Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by naveen99 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

naveen99·

Here are the definitions by Carl Jung:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/

View on HN

How does that address the problem that it is not possible to perform the experiments necessary to make the strong claims?

This is not an issue specific to this idea in popular psychology, but in general to almost any field with difficult to define parameters.

Even in math it’s possible to have conjectures that are likely true but may never be proved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

Even in physics, you have statistical truths like second law of thermodynamics. they allow you to generalize where precise computation is impossible.

So Jung’s insights into personality attitudes, dichotomies of perception and judgment seem like interesting conjectures worth knowing about, possibly difficult to prove.

The difference is the 2nd law of thermodynamics has tons of data showing its utility in modeling our world. Obviously, humans might be living in a simulation and everything is possibly wrong, but the personality test thing has many weaknesses and data contrary to its claims as summarized in the wiki article. I do not see what makes it worth knowing about compared to the litany of other pop psychology conjectures.

It wasn’t pop psychology when Jung came up with it. it stands on its own, just read it. The tests just simplify the process for people who don’t know the theory. by the way since you (and I) are so curious to know your type, here is a free test

https://sakinorva.net/functions

Now there’s a chap who was keen on dreams! :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com