Forums » Psychology

List of newest posts

    • July 14, 2014 2:36:28 PM PDT
    • Just read this now, and I'm a SAC. Sounds vaguley rude! Surprised I'm more social than artistic. Conventional makes me sound dull, but it was my love of numbers coming out. Social won by a long shot, and scored nothing for investigative. I'm such a rubbish INTP :P

    • April 25, 2014 3:08:24 PM PDT
    • Yea, I definitely agree it'd be prevalent if not a trait of intuition; I could also see the creative and imaginal aspects as part of the introverted thinking function. I find your description of wanting to understand the "unconventional and beautiful" aspects of the world and conveying this through "metaphors and analogies" as something that resonates with me and what I like to do; I think this little dynamic is also in line with Carl Jung's description of introverted thinking function in his book Psychological Types - maybe not the essence of the whole function but perhaps more a modality.

    • April 25, 2014 2:59:03 PM PDT
    • I greatly value imagination and creativity, two characteristics of the Artistic type, both in myself and in others. I would think that many/most INFPs also value the same qualities. I like to find unconventional and beautiful ways of understanding the world - sometimes by thinking with metaphors and analogies - and that seems to be line with the Artistic temperament.

      As a generalization, I feel that some traits associated with the Artistic type - like creativity, intuition, openness, and disorderliness - could perhaps be mapped to the values and characteristics of NPs in MBTI.

    • April 25, 2014 3:17:08 AM PDT
    • Interesting. Why did you expect Artistic in your 3 letter code? I'm glad you found the info and links helpful and thought provoking.

      I'm tempted to say, though this may be for another "version" of the test. That if the point difference for two categories is very little (like say under 6) then that means there's actually very little difference or something. Not sure.

    • April 24, 2014 5:37:24 PM PDT
    • I am AIS and INxP. It was different from what I had expected - IAR - but not too surprising. The link to see related careers for your three-letter code is interesting and helpful.

    • April 20, 2014 9:15:26 PM PDT
    • Thanks for sharing. I didn't know 0 was possible :P Or maybe that means you just didn't answer any questions (i.e. omitted) the conventional and realistic ones?

      So far only 3 INFPs have replied to the thread and, in terms of your scores, you have A(rtistic) in common. Interesting.

    • April 20, 2014 5:05:43 PM PDT
    • I got ASI and scored zero for both conventional and realistic haha. Unsurprising.

    • April 16, 2014 7:27:34 PM PDT
    • Oh, I am not extroverted haha, but I do have a tendency toward social services, as many INFPs do, which is why I assume many INFPs would score the same. My social and artistic scores look almost identical, which is true to life, I'm torn between which are more important to me. It's a shame more people haven't responded to compare results.

    • April 11, 2014 10:52:09 AM PDT
    • Cool, cool. Thanks for sharing everyone. :)

      I find it interesting that Chanisihaya highest score was Investigative. I'm not sure it'd jump to the conclusion that Investigative (Holland Code) is the same thing as Thinking or Introversion (in MBTI) but I do see some similar qualities among their descriptions.

      I could see turtles's top score Social being related to the dominant function Feeling but at the same time could see a case made for Extraversion.

      Good stuff. I find it interesting both of your second highest score was Artistic.

      FYI, there's a similar concept of "opposites" in the Holland Code. It's illustrated by a hexagon, I'll just try and sketch it below (though mine will look like a rectangle but you should still get the idea).

      Realistic -------- Investigative
      l l
      l l
      Conventional Artistic
      l l
      l l
      Enterprising ----- Social

      ^^^^^ Basically if there's a line connecting the two types then they have similar interests and the types that are furthest a part of the most different interests. E.g. Realistic types have similar interests with Conventional and Investigative. Investigative types have similar interests with Realistic and Artistic. Artistic types have similar interests with Investigative and Social. Just go around the the rectangle and the two types (on both sides) are the ones with similar interests. The types that are furthest a part have the most different interests. E.g. Realistic and Social; Investigative and Enterprising; Conventional and Artistic. I hope I made sense.

      It might also be worth mentioning the score you got for each category, I'll edit my post to include my. Because in mine my top two scores (Investigative and then Enterprising) are very close to each other.

      And yea, @turtles Holland Codes aren't as popular as MBTI but there is a whole career thing centered around it. You can google your three letter code and it will give you a list of top jobs and usually the jobs have some index number from the U.S. State Department - so you know they're serious. Lmao.

      Edit: The second lines in my rectangle didn't format how I wanted them to. Investigative, Artistic, and Social should all be connected. Sorry for the hassle, here are some pics from google:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=holland+code+hexagon&rlz=1CAHPZZ_enUS580US580&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6yxIU8sU57KxBN-UgIgM&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=657

    • April 11, 2014 10:01:51 AM PDT
    • I'm surprised I hadn't heard of this. I tested as SAI. Fairly predictable result for INFP I think.

    • April 10, 2014 7:31:42 PM PDT
    • Apparently I am an IAR.

    • April 6, 2014 12:17:32 PM PDT
    • Anyone ever hear of a Holland Code? It's an interest inventory (is exactly what it sounds like) and gauges the things important to you, dividing them up into six categories. Your top three letters (each letter is a category) is your type. This psychometric tool is often used for career guidance.

      There six categories are:
      R - Realistic (Doers)
      I - Investigative (Thinkers)
      A - Artistic (Creators)
      S - Social (Helpers)
      E - Enterprising (Persuaders)
      C - Conventional (Organizers)

      Here's a quick summary of each category I lifted from a pdf file that had some relevant information:

      Realistic (R) types like realistic occupations such as mechanical engineer, landscape gardener, sound technician, cook, exterminator, plumber, locksmith, or safety inspector. They usually have mechanical and athletic abilities, and they like to work outdoors and with tools and machines. They typically like to work with things rather than people. The R type is described as conforming, frank, genuine, hardheaded, honest, humble, materialistic, modest, natural, normal, persistent, practical, shy, and thrifty.

      Investigative (I) types like investigative occupations such as biologist, surgeon, veterinarian, airplane pilot, translator, pharmacist, or actuary. They usually have mathematical and scientific ability and like to work alone. They typically like to explore and understand things or events rather than to persuade others or sell things. The I type is described as analytical, cautious, complex, critical, curious, independent, intellectual, introverted, methodical, modest, pessimistic, precise, rational, and reserved.

      Artistic (A) types like artistic occupations such as writer, graphic designer, fashion designer, public relations representative, editor, or architect. They usually have artistic skills, enjoy creating original work, and have good imaginations. The A type is described as creative, disorderly, emotional, expressive, idealistic, imaginative, impractical, impulsive, independent, introspective, intuitive, nonconforming, open, and original.

      Social (S) types like social occupations such as teacher, counselor, nanny, librarian, speech therapist, or home health aide. They usually like to be around other people, are interested in how people get along, and like to help other people with their problems. They typically like to help, teach, and counsel people rather than engage in mechanical or technical activities. The S type is described as convincing, cooperative, friendly, generous, helpful, idealistic, kind, patient, responsible, social, sympathetic, tactful, understanding, and warm.

      Enterprising (E) types like enterprising occupations such as salesperson, contractor, entrepreneur, human resources specialist, lawyer, newscaster, or lobbyist. They usually have leadership and speaking abilities, are interested in money and politics, and like to influence people. They typically like to persuade or direct others rather than work on scientific or complicated topics. The E type is described as acquisitive, adventurous, agreeable, ambitious, attention-getting, domineering, energetic, extroverted, impulsive, optimistic, pleasure-seeking, popular, self-confident, and sociable.

      Conventional (C) types like conventional occupations such as accountant, cashier, fire inspector, data manager, or proofreader. They usually have clerical and math abilities, and they like to work indoors and organize things. They typically like to follow orderly routines and meet clear standards, avoiding work that does not have clear directions. The C type is described as conforming, conscientious, careful, efficient, inhibited, obedient, orderly, persistent, practical, thrifty, and unimaginative

      Here's some more information for you on Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Codes

      Your can find "best suited careers" for your type (top 3 letters) via google.


      You can take a free version of the test here:
      http://personality-testing.info/tests/RIASEC.php


      I scored EIS = Enterprising, Investigative, Social
      Enterprising: 39
      Investigative: 37
      Social: 33
      Realistic: 30
      Conventional: 19
      Artistic: 18


      Hopefully seeing the categories before hand won't bias your test results too much. Take the test (48 questions on the publicly available test) and see what you get and then share it on here so we can vicariously learn something too. I think it should be interesting to see one's Holland Code and compare it to their MBTI type.

    • May 8, 2014 8:28:46 AM PDT
    • Also FYI, I don't expect many people to reply to this or take the test because of how long it is; but, if you do decide to take it and consider sharing - you could always just share your top strengths. I think seeing how other people differ presumably on what they're better at should still be pretty interesting.

    • May 8, 2014 2:51:39 AM PDT
    • Time for more personality test related stuff... Allusion to my earlier topic in the Psychology subforum on the personality test where you get your Holland Code. If you haven't checked it out - do so and share you results.

      I know some of you enjoy personality tests and what not and learning about themselves and others so here's a good one for you guys. The Holland Code test was in interest inventory trying to gauge and categorize your interests; this test on the other hand tries to order a set of "character strengths" according to "strongest and weakest". This test is developed out of the Psychological school/subfield of Positive Psychology. P.P. is one of the more recent branches of Psychology (along with Evolutionary Psychology (Psychobiology)), the main idea is that traditional psychology has a focus on or rather model of treating disease. You have some mental illness, something abnormal and/or unhealthy going on and people try to help ameliorate whatever the "problem" is. P.P. on the other hand has a focus on the - you guessed it - positive side of things; the idea being one studies people who are healthy and successful and "flourishing" (one of their, positive psychologists, favorite word) and applies that to/uses psychology and how it can help us everyday folk.

      So yea, that's about that. Here's a video by one of the founders (Martin Seligman) talking about and making a case for P.P.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology


      While writing this post I found some website with a list of the character strengths, I didn't have it on me but wanted something more than names of each strength for this post. The list below is of the 24 character strengths organized apparently into 6 categories. Website:
      http://www.viacharacter.org/www/Character-Strengths/VIA-Classification

      1. Wisdom and Knowledge: Cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge
      --- Creativity [originality, ingenuity]: Thinking of novel and productive ways to conceptualize and do things; includes artistic achievement but is not limited to it
      --- Curiosity [interest, novelty-seeking, openness to experience]: Taking an interest in ongoing experience for its own sake; finding subjects and topics fascinating; exploring and discovering
      --- Judgment [critical thinking]: Thinking things through and examining them from all sides; not jumping to conclusions; being able to change one's mind in light of evidence; weighing all evidence fairly
      --- Love of Learning: Mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge, whether on one's own or formally; obviously related to the strength of curiosity but goes beyond it to describe the tendency to add systematically to what one knows
      --- Perspective [wisdom]: Being able to provide wise counsel to others; having ways of looking at the world that make sense to oneself and to other people

      2. Courage: Emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal
      --- Bravery [valor]: Not shrinking from threat, challenge, difficulty, or pain; speaking up for what is right even if there is opposition; acting on convictions even if unpopular; includes physical bravery but is not limited to it
      --- Perseverance [persistence, industriousness]: Finishing what one starts; persisting in a course of action in spite of obstacles; “getting it out the door”; taking pleasure in completing tasks
      --- Honesty [authenticity, integrity]: Speaking the truth but more broadly presenting oneself in a genuine way and acting in a sincere way; being without pretense; taking responsibility for one's feelings and actions
      --- Zest [vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy]: Approaching life with excitement and energy; not doing things halfway or halfheartedly; living life as an adventure; feeling alive and activated

      3. Humanity: Interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others
      --- Love: Valuing close relations with others, in particular those in which sharing and caring are reciprocated; being close to people
      --- Kindness [generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruistic love, "niceness"]: Doing favors and good deeds for others; helping them; taking care of them
      --- Social Intelligence [emotional intelligence, personal intelligence]: Being aware of the motives and feelings of other people and oneself; knowing what to do to fit into different social situations; knowing what makes other people tick

      4. Justice: Civic strengths that underlie healthy community life
      --- Teamwork [citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty]: Working well as a member of a group or team; being loyal to the group; doing one's share
      --- Fairness: Treating all people the same according to notions of fairness and justice; not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others; giving everyone a fair chance.
      --- Leadership: Encouraging a group of which one is a member to get things done, and at the same time maintaining good relations within the group; organizing group activities and seeing that they happen.

      5. Temperance: Strengths that protect against excess
      --- Forgiveness: Forgiving those who have done wrong; accepting the shortcomings of others; giving people a second chance; not being vengeful
      --- Humility: Letting one's accomplishments speak for themselves; not regarding oneself as more special than one is
      --- Prudence: Being careful about one's choices; not taking undue risks; not saying or doing things that might later be regretted
      --- Self-Regulation [self-control]: Regulating what one feels and does; being disciplined; controlling one's appetites and emotions

      6. Transcendence: Strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide meaning
      --- Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence [awe,wonder, elevation]: Noticing and appreciating beauty, excellence, and/or skilled performance in various domains of life, from nature to art to mathematics to science to everyday experience
      --- Gratitude: Being aware of and thankful for the good things that happen; taking time to express thanks
      --- Hope [optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation]: Expecting the best in the future and working to achieve it; believing that a good future is something that can be brought about
      --- Humor [playfulness]: Liking to laugh and tease; bringing smiles to other people; seeing the light side; making (not necessarily telling) jokes
      --- Spirituality [faith, purpose]: Having coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe; knowing where one fits within the larger scheme; having beliefs about the meaning of life that shape conduct and provide comfort


      You can take the test ("VIA Survey of Character Strengths") on this website by signing up for a free account (they track all your scores for convenience sake as well as for academic research purposes I think).
      http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/default.aspx

      Just a heads up the online test is like 240 questions long or something so it'll take you more than a minute to do the test.

      I took the test twice, over a year a part and got similar scores; furthermore I felt that my results were rather accurate in terms of my values, interests, and places where I may excel and fall short - hence I've decided to share the test with you all.

      My most recent results (March 2014):
      top 5:
      #1 - love of learning
      #2 - judgement, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
      #3 - perspective (wisdom)
      #4 - appreciation of beauty and excellence
      #5 - curiosity and interest in the world
      bottom 5:
      #20 - spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith
      #21 - forgiveness and mercy
      #22 - citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty
      #23 - kindness and generosity
      #24 - capacity to love and be loved

      I suppose my results are rather personal or something but ehhh, nothing I didn't have an idea about before; besides the results don't speak to intensity/level of expression between the character strengths. I also mention my results because I can't help but see some relationship between my dominant function/inferior fcn (introverted thinking/extraverted feeling) and my results.

      Soo, have fun with it. Hope others decide to take the time to read and share. If you're viewing this thread from a mobile phone - I feel bad for you! Lol.

    • March 25, 2014 9:46:24 AM PDT
    • True and fair enough, the article also doesn't mention that to some Cupid was one of the supreme deities who created the universe.

    • March 25, 2014 5:14:01 AM PDT
    • The link doesn't go into detail about how Eros (Cupid) was a mischievous little cretin that made all manner of people, animals, and mythical creatures fall in love with mismatched combinations. He also happens to have a serious jealousy streak and a bad angry demonic metamorphosis if you pushed him far enough. If you crossed him and happen to be staring at a cow, there's a good chance he's going to make you fall in love with that cow.

    • March 13, 2014 9:25:02 PM PDT
    • It is nice to be certain.

      Those four are greek words.

    • March 13, 2014 8:52:57 PM PDT
    • It must be nice to be so certain.

      It's my understanding the Ancient Greeks also had a differentiation of "love".

      There was Erotes (a group of winged gods):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotes_(mythology)

      Among them were:
      Eros - love
      Anteros - requited love
      Himeros - impulsive love
      Pothos - love (for one who is absent)


      Also I saw this video the other day on Youtube; apparently it goes into the triangular theory of love.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Niq_v34EI

    • March 13, 2014 8:26:34 PM PDT
    • There are only four kinds of love:

      Agape: Love thy neighbor
      Philea: Brotherly love
      Storge: Family love
      Eros: Romantic love

    • March 23, 2014 3:41:36 AM PDT
    • This dichotomy described by Harding reminds me of Nietzsche's thoughts on Apollonian and Dionysian natures.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Tragedy

    • March 23, 2014 3:35:28 AM PDT
    • Reserved encase I decide to add the passages following the original quote.

    • March 23, 2014 3:34:36 AM PDT
    • This thread could just as easily go into Philosophy sub-forum but I put it in Psychology because my quote is from a psychology book.

      The terms logos and eros are terms often used in Analytical Psychology as well as in other circles; but, usually one finds these terms used generally or as umbrella terms with no specific definition.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_(concept)

      I found a great comprehensive and lengthy quote on the terms I thought was worth sharing:

      "Now these two forces represent a fundamental opposition. In the examples discussed in the preceding chapter, the first was equated to the reasonable factor, which enables a man [human being] to recognize and accept an impartial standard. The second was equated to the unreasonable and dynamic factor, which compels a man to deny any possibility that his own experience or point of view might be fallacious and make him declare: 'It is that way, and that is the right way it is!' He cannot concede even that modicum of relativity which would allow him to say, 'That is the way I see it," recognizing that someone that may see it differently.

      These two forces operate in every one of us, and if we are to travel the road leading towards consciousness and individuation, we must each sooner or later face the problem created by their fundamental opposition. For one represents the rational attitude to life, the form-creating relation, which on the human level is the product of ego consciousness, of scientific thought and of logic, while on the cosmic or universal level it is expressed as the law of God or the logos. The other represents dynamic energy, formless and goalless, quite devoid of logic, being, as we say, irrational - following only the 'ratio' of nature, as water does, or wind or fire. On the human level it is emotion, especially emotionality, panic, rage, passion. In its unconditioned, daemonic, or divine aspect it is that principle, called eros* by the Greeks, which 'binds together and delivers' - the principle of dynamic relatedness. Or it could be called the blind urge of instinct. Kundalini, the serpent power that, according to the teachings of Tantric Buddhism, lies coiled up at the root of all psychic life, dormant in unawakened instinct.

      When an individual becomes aware of forces so fundamentally opposed operating in his own life, motivating him in his attitudes and actions, the ensuing conflict may be so severe as to paralyze his every effort.. When he says yes to the rational tendency and represses the other, it may look like that right decision; everything appears quite in order, and it seems as if he had reached a satisfactory solution of the problem. But the the rest goes out of living, and he begins to feel depressed or suffocated. If he takes the opposite course and says yes to the dynamic urge, courting the emotions and yielding himself to what D.H. Lawrence calls the 'flow,' his life may come alive; but then he finds himself seized by a panic fear of being carried away into all kinds of excesses, or into strange regions of inner experience where he can no longer make an adequate contact with his fellow men, where perhaps he will not be able to make himself understood at all.

      The extent of the distress and pain caused by a conflict of this character can hardly be realized by anyone who has not experienced such a state. The validity of everything the individual does seems to be destroyed. He may attempt to resolve the dilemma by following the reasonable and logical way, building his house foursquare, taking into account all sides of any situation, so far as he can see them, and ruling out every other consideration. This course of action may seem to work for a while, a few days perhaps or even a few weeks; then it goes stale or is threatened by some extraneous influence - his wife's irrationality, for instance, or he may be seized by a quite unreasonable emotional outburst that yet obviously holds value, possible something of the value of the completeness of himself. He may feel more or at one with himself while acting in this irrational fashion than he did when measuring his actions with care, and he says to himself: 'When I go with this impulse, I feel whole.' But shortly a doubt arises as to where this irrational impulse may lead. 'Is it not just arrant selfishness,' he asks himself, 'to follow my own desires in this way?' He begins to wonder what all the self-controlled, disciplined leaders he has always admired would say to such 'self-indulgence.' And so he swings back to the constraints of accepted law and order, burdened still further by a sense of guilt at his defection.

      The conflict has been described here as if it were conscious, but it is not necessarily so. More usually, the battle goes on in a subterranean place and almost completely unrecognized, the sufferer being aware only of the stultifying effects it has on his life and not at all of the conflict itself as a psychological or moral problem. Under such circumstances it will probably break through into the conscious life under the guise of physical symptoms - actual paralysis sometimes, or less serious illness, such as severe headaches having a paralyzing effect. Sometimes the difficulty may show itself completely unknown to the individual, who suffers from unexplained depressions or from inertia and fatigue, which prevent him from accomplishing anything: every attempt at activity requires a herculean effort that has a nightmarish quality, as in that not uncommon dream in which one is unable to move because one's feet are too heavy to be raised or so light that they can get no grip on the ground. Indeed, a conflict of this sort can produce an almost complete paralysis of life.

      Where the situation is more conscious than in either of this foregoing instances, the sufferer is aware that his difficulty is due to an inner conflict, although he is unable to make clear to himself the precise nature of the values that are opposed in him, or so to disentangle them that he can make a valid choice. Naturally there are many different ways in which the values of life can divide into irreconcilable opposites. The opposition between the rational attitude and the dynamic one is a very common expression of the impasse. In political terms it takes the form of the right versus the left, or the conservative versus the revolutionary. In religion it becomes the schism of the Catholic as against the Protestant point of view, or the question of formalism as against mysticism - as Paul puts it, of works or grace - while in everyday life it sets the plodding scientific attitude in contrast to creative flight. There are of course innumerable other lines of cleavage - extraversion versus introversion, the individual versus the collective aim, material versus spiritual values - any one of which may posit the insoluble dilemma and bring life to a standstill.

      When this happens, the problem of what to do about these contradictory, seemingly irreconcilable factors has to be faced, for it is undeniable that both are indwellers of the kingdom of the psyche. They are actually more than indwellers: they are organic components of it, making up perhaps the majority element and wielding greater power than the reasonable and conscious minority. If the psyche is not to be a house divided against itself, which obviously could not stand, some means of reconciling the opposites must be sought.

      The conflict between the conscious and the unconscious elements has been taken as illustration because it is obvious and well recognized by anyone with even a modicum of psychological insight; it is not, however, the sole or even the most difficult aspect of the problem. For the daemonic energy manifested in the motion aroused by the point at issue, and represented or personified by one of the archetypes, is not single but dual. In the archetypes the urges of the unconscious have not as yet been differentiated, for differentiation is a function of consciousness. therefore they appear in ambiguous or dual form, in fact as pairs of opposites - as good-bad, favorable-harmful, spiritual-demonic, and so on through the whole range of possible dichotomies. The fundamental opposition may similarly be represented by other irreconcilable pairs such as male-female, yang-yin, sun-moon, animate-inanimate. This inner duality of the nonpersonal energy awakened by the life situation is not a matter of merely of philosophical or academic interest. To the individual torn by conflict it is of the deepest concern, even a life-and-death issue; for until he can find some way of reconciling the opposition within himself, his life will remain suspended and his soul will be a battleground.

      In attempting to resolve a fundamental psychological conflict, a thorough survey of the problem at the conscious level must first be undertaken. If this approach does not yield a satisfactory solution, it will be necessary to scrutinize the unconscious data [dreams, fantasies, etc.] for further evidence as to the cause of the difficulty and also for the guidance as to its solution. When this course is followed, it is usually found that factors reaching beyond the the personal life of the individual are involved. For example, the opposition inherent in the conflict may be bound up with or represented by the two parents, who - apart from their individual characters and temperaments, which may or may not be in accord - have of necessity a certain incompatibility, from the child's point of view, owing to the fact that they are of opposite sex. Yet if the child is to become an individual in his own right, he must find some way of amalgamating the essential qualities of both parents existing within him; for each is part of the very stuff of his being. This is a problem with which every child has to deal, and the task may prove a difficult one even when the parents have somewhat similar tastes and temperaments. When, however as not infrequently happens, the parents married not because of their likeness but because of their dissimilarity, being attracted to each other by their very difference, the child's problem will be severe, especially if neither parent has worked to assimilate psychologically the values represented by the partner.

      In such a situation the child will probably identify himself with one parent; he will love, admire, emulate everything that this parent does and is, and will turn away from the other. Jung states the case most trenchantly when, writing of the child negatively related to the mother, he says: 'The leitmotif of this type is: Anything whatever, so long as it is not like Mother!'** Or, if the child's positive feeling goes to the mother, the corresponding negative feelings of resentment and resistance, even of hate, may devolve upon the father. A markedly negative attitude to the the parents is particularly apt to develop when there is lack of harmony between them, and inevitably produces serious psychological results. In such families the husband and wife may each ascribe to the other all the difficulties of the marriage and even of itself, and the projection to the partner may not stop with this. The husband represents to the wife her animus [a structural archetype of the psyche], her unknown, other side, and the wife similarly carries the projection of the husband's anima [a structural archetype of the psyche]. Thus, if either person lacks insight regarding his own character and the less obvious contents of his psyche, he may all too readily project these to the partner: consequently he will consider the other to blame for temperamental problems and conflicts stemming in reality from his own unwholeness.

      When it is the wife who makes this massive projection, she will feel that all the misfortune of her lot derives from her husband and his family, while all its desirable factors are to be credited to her own people. Her greatest reproach to her child will be: 'You are just like your father.' Now it goes without saying that in some respects the child probably is like his father, from whom half of his heritage comes - a fact for which the child can hardly be held responsible. But faced with the repudiation of the father's traits within himself, he may follow the mother's lead and and despise all that the father stands for, rejecting the father character not only in his own parent but in all other men as well, and, with far more devastating effects, in himself. On the other hand, the child may love his father best; then, resenting the injustice of the mother's accusations, he will take the opposite attitude and side with his father against her. In this event he will be compelled to champion the characteristics of the father, whether they are desirable ones or not, in season and out, to the detriment of his own critical powers.

      No matter which of these attitudes the child takes, as he comes to maturity the conflict between the inharmonious parental elements within him will absorb an increasing proportion of his energy and and will hold it anchored in the unconscious.For he dare not allow himself to become aware that his chosen attitude is challenged or even contradicted bu a different set of values lying dormant within his own nature - namely, values associated with the parent whom he has elected to despise and, psychologically speaking, to repudiate. Instead he will hold to hos conscious standpoint with a tenacity not un-tinged with prejudice and fanaticism, because it stems from the unconscious root of the positive bond with the favored parent thus it necessarily exerts an autonomous and compulsive influence on his consciousness. Or it may be that even though he remains unaware of the contradictory elements within him, he allows them free play, so that they function unchecked in his daily life. He will then fall into hopeless inconsistencies, so that what he does or says today may have no connection with his actions or convictions of yesterday or of tomorrow. Obviously a life so wanting in consistency may easily come to a complete deadlock
      " - Mary Ester Harding, Psychic Energy: Its source and its transformation ; pages 364-370

      *Cf. M.E. Harding, "Woman's Mysteries, Ancient and Modern", which is largely concerned with the laws of eros and woman's relationship to them; also Jung, 'Woman in Europe,' in "Civilization in Transition" (C.W. 10).

      **'Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype,' in "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious" (C.W. 9, i), p. 90.

    • November 16, 2013 8:08:25 PM PST
    • While it's likely that many extroverts might find us introverts boring (and are definitely more prone to questioning why we are the way that we are), I've found that they need us just as much as they we need them. In extrovert-introvert relationships in general, people notice more how the extrovert brings the introvert out of their shell, but they can't see that the introvert is necessary in getting the extrovert to look inside of themselves. My sister and I, for example, have almost opposite personality types (I'm intp, she's esfp), and despite our major differences we're very close. I find it easier to open up when we go to parties, gatherings, etc., but she completely relies on me to get her to stop and and take a second before making decisions. Same thing has happened in romantic relationships for me. I think extroverts and introverts compliment one another nicely; they each can help pull up the other's weaknesses.

    • November 16, 2013 8:03:57 PM PST
    • I think you are right kmaco- it's the connection that really counts. I guess an I-I and and I-E pairing will both have benefits and challenges. Probably introverts need to truly share some passions to keep the relationship dynamic, and in an intro-extro there would need to be a mutual appreciation for the calm/energy of the other, and shared values.

      Extroverts: how do you feel about pairing with introverts? What experiences have you had?

    • November 16, 2013 4:01:36 PM PST
    • I grew up in a house with 5 other adults on weekdays, visited another house with 4 adults on weekends, and moved around more times I could count before I hit 16 :P. Out of those 9 adults only two were introverts, one of my aunts (ISFP @ the weekday home) and my living grandfather (ISTP) who I saw on the weekends.

      I didn't get much silence or alone time in my home growing up and privacy was sort of something I was unaware existed :) I moved through schools often and had developed pretty strong social skills which let me be easily liked and often mistaken for an extrovert myself at times (I suspect my enneagram type 693 had a lot to do with this).

      Regarding the whole question of who am I drawn to more, Introverts or Extroverts, I would say I am drawn to both. I think what matters to me more is how open we are with each other on an intimate level. Sitting in a room next to someone sharing a few looks can say more than words sometimes.

      I believe the reason some introverts are drawn to extroverts is because extroverts can help "open them up" a lot better and thus sort of create a more welcoming space for the pair. Perhaps also the introvert enjoys riding shotgun and exploring the world with the E at their side which I'll admit, also has a strange appeal since it can take a lot of the pressure off. At the same time, I enjoy the challenge of taking the helm and taking us somewhere. Doing so is made all the more meaningful when my partner knows it doesn't come easily to me. "Knowing that she knows that I know that I'm uncomfortable", there is something very sexy about that lol. Sometimes an extrovert can take this for granted if they don't know about the concept of introversion/extroversion but not always.

      I believe E and I relationships work best when both sides are well balanced. I have extroverted friends who need to go out almost everyday and even my father was like this, he literally had to go out every day, have a one sided conversation for hours, stop talk to everyone everywhere he went, that sort of thing. I can handle this politely if it is directed at me but not without gritted teeth and resentment on my part if it carries on too long. If my friend or partner however can understand that I need alone time and lets me join in when I want to, I feel much happier.

      Personally I am most attracted to those who share at least a couple of my cognitive functions (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe) and am most attracted to those with strong extraverted feeling. I find that regardless is someone is an extrovert or introvert, when they have developed extraverted feeling, they do a much better job at helping me express myself whether they realize what they are doing or not. Also having a platform to share our understanding makes all the difference (sharing our thinking style, perception, whatever). That said at the end of the day, the individual always makes the difference whether for better or worse.

      I honestly do wonder also, if an extravert does find an introvert boring.