Disclaimer: By no means am I intelligent, a philosopher, or one who ponders about what is the nature of reality or truth. Frankly, it’s way too much above my pay grade to understand such vast concepts. However, I do wish to dive into the fundamentals of my approach to typological systems and why I take the position I do when it comes to Pan Jungian methodology (explained further below).
I recently had an interaction with a fan on one of my YouTube videos that sparked my thought process a bit. It should not come as a surprise by now, that the Pan-Jungian (the combination of multiple systems) approach annoys me to an extent that I cannot even begin to cover in this article. I’ve got to give them credit where it’s due. They are able to abstract, invent, theorize, postulate, and create new ideas much more than I am willing to do.
That being said, he (or she) brought a larger topic to the forefront that I found rather interesting. It was the idea of truth when it comes to typology.
What is “Absolute Truth?”
The original poster on my YouTube channel had posted a comment that my claim was that no “individual can reach 100% absolute truth.” Although, I admit that I should have stated this better, I still stand by my claim. The only real absolute truth is nature itself. The minute you start to label or classify something, you either rule-out or re-order things in existence according to your own perception or experience.
I’m not attempting to get too metaphysical here, but human beings are subjective. We have the amazing ability to classify, order, re-order, abstract, learn, and refine concepts (while beating them to death). However, when we place a classifying judgment on the absolute nature of reality, we eliminate something and we begin to form a dualist-perspective. A dualist perspective isn’t bad as it is essential to life itself, but it is only alluding to one half of the whole.
The Pan-Jungian Approach to Truth
So how does this tie back in to typology? Well…there’s this group of people that I tend to classify as “Pan-Jungians” who are typically unable to provide any real consensus amongst each other or anyone for that matter. They all combine use different Jungian-based models and systems – individually. They cross lines and models to start forming their own models.
You can easily recognize these individuals because they have no common ground in clarity of terms. Their conversations tend to go in circles until one “outsmarts” the other or until one just gets mad and gives up. And as much as I hate to say this, but most of these Pan-Jungians are quite intelligent – they just operate on the wrong premise.
Their premise is that all Jungian-based models are alluding to the same underlying functions of the brain (the eight “cognitive functions”). On the surface, that seems like a fair premise. We’re talking about cognitive perspectives, and there can be only eight, right? Maybe or maybe not. Who is to determine that two pieces of information belong in the same category? Ultimately, the decision to prioritize, categorize, or eliminate is up to the subject as both pieces exist as absolute truth and take place in nature (making it subjective). Therefore, it is no longer absolute.
The Pan-Jungian premise is also defunct because admittedly, Carl Jung did not capture all aspects of human personality, information metabolism, and ego-defense mechanisms in a mere 8 cognitive functions. He also had numerous aspects on the Shadow, Dreams, and other things that allude to the human condition. The introduction of these variables is strong evidence on why these systems are not necessarily pointing to the same underlying phenomena (or even the groupings of them).
Was Carl Jung Wrong?
Let’s take a look at the example posed by Carl Jung when defining extroverted sensing types:
…with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim.
Jung, C. G.. Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types (p. 364)
In Socionics, extroverted sensing (also called “Force”) is very much about dominating and competition. Victory and competition are at the forefront of “Force” quite substantially more than “enjoying sensations.” Introverted sensing (Senses) in Socionics would best describe the characteristic of enjoying physical sensations.
Case-in-point, is Carl Jung wrong about these “functions?” I’d say not. He observed these “functions” in nature and he attempted to categorize them based on his own experience. He most likely noticed that people who have one aspect, also have the other aspect, so it made sense to throw them in one category (extroverted sensing). His taxonomy isn’t necessarily void and useless. No more than classifying people by the color of their hair or eyes is wrong. It’s just a different way of ordering and structuring. This is why multiple models exist — to explain various human phenomena.
Creation of a New System
Going off our previous example of Extroverted Sensing, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė built Socionics because she felt the need to further distinguish these features (in this case, Extroverted Sensing with its Introverted Sensing counterpart). She believed that the pursuit of comfort was a very different motivation than the exertion of force on physical objects to attain something in the outside world. And sometimes, these things might compete with one another, so how can they share the same space in the ego? It was almost as if they were opposites – though one should technically have some sort of understanding in both, right?
Thereby a new taxonomy was born. She didn’t call it “Carl Jung’s Personality System.” She called it “Socionics” (or probably some Russian version of it).
This is where my problem with Pan-Jungians truly rests. Not that they are nerds and they can create systems. They lack the ability to re-classify/label their own system so I can meet them halfway. I would like to attempt to see if they’re on to something. I’m more than happy to share ideas with them, and maybe they’ve created something superior. However, when they call it “Socionics” and it doesn’t fit with any part of Socionics and it contradicts itself internally – it drives me mad. It breaks the entire model and your reputation! Go create a new model you Pan-Jungians!
The Limiting Abstraction Against The Pan-Jungian Army
Those who subscribe to the Pan-Jungian approach aren’t necessarily faulty in their thinking. Admittedly, a part of me envies their resilience in trying to discover “absolute truth.” However, it’s a rather fruitless endeavor as it is greatly limited by the subjective dualist thinking.
How to Abstract (Add-on) The Right Way
It might be too much to ask of the typology community to engage in abstraction for the purpose clear communication. I’d like to see more ideas proliferated, but I do have expectations with the communication of these ideas or else I simply will lose my patience to establish clarity on terms before discussion.
It is human and normal to draw from multiple sources to attempt to make sense of something and to further distinguish it. As I said before, my challenge is that when this new information breaks the old model completely and it loses all logical consistency. Then someone needs to step up and form a new model. For example, Dave and Shannon Powers felt that personality type needed a reinvention, and so they did it with Objective Personality. There is nothing wrong with that. I encourage reinvention as new research and evidence presents itself.
Here’s another example of an “add-on” to Socionics:
It doesn’t exactly contradict the current model. Ibrahim Tencer, the founder of this rendition of Model A thought that the model might be missing a key dichotomy (and a few other components). He has properly labeled and classified his addition as part of his model called Model A2.
It’s really simple. Just do it. Label it the right way. If we’re going to have a discussion, let’s have one with clear terms on what it is we’re exactly talking about.
Question for thought…?
How does one select two concrete instances of reality and determine one more superior than the other in terms of the absolute? In other words, without any bias? Is a rock better than the water that helped form it? Does the rain apologize to the flower for the way it falls?
