On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Krimel wrote: >> [Marsha] >> Archetypes are static patterns of value too. As far as archetypes go, I >> like the Myers-Briggs >> system of archetypes better than Jung's, but they do have a relationship. > >> >> Do you have a quote or url where Jung seems to supports Bo's acronym? >> >> [Krimel] >> You do know that the Meyer-Briggs test is entirely based on the > personality >> dimensions Jung laid out in his book "Analytical Psychology", right? They >> have little to do with archetypes but both are Jung's. > > [Marsha] > Okay, I was confusing personality types with archetypes. I suppose I > jumped to that conclusion because of the mention of 'introverted' > being an important Myers-Briggs type factor. > > Oh right, the shadow(Wendy's sewing task), anima, animus & self. > It's been a long time. Sorry for confusion. > > Which Myers'-Briggs type are you? > > [Krimel] > Measuring such a thing as personality is like flipping coins, reading > entrails or claiming the swirling of old tea leaves is more or less > prophetic than swirling new ones. I paid little mind to whatever test > results I accumulated over the years. My personality type is whatever the > people who interact with "it" say "it" is. I would say "it" is the type that > either doesn't take tests or doesn't take them seriously when "it" does. > From where I see "it"; "it" is a Shadow. Some have suggested we'd be happier > if I'd quit stitching "it".
Marsha: Wow. Profound. Projections. I'm thinking of a type of ... I liked having a type on which to hang my being an outlander. Doesn't matter too much now, but once it was a bit of a comfort. ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
