Through a Jungian Lens

See new site URL – http://rglongpre.ca/jungianlens/

Taking Up The Challenge

with 8 comments

These men are busy trying to move these incredibly long PVC pipes which are being placed underground, under the sidewalks and streets in our district.  It is curious watching the men use muscle power to do the work when we are so used to everything being done using machines back in Canada.  When more than one set of hands set to a task, the task becomes lighter and easier.  The same can be said of non-physical tasks.

Each of us has four functions upon which we can, and do, draw upon to help us navigate.  In the past few posts I have tried to give an idea of what these functions are like and how they are ordered in terms of the psyche’s preferences.  What to say here, next, became an issue as it has been such a long time since I had “measured” my preferences.  I read a number of essays that “jarred” my thoughts and caused me to delve a little deeper into the topic for myself, not for the blog post.  I came across this document, “The Five Levels of the Four Jungian Functions,” by John Fudjack and Patricia Dinkelaker (1995) which sent me scrambling.  In the article, I couldn’t find a model which had Intuition as the primary function, Feeling as the auxiliary function and sensing as the inferior function.  My first response was to dismiss the article as not being very valid.  But then, I became curious as to perhaps a mistaken assumption on my part.  I wondered whether or not I had been as honest as I should have been when “testing” in the past.

So, I set out to take another look at what order “preferences” would reveal by going to HumanMetrics, an on-line site where one can get a quick peek at their “type.”  The test is basically the MBTI and includes a Judging/Perception component as part of the Type Indicator   Was I surprised with the result (which I have below):

Your Type is
INTP

Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
89% 50% 12% 22%

My “belief” about being an Intuitive/Feeler was challenged with this summary.  Everything else was as I had expected, but not the emergence of “thinking” as my auxiliary function.  I then did the test as carefully and as honestly as I could with no change.  Why the different result?  I asked my wife how she “saw” me.  Without any hesitation, she said I have always been a thinker.  Perhaps I “thought” that my feeling function was stronger than my thinking function.    And so I sat with this “revelation” taking time to let it sit and see where it settled.  Today, I finally have to admit that my “idealism” of the past coloured my reality – I wanted to be more of a feeling person and so chose responses to match that desire.  So here I am, exposed not only to you, the reader, but also to my “self.”

Advertisements

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I went to Humanmetrics and did the test, coming up with an INFP result. I was a little frustrated with some of the questions… ‘it depends on the situation’ was my answer for at least half a dozen. If I had answered in my role as ‘teacher’ some of those answers would be different and extroversion would be a more likely outcome. If I had gone back to my previous role in Government, Judging would have appeared in my results.

    Sitting in my apartment, alone … I can answer from my desire for introversion and intuition.

    Do we change so radically, given the situation? Are these learned responses that we bring into play because our ‘normal’ processes have been pushed aside and devalued by the jobs we do, the people we mix with?

    Is there a time when we can always be our primary functions?

    Lotus Light

    September 11, 2010 at 10:30 am

    • Lotus, you asked:

      “Do we change so radically, given the situation? Are these learned responses that we bring into play because our ‘normal’ processes have been pushed aside and devalued by the jobs we do, the people we mix with? Is there a time when we can always be our primary functions?”

      I think that allowing different functions to work for us in different situations is a sign of a more conscious/aware person. Those who stay the same regardless, those who don’t adapt, don’t get confused about their way of being in the world, they are quick to judge that the rest of the world is crazy.

      One’s typology is stable, which is more natural if one excludes “situational scenarios.” I don’t know if we can ever slip back into a state of always being in our natural personality – that said, I don’t think that deep down we ever stop being our natural personality.

      Robert G. Longpré

      September 11, 2010 at 10:43 am

    • We all learn adaptive techniques, which can affect the way we interact with others.

      The way I try to answer any personality questionnaire is to answer as I feel I would if not restrained. ie. in the most generalised situation, not based on how I might interact in a specific setting with specific individuals.

      Treated this way, MBTI and other such questionnaires are not merely diagnostic/descriptive, but can actually encourage reflection and self-insight. The difficulty of answering some of the questions is itself revealing of some internal conflict around the area raised by those particular questions.

      beyondanomie

      September 11, 2010 at 7:58 pm

      • Thank you. 🙂

        Robert G. Longpré

        September 12, 2010 at 6:47 am

  2. Do you know if these profiles change in time, either on their own or with conscious effort ?

    Urspo

    September 12, 2010 at 10:54 am

    • If I have understood correctly, change happens with time. For example if one especially uses one function, the easiest way to be, then it is as if the function wears out and one is forced to shift to a different function thus making that second function more “conscious” which then shifts the profile. (an example of this is the classic burn-out syndrome where the raging extrovert retires into isolation) Now the MBTI is less static than one can imagine. Age and other factors impact on this. But, please don’t take my word for any of these thoughts as though gospel Jungian dogma. I’m not a very dogmatic type of guy.

      Robert G. Longpré

      September 12, 2010 at 4:55 pm

  3. My Type was I N F J
    44 12 12 1

    Different than I thought.

    365daysinthisbeautifullife

    September 13, 2010 at 1:19 am

    • Somehow I wonder what you thought it would be. . . Something tells me that a different attempt would end with a different result, if only in degrees.

      Robert G. Longpré

      September 15, 2010 at 10:20 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: