DISC POST #6, JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY POST #6: HOW JUNG AND MARSTON DEFINE Te AND Ti
I have recently took a dive into Socionics, and discovered that a lot of its definitions of the functions are just as out of line with what Jung and Marston said as some theories of MBTI are.
I saw a definition of Ti PoLR in Socionics that basically said People with Ti PoLR were bad with global thinking, big picture thinking and empirical thinking, and that Ti PoLR wants details and evidence to back everything up . My first thought was, "Man, Socionics has this totally backwards." Sadly, most Socionics and MBTI typing methods do
Here's what Jung had to say about Te and Ti, directly from Psychological Types Chapter 10:
Fragments extracted from Jung's *Psychological Types* about the **Extraverted Thinking** Type
* Based on objective data, external facts, or generally accepted ideas *...* a man whose constant endeavor is to make all his activities dependent on intellectual conclusions *(in contrast with feelings/emotions)*, always oriented by external facts or generally accepted ideas ... gives one the impression of a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness.
* “Oughts” and “musts” bulk large in his programe. Doubtless they are exceptional people who are able to sacrifice their entire life to a particular formula ... elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment ... Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively ... Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong ... Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the unpleasant consequences of the extraverted formula, since they are the first to receive its relentless benefits.
* The first function to be affected by the conscious inhibition is feeling, since it is the most opposed to the rigid intellectual formula and is therefore repressed the most intensely ... all those activities that are dependent on feeling will become repressed in such a type —for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, cultivation of friends, etc ... If the attitude is extreme, all personal considerations are lost sight of, even those affecting the subject’s own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, the most vital interests of his family —health, finances, morals— are violated for the sake of the ideal ... Magnanimous as he may be in sacrificing himself to his intellectual goal, his feelings are petty, mistrustful, crotchety, and conservative.
* The conscious altruism of this type, which is often quite extraordinary, may be thwarted by a secret self-seeking which gives a selfish twist to actions that in themselves are disinterested ... Their desire to save others leads them to employ means which are calculated to bring about the very thing they wished to avoid. Their sanction is: the end justifies the means ... Personal sympathy with others must in any case suffer unless they too happen to espouse the same ideal. Often the closest members of his family, his own children, know such a father only as a cruel tyrant.
* Because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are extremely personal and oversensitive, giving rise to secret prejudices —a readiness, for instance, to misconstrue any opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative assumptions about other people in order to invalidate their arguments in advance —in defense, naturally, of his own touchiness ... His unconscious sensitivity makes him sharp in tone, acrimonious, aggressive. His feelings have a sultry and resentful character— always a mark of the inferior function.
* ... the practical thinking of the business man ... The thinking of the extraverted type is positive, i.e., productive... One could call this kind of judgment predicative.
* In my experience this type is found chiefly among men, since, in general, thinking tends more often to be a dominant function in men than in women
Fragments extracted from Jung's *Psychological Types* about the **Introverted Thinking** Type
* It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve ... Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind’s eye ... This kind of thinking easily gets lost in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery ... The introverted thinking type is characterized by the primacy of the kind of thinking I have just described. Like his extraverted counterpart, he is strongly influenced by ideas, though his ideas have their origin not in objective data but in his subjective foundation. He will follow his ideas like the extravert, but in the reverse direction: inwards and not outwards. Intensity is his aim, not extensity.
* Although he will shrink from no danger in building up his world of ideas, and never shrinks from thinking a thought because it might prove to be dangerous, subversive, heretical, or wounding to other people’s feelings, he is none the less beset by the greatest anxiety if ever he has to make it an objective reality. That goes against the grain. And when he does put his ideas into the world, he never introduces them like a mother solicitous for her children, but simply dumps them there and gets extremely annoyed if they fail to thrive on their own account. His amazing unpracticalness and horror of publicity in any form have a hand in this. If in his eyes his product appears correct and true, then it must be so in practice, and others have got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone’s appreciation of it, especially anyone of influence. And if ever he brings himself to do so, he generally sets about it so clumsily that it has just the opposite of the effect intended. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence ... Thus this type tends to vanish behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which gets all the thicker the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, an air of urbanity which contrasts glaringly with his real nature.
* Because he thinks out his problems to the limit, he complicates them and constantly gets entangled in his own scruples and misgivings. However clear to him the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where or how they link up with the world of reality. Only with the greatest difficulty will he bring himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is cluttered with all sorts of adjuncts, accessories, qualifications, retractions, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which all come from his scrupulosity. His work goes slowly and with difficulty ... As a teacher he has little influence, since the mentality of his students is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, no interest for him unless it happens to provide him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because all the time he is teaching his thought is occupied with the material itself and not with its presentation ... He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way if only he can be left in peace to pursue his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practice, for to him the relation to people and things is secondary and the objective evaluation of his product is something he remains unconscious of.
* In his personal relations he is taciturn or else throws himself on people who cannot understand him, and for him this is one more proof of the abysmal stupidity of man. If for once he is understood, he easily succumbs to credulous overestimation of his prowess. Ambitious women have only to know how to take advantage of his cluelessness in practical matters to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Often he is gauche in his behavior, painfully anxious to escape notice, or else remarkably unconcerned and childishly naïve ... Casual acquaintances think him inconsiderate and domineering. But the better one knows him, the more favorable one’s judgment becomes, and his closest friends value his intimacy very highly. To outsiders he seems prickly, unapproachable, and arrogant, and sometimes soured as a result of his antisocial prejudices.
* With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Outside influences are shut off; as a person, too, he becomes more unsympathetic to his wider circle of acquaintances, and therefore more dependent on his intimates. His tone becomes personal and surly, and though his ideas may gain in profundity they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. To compensate for this, he falls back on emotionality and touchiness. The outside influences he has brusquely fended off attack him from within, from the unconscious, and in his efforts to defend himself he attacks things that to outsiders seem utterly unimportant. Because of the subjectifization of consciousness resulting from his lack of relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of extreme importance. He begins to confuse his subjective truth with his own personality. Although he will not try to press his convictions on anyone personally, he will burst out with vicious, personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, poisoned by the sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until finally they begin to cripple him. He thinks his withdrawal into ever-increasing solitude will protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule it only plunges him deeper into the conflict that is destroying him from within ... The various protective devices and psychological minefields which such people surround themselves with are known to everyone, and I can spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defense against “magical” influences—and among them is a vague fear of the feminine sex.
Unfortunately, Marston's Emotions of Normal People is out of print, so I can't quote directly from it, but I can tell you this much from the DISC theory that resulted:
A High D (someone with conscious Te) will exhibit the following characteristics in large quantities:
Likes having authority, takes charge, determined, enterprising, competitive, problem solver, productive, bold, decision maker, persistent
A High C (someone with conscious Ti) will exhibit the following characteristics in large quantities:
Likes instructions, accurate, consistent, predictable, practical, factual, conscientious, perfectionistic, detail oriented, analytical
Once you see the obvious parallels between Jung and DISC, it becomes obvious 1. that they were talking about the same thing, if that wasn't obvious already, and 2. both methods define Te as empirical/big picture/global type thinking and Ti as analytical, detailed and evidence based thinking 🙄
Boy do Socionics and many modern day MBTI theororists have those 2 functions on backwards!🙄
Sorry, that's the end of my rant. Back to our regular scheduled program 😂🤣😆 I just had to throw that in there
