[MD] Able to change well.

[MarshaV]

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.  


 
___