seems a bit incomplete?

>>3226
what's missing? Opposites are implied, but I could add them.

Post edited on 3rd Dec 2021, 1:46pm

I wonder, are the traits really mutually exclusive?

>>3228
Jung is confusing, and based on a lot of assumptions.

Post edited on 3rd Dec 2021, 3:29pm

>>3229
Maybe they're full of shit, but lately I've seen a TON of people calling themselves introverted extroverts. I have no idea what that means, but with so many people doing it, it has to mean something.

>>3230
thats a self-contradictory phrase. all it means is that a worrying amount of people accept cognitive dissonance. or maybe they simply use the only "smart" terms they know to describe something completely unrelated.

>>3231
Pretty sure all it means is a bunch of ``extroverts'' latching on to another label that they think will get them more attention.

>>3230
>>3231
>>3232
That's called "ambivert" and it isn't a new thing, if you follow Jung and especially the MBTI model, then technically everyone is an ambivert to some extent, because we all use a mixture of introverted and extroverted functions.
>>3229
Actually read his books instead of reading a handful of articles and then dismissing him.

>>3233
>Actually read his books instead of reading a handful of articles and then dismissing him.
You don't have to read Newton to learn calculus. Articles online can teach you the same material just fine.

>>3234
Many of the articles based on Jungs content are laughably bad, especially MBTI which contains a shit load of stereotyping and describes cognitive functions in the shittiest way possible. And if MBTI is even a good interpretation of Jung's cognitive function theory is debatable.

>>3235
So I guess this is the book on functions?
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691097701/collected-works-of-cg-jung-volume-6

>>3236
Yea. But Portable Jung seems to be a better introduction to Jung in general, as it's a compilation of all of his works. That might be a little overwhelming, but as I said one of the most fascinating things about Jung is his views on the unconscious.
https://archive.org/details/ThePortableJung/mode/2up
Not sure if that is the best PDF, since it's just photos of the pages. There's also some introduction from the person who compiled all of his works you can skip if you want (there's a interesting summary about the "transcendent function" in the foreword though).

>>3234
>You don't have to read Newton to learn calculus. Articles online can teach you the same material just fine.
Sure, but judging somebody's work based on somebody else's possibly dubious interpretation of select parts of the work is rather misguided.

Op here. This is now a random, diy chart/graph thread.

Probably not accurate, but just for fun.

>>3243
>hirigana
I hope this is intentional.

>>3243
If you like plotting random thinks, the MAL dataset is relatively small (~2GB) and fun to play around with. I did some playing around with that 2 years ago in >>/ot/34234 and >>/ot/32729

>>3244
Spelling is... not my strong suit.