Psychological types – female logic and male bastard
The topic of psychological types was postponed but not forgotten. What we have already discussed before is not even the most interesting, because it is too abstract. And the greatest interest is always the way the theory falls on the practice. Today we will continue the theme and immediately paint with it some realities of our life.
But first, we will consider another piece of theory in order, first, to close the topic of the Jung typology, and second, to mix the colors needed for our illustration.
We stopped at the fact that Jung identified two main psychological types: introverts and extroverts, and in general, we have already considered them. And then I mentioned a couple of times about the mental functions that Jung had “invented” in order to explain and describe additional individual differences within the basic types – this is what will be discussed.
Jung’s logic in the search for additional evaluation criteria is quite understandable – introverts and extroverts are very different among themselves, which means there is still some significant mental difference between representatives of even one type. And since these differences are not so chaotic, Jung, in his manner, brought them into a very elegant system, with the help of which one can describe and clarify even such subtle matters as the difference between male and female logic.
It’s simple, though not obvious …
What is the meaning of this term? Mental functions are akin to the senses, but they act in the world of the inner, not the outer. A person has sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste – with the help of them we orient ourselves in the outside world. We trust some feelings more, some less, some are more developed, some are weaker. NLPers even have their own typology on this basis – audials, visuals, kinesthetics and someone else there, depending on which sense organ a person prefers.
And mental functions are the sense organs of our soul. And in the same way, they are developed and used by different people in different ways, which became the ground for the creation of the corresponding typology.
In total, Jung singled out four mental functions – thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Each person has them all, but it usually turns out that one of them is developed much stronger than the others – it is called primary or predominant. This is the function, the vector of the psychic apparatus, which becomes decisive for a person, the lever with which the person adapts to the surrounding reality and finds a place under the sun.
This forms the four Jung subtypes – thinking, feeling, sensing and intuitive. Thus, the type is determined by two main criteria: introversion / extraversion and the prevailing mental function – which gives us already 8 types.
And since, in addition to the basic mental function, a person may have a pronounced secondary, then these are already 16 personality types, but we will no longer benefit from such jungle.
We start the description of functions, but at first the reservation. For Jung, the description of each function and each individual subtype takes up several pages in a very florid presentation. Who wants to understand the topic more deeply, goes to the library and understands the intricacies on their own, and I will identify only the key points that are characteristic of each of the subtypes.
Rational and the most simple to understand mental function. People with predominant thinking are intelligent and quick-witted. In their views on life they rely on pure logic. For them, what is reasonable is right.
Developed thinking becomes their main support in the process of social adaptation. With the help of the mind, they seek social recognition and with his help win the hearts of the opposite sex.
One of the characteristic properties of a mental type is the flexibility of its logic. The “Thinker” can successfully and with pleasure prove that God exists, and then with no less pleasure to smash his own arguments to smithereens and immediately prove the opposite. The thinking type is interested in the process itself, and not in reaching the ultimate truth.
Such free juggling with logical constructions and the ability to look at the same subject from different angles make of “thinkers” excellent scientists, analysts and researchers. But it also creates their own specific psychological problems.
For a mental type, careful mental modeling of a situation is equivalent to the actual existence of this situation. “If I already understood everything, then why do something else?” – these are the rakes on which the “thinker” comes over and over again. Plunging into his thoughts, he deprives himself of real experience and lives all his life in his head, turning into a clever theoretician who knows everything about the world, but has not experienced anything on himself and can do nothing himself.
The thoughtful introvert, as it should be, is immersed in its own logic with its own logic. His thinking is abstract and subjective, in the sense that his own opinion comes to the fore.