardless of which half of the brain they actually draw from). In astrological terms, they represent two of the mutable signs; specifically those ruled by the planet Mercury. Virgo equates to Se and Si while Gemini represents Te and Ti.

Both are reductive and analytical in their approach to inner and outer reality.

Somewhere along the line our society started to devalue the opposite side of perception and judgement, the so-called “right brain” functions of Feeling and Intuition. In astrology, these represent the other two mutable signs; specifically those ruled by Jupiter. Sagittarius equates to Ne and Ni while Pisces (co-ruled by Neptune) correlates to Fe and Fi.

Both are wholistic and integrating in their approach to inner and outer reality, which is why they are more traditinally associated more to the humanities more than to the sciences


#4

Good stuff. The way MBTI was initially presented to me was through the lens of scientific rationalism in the context of capitalist utility, and so the idea of taking a test to determine how I can most efficiently function within a money-making machine was pretty unappealing to me.

But yeah, I appreciate the valuing of ‘elegance’ here, as that is something important to me, and something I think is very much de-valued in the information age. How can elegance survive in the context of the vastness of the internet? :dizzy_face:

Re: science/non-science, Left/Right brain stuff-After having dipped my toes into Jung’s writings it seems pretty clear to me that he was something more than a scientist. If you’ve ever taken a glance at the ‘Red Book’ that should be eminently clear. I feel like he was something closer to a mystic who realized that mysticism was devalued in his time and didn’t have any interest in trying to set up a secret society to do sex magick with other mystics in isolation from the rest of the world. So, he tried to translate ideas that might be rooted in a more mystical approach to knowledge into a somewhat scientific framework in order to engage with the reigning intellectual tradition that had fully embraced rational empiricism as its guiding principle and was in the process of purging ‘non-scientific’ methods of inquiry from itself (since, the roots of science are very much tangled with non-scientific approaches. see: Paracelsus).

Anyways, this reminded me to post about something, which I’ll make a new thread about…


#5

I think part of the reason I’m not completely reconciled to the attempted synthesis of MBTI and astrology is it turns out a little sloppy. 4 is a common factor so corresponding elements and quadrants work, but not the signs. I get what @Blake means with INFJ implied Scorpio moon and it’s helpful in understanding. Was thinking about Agrippa’s planetary virtues- Se definitely martial, Fe/Fi venereal (or Venusian if you’d rather), Te/Ti mercurial, Ne solar, Ni lunar, Si could be Saturnine or perhaps best call that as martial too as I’m not sure which to tag as jovial and it doesn’t quite work out neatly either.


#6

OK, get ready to get reconciled. Yes, you’re right. Basically, in Myers-Briggs (Jung’s typological system), there is no factor of 3.

You have 2 attitude orientations (introversion and extraversion) that may be combined with 4 basic functions (intuition, thinking, feeling, sensation) to yield 8 basic types (cognitive functions).

You can then double this number to account for the aux. position’s possible variations (which is 2) between the two types that have the same dominant function. That gets you to 16 types.

But, yes, what about the 12 signs of astrology? How can you get them to match up with each other in a one-to-one way neatly?

Well, an astrological sign may be composed of any combination of the 4 elements and the 3 modes (or quadruplicities). So, you see, astrology has a factor of 3 going on.

So, here is what I did:

It was obvious to me that the 4 basic functions that Jung described correlated to the 4 elements of astrology. That was very clear to me in the following manner and in order of obviousness:

Thinking function = air element of astrology (pretty fucking obvious)
Feeling function = water element (pretty fucking obvious)
Sensation function = earth element (maybe a little less obvious, I dunno)
Intuition function = fire element (this is the one that I thought may be the least obvious due to they way fire element is sometimes described as, say, “athletic” or something like that)

But, all those correlations make sense to me and I would say compel this equivocation between the two systems.

Then, at some point, yes, I did get a bug up my ass to assign one-to-one correlations to not only the four elements of astrology, but, to the 12 signs of astrology, all of which are made up of one of these 4 elements, and in addition, a modality.

The three modes are:

Cardinal
Fixed
Mutable

However, there are only two attitude orientations in the Jungian system, so, that must be measuring something different than what the modes of astrology are, right?

Wrong.

It became obvious to me that the cardinal mode of astrology represents extraversion.

Then, it became obvious to me that the fixed mode of astrology represents introversion.

So, what the fuck does mutability represent?

Well, then I remembered that the mutable signs are considered “double-bodied” or bicorporeal by astrological tradition.

Bingo!

Mutable signs are “convertible” signs. They are two-in-one signs. In Jungian terms/logic, they would be ambiverse.

So, the way I handled this lovely revelation was to assign the first half of any mutable sign to the introverted (or fixed) portion of it’s element and the latter half to the extraverted (or cardinal) portion of it’s element (and I do have reasons for doing it in that order and not the other way around that I don’t feel like getting into here).

And voila! You got yourself a one-to-one correlation between the astrological signs and the 16 temperaments.

Got reconciliation?


#7

:fireworks: I will need about an hour and a piece of paper to be sure, but that’s bloody brilliant!


#8

make a diagram blake
you need visuals to propagate your ideas!!!

/blake then unwrinkles and scans in one of his coffee and tear-stained works-in-progress as evidence that he has been trying to for 5 years but it’s not yet perfect and i lose 5 years of my life


#9

I know nothing about any of this. But what I do know, is whenever there are bugs up people’s asses involved - especially Blake’s ass, he’s done his research and the visuals are spoken by his site.

:bug: :peach: (visual of bug up ass…lol)


#10

Yeah, well didn’t you just read what Geneva said…she’s on it!

Hey, maybe you two INTJs should have a contest to see who can come up with the best diagram of the shit I just laid out above.

I’m waiting to be impressed!

Then we can start a new thread and discuss and amend. It’ll be educational for all.


#11

S’all I’ve got, but intrigued, not impressive (I mean my diagram not impressive), maybe I’ll try harder later.

Edit:
should be Se: Capricorn, Si: Taurus


#12

I am indebted to @Blake for his elegant correlation between the type functions and the astrology signs. I had been struggling for years to do the same thing, but couldn’t satisfactorily bridge the gap between the 12 signs and 8 functions.

As soon as I read Blake’s solution, I realised he had cracked it, and I now think of this as the definitive model relating type to its origins in the four elements of the ancients. This may seem like highly abstract esoteric technobabble to more grounded types, but it provides a solid theoretical springboard for those of us who rely upon models and frameworks to make sense of reality (Do hear a “Hell, Yeah!” from all the INJ’s on this forum?). The mutable signs were the key to cracking the riddle, as they have always been associated with learning (as the Cardinal signs are with action and the fixed signs with stability).

It also nicely illustrates the point I was trying to make earlier about the Jupiter-form of perception and judgement. Correlations and correspondences make little sense to the reductive Mercury functions, but they are meat and drink to the synthesizing powers of Jupiter. This type of thinking allows for broad leaps of intuition that are not possible when everything is reduced to the nth degree. For example, it has now occurred to me that the different learning styles are symbolically represented in the very shape of the glyphs used to depict Mercury and Jupiter. (To be continued)


#13

I’m almost there. It needs to work all the way down including those elusive and harder to understand irrational functions to be elegant. T/F in all it’s permutations is pretty fucking obvious.

Ne/Aries works- spring, potential bursting into growth, ENXP a virtual cannonade- Ne is martial. Ni/Ne synthesis- Sagittarius works, jovial as per @Stewart,
But Ni/Leo? I suppose it’s a sort of cat for INTJ; I do like cats. Oh, hot damn, center of a circle, sun as source, astral gold, Ni is solar. More traditional Leo vibe in auxiliary ENXJ.

Se/Si. I can see Virgo in both, but Se/Capricorn, Si Taurus seems basswards, oops had it wrong on my crappy diagram too. I can see sensual/venusian qualities of Taurus in Se. Si seems more Saturnian and concerned with tradition and social order. After lightning bolt of realizing Ni/Leo is correct, I suspect I am not understanding Se/Si and/or these feminine earth signs properly.


#14

you are enjoying it:)


#15

i think it was just that capricorn are cardinal signs and therefore ACTION, thus extroverted Se of AMBITION amd material accumulation in the active sense.
taurus, being a fixed sign, is more preserving. The Si version of possessiveness, methodical building, upkeep.

At least that is how I pictured it.

Also, has anyone else kind of figured that maybe MBTI (and astrology) are perhaps Ni-favoured systems (pattern/gestalt-seeking), while maybe the Big Five is more Ti-favoured (data-driven), and i don’t even know what enneagram is since I don’t particularly like it or “get it” lol. Enneagram is some kinda mishmash, but it may be a more Sensation-type of personality grouping with bits of Ni wedged in (for example, I do NOT how how they actually decided that one direction of numbers is growth and the other dircetion is regression. and does it really turn into that crown “shape” when it’s all connected? is that coincidence or was it researched or was it just a guess and looked pretty so they went with it? i don’t see the logic and thus i haven’t yet clicked with it).


#16

Yes, I am.

@Prax, thanks thinking about cardinal and fixed properties helped. I had to use a Se process and ride bikes 20 miles with an ISTP to figure it out. My ISTP husband was a semi-pro bike racer in his 20s, but at 50+ he had to lay on the couch after our trip and make a show of icing down his knee and bitch about getting older which turned into an extended riff on the saga of assholes he has known(?Si id). It was so bad I had to buy him a ukulele and will have a party for him tonight (actually tomorrow is his birthday). Se dom and Se auxiliary start out with a golden age of good body awareness and kinesthetic intelligence, but time stomps on that much harder than intellectual or artistic interests and abilities so these types might psychologically have a harder time dealing with aging. The whole process is Saturnian. Si is more about possessions and materialism. Taurus is a fertile sign and Si also has a positive generative quality in passing things on to a next generation or for posterity.

Enneagram has more to do with motivation to me and I’m sure it has correlations to MBTI. Probably best stick with rough correlation, to try to synthesize 12 signs, 8 functions, and 9 enneagram points into an elegant system we would need a solid INTP just to help with the math.

Ok @Blake @Stewart, all reconciled.

Hell yeah!


#17

I stick with rough correlation even though I know it could be less rough. Why do I do this? Because I don’t want human nature to be reduced down to a set of mathematical propositions. Even though, yes, it could be.

I also feel that many people will misapply or misuse a closed system such as this and I don’t want that either.

That’s part of the reason I keep this shit kind of loose. @Prax too, just so you know why you might have lost 5 years of your life.

I actually have a whole ethic about all of this. For example, I don’t think people should rely on astrologers to interpret their charts for them. What I suggest is people arrive at their own understanding of the rudiments of these systems and begin to apply them to their own lives.

If you give people a closed system, then, they get too reductive and don’t use their fucking heads.

It encourages reliance on gurus or authorities that will tell you how it all should go.

Fuck you. Figure it out yourself.

With a little help from your friends, that is.


#18

Yeah! part of my past aversion to astrology had to do with not liking the reliance on authorities (and i guess that pushed me to just kind of reject it rather than investigating myself). Do you (or anyone else) have a suggested author or text for beginners to get a better understanding of the rudiments of Astrology? I know there’s a ton out there, with varying degrees of quality/utility, so it’d be nice to have a solid starting point.


#19

I’d recommend Secrets From a Stargazer’s Notebook by Deborah Kempton-Smith. You can get it on Amazon.

I’d say it’s like The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy of astrology books.

Which may be to say nothing. But, at any rate, it’s awesome.


#20

I think that depends on the audience you are trying to gather.
If you are concerned that people will act like sheeple (lol), then of course you might discount like 80% of the population.
The rest of them who are interested just wanna know what your thought process is like laid out bare and cleanly (and to nitpick at it). I suppose that also opens someone up to be vulnerable as the other side of the coin, but oh well!

My main motivations are to get well-defined/refined systems so I can then play with and manipulate them for my own ends. I do not know if I pay special attention and reliance to gurus or authorities (I suspect I don’t lol), and thus do not worry about that so much. Now if you think the target audience you want to help are especially vulnerable to not “using their fucking heads” then I guess I see your point.