Psychological Type: Interpretation and Development from Jung to Today (4-6 min Excerpt/Sample)

4-6 minute excerpt/sample from
Type Practitioner Blueprint Online Seminar Series 1 DVD

TypeLabs presents...
Psychological Type: Interpretation and Development from Jung to Today

C.G. Jung developed his theory of psychological types over a number of years in the early part of the 20th Century, starting with extraversion introversion, later adding the four functions or mental activities of sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling. Responses to this work occurred e.g. Hinkle (1923), before the publication of his seminal Psychological Types (1921/1923)

This presentation is a history of the different interpretations and methods associated withy Jungs typology up to the present day. It begins with Jungs construction of his type categories and his consequent early use in his seminars over almost two decades. This includes his views as presented by others in brief general texts e.g. Corrie (1927); Jacobi (1942), or in adult education seminars. Commentaries and applications e.g. Evans (1939); Read (1942); van der Hoop (1939), as well as the later contributions of von Franz and Hillman (1971) will be included.

The role of measurement (Gray and Wheelwright; Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs) as a different cultural and methodological approach to Jungs typology will be discussed, both from the perspective of developing a particular language of type from measurement results and associated texts, but also the products and orientation of instrument use and the drift to the use of the term personality type.

Influences from within and without the Jungian field will also be discussed, notably David Keirseys temperaments and John Beebes archetypal approach and David Keirseys Temperaments, associated with Isabel Myers work but not Jungs. This presentation is intended to be a contribution to the current challenges to the plausibility of type dynamics and development.

Presented by Peter Geyer
Peter Geyer [B.A.(Hons.), Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.(Org.Beh.), M.Sc.] teaches individuals and groups about C.G.Jung's psychological types and ideas about the self. He also researches and writes on historical, scientific and social aspects of personality from the perspective of Jung's ideas and their measurement in the overall context of the history of ideas. His minor Masters thesis was "Quantifying Jung: The Origin and Development of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator" (1995)




Peter taught MBTI Qualifying from 19932006 and MBTI Step II Workshops from 19982007. He has taught personality type as a visiting scholar at universities in Korea and Switzerland and as a guest lecturer in postgraduate studies at the University of South Australia.




Peter is the current Interest Area Consultant (Theory and Research) for the Association of Psychological Type (International)/APTi, also writing in the Bulletin of Psychological Type.




He is also a life member of the Australian Association for Psychological Type/AusAPT and a columnist and contributor to the Australian Psychological Type Review. Previously, Peter was an editor of the Australian Journal of Psychological Type.

You can purchase the DVD with all 8 programs at http://www.typepractitionerblueprint.com or http://www.typelabs.com

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• mbti
• myers-briggs
• psychological type
• history
• carl jung
• isabel myers
• katherine briggs
• peter geyer
• seminar

[adda241]

@TheSarahFishers so true...I'm an intp and I've noticed that, despite there being a small percentage of intp's, the majority of the videos and comments I see on the subject are from intp's. Pretty fascinating.

[TheSarahFishers]

good video. and of course it's an intp point of view. only an intp would be interested in the whole concept of typing personalities. and a few of the other types. but you're not going to find a lot of esfj, istp, etc, etc analyses of this sort of thing. so there will always be that intj/intp bent to typology. and you already know this. so i don't know why i'm even bothering to comment. well, too late now. later.

[Sporfcrangle]

@Phavonic Happy to help :-)

[Phavonic]

@Sporfcrangle Hey, thanks a lot. That was really helpful.

I don't know how many people I've asked...I really needed that for a footnote. You're an ace.

[Sporfcrangle]

@Phavonic

Part II ...

“Although under other names, it is always of Plato and Aristotle that we speak. Visionary, mystical, Platonic natures disclose Christian ideas and the corresponding symbols from the fathomless depths of their souls. Practical, orderly, Aristotelian natures build out of these ideas and symbols a fixed system, a dogma and a cult. Finally the Church embraces both natures, one of them entrenched in the clergy and the other in monasticism, but both keeping up a constant feud.”

[Sporfcrangle]

@Phavonic

I'll need to do this in bits.

Part I ...

"Plato and Aristotle! These are not merely two systems, they are types of two distinct human natures, which from time immemorial, under every sort of disguise, stand more or less inimically opposed. The whole medieval world in particular was riven by this conflict, which persists down to the present day, and which forms the most essential content of the history of the Christian Church."

[Phavonic]

Please help: I sold on my copy of Psychological Types by Jung but needed to note down the quote by Heinrich Heine at the beginning page, on the type differences between Aristotle and Plato (I contacted the person but they ignored me...)

I'd appreciate it if anyone could quote me that small passage, it'd be hard to track down otherwise. Thanks