3 ms·

Here are the definitions by Carl Jung: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung

• lotsofpulp 5y ago
  How does that address the problem that it is not possible to perform the experiments necessary to make the strong claims? This is not an issue specific to this idea in popular psychology, but in general to almost any field with difficult to define parameters.
  • naveen99 5y ago
    Even in math it’s possible to have conjectures that are likely true but may never be proved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... Even in physics, you have statistical truths like second law of thermodynamics. they allow you to generalize where precise computation is impossible. So Jung’s insights into personality attitudes, dichotomies of perception and judgment seem like interesting conjectures worth knowing about, possibly difficult to prove.
    • lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The difference is the 2nd law of thermodynamics has tons of data showing its utility in modeling our world. Obviously, humans might be living in a simulation and everything is possibly wrong, but the personality test thing has many weaknesses and data contrary to its claims as summarized in the wiki article. I do not see what makes it worth knowing about compared to the litany of other pop psychology conjectures.
      • naveen99 5y ago
        It wasn’t pop psychology when Jung came up with it. it stands on its own, just read it. The tests just simplify the process for people who don’t know the theory. by the way since you (and I) are so curious to know your type, here is a free test https://sakinorva.net/functions https://sakinorva.net/functions
• Cybotron5000 5y ago
  Now there’s a chap who was keen on dreams! :)