IDR Labs made a video response to my initial video, so here’s my response:
First, they say that they don’t know my name, but that I seem to be from Arizona; so they call me Arizona INTJ.
I clearly said my name was Ben at the beginning of that particular video, and they’re wrong: I’m from the southeast, not Arizona.
They admit that the empirical evidence for the functions is nonexistent and that the empirical evidence for the dichotomies is weak and problematic, so I appreciate their honesty on that point.
Here’s why you won’t find any scientific evidence for Jungian theory: It’s a mixture of religion and pseudoscience.
- Jung’s concept of individuation and reconciliation of opposites is nothing more than repackaged Gnosticism and Eastern Mysticism.
- An article on PyschologyToday.com points out the Hinduism in the MBTI.
- Jung based the four functions on the four elements concept, which has long been debunked by real science yet maintains popularity in occult rituals and Eastern religions: “In early Buddhism, the Four Elements are a basis for understanding that leads one through unbinding of ‘Rupa’ or materiality to the supreme state of pure ‘Emptiness’ or Nirvana.” 
- IDRLabs knows this, which is why they have a video on achieving “liberation” from the cognitive functions.
This is religion, not science. My biggest problem is that this is being promoted as a scientifically valid and reliable tool by many, when in reality, it’s based on religion and pseudoscience and was communicated to Jung via a demonic spirit guide.
Any typology model built on Jung’s four element pseudoscience is doomed to fail.
Next, they say that “I don’t distinguish between dichotomy-based and function-based typology.”
Wrong! I’ve referenced both the Jungian functions and MBTI dichotomies on my channel many times (and in the video itself). With MBTI, the four letter dichotomy code is supposed to translate to the Jungian functions anyway, and I even had a video on how to do that.
However, everyone knows that in the real world, the two don’t correlate well. Countless people are unable to find out whether they are INFJ vs INFP or INTP vs INTJ, even though these two types supposedly have radically different cognitive functions.
I pointed out that MBTI has been inconsistent with the orientation of the functions, to which they replied:
“If something that cannot be validated empirically truly exists, experts will tend to converge on the veracity of observations concerning that thing over time…The fact that typologists have identified a mistake made in the early theory and converged on a new axiom…suggests that there is some truth to the functions..”
Wrong. Many people still disagree on the orientation of the functions, and the MBTI and Jungian community at large can hardly agree on anything:
- Some people maintain that functions don’t matter at all and that it’s all about dichotomies, but others say that ONLY the functions matter and that the dichotomies are meaningless.
- Some say we use four functions, and some say we use all eight.
- MBTI says that type doesn’t change, yet Jungians such as Steve Myers, no relation to the Myers-Briggs people, criticizes MBTI for missing Jung’s original concept of individuation.
- Some say that there may be more than sixteen types.
Furthermore, Jung couldn’t even figure out his own type. He seems to think he’s an ISTP at one point, then INTP.
IDRLabs.com has an article titled “Jung, Myers, Keirsey, etc. on Jung’s Type,” in which they list the type that “experts” have suggested for Jung, and these people cannot agree on his temperament, much less his type!
What does that say about this theory?
So, there is not a convergence on Jungian typology but a divergence on almost every aspect of the theory, which, according to IDR Labs’ logic, invalidates the theory.
Next, IDRLabs has attempted to “debunk” anyone who even remotely criticizes MBTI. They also imply many times in the video that I don’t seem to understand things like Platonic theory, ulterior logic, and seemed to insinuate that I was too narcissistic to understand fully understand this theory.
So, let’s see if IDR Labs knows what they are talking about with typology:
Using the WayBackMachine, I compared their types from earlier dates to now. Here are just a few of the many mistypes and changes they’ve made:
- Margaret Thatcher was an ENTJ in 2012, but she’s an ESTJ in 2018 (NT vs SJ); (Te-Ni-Se-Fi vs Te-Si-Fe-Ni).
- Ronald Reagan was an ENFJ in 2012, but now he’s an ESFP in 2018. (NF vs SP); (Fe-Ni-Se-Ti vs Se-Fi-Te-Ni).
- Sigmund Freud was an ENTJ in 2012, but now he’s an ISTJ in 2018. (NT vs SJ); (Te-Ni-Se-Fi vs Si-Te-Fi-Ne).
- Stephen Colbert was an ENTP in 2015, but a certified MBTI practitioner administered a test on his show, and he tested as INFP! (NT vs NF); ( Ne-Ti-Fe-Si vs Fi-Ne-Si-Te).
IDR Labs has repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence in typing people, which Jung himself likened to a “childish parlor game.”
Here’s the thing with IDR Labs: If you’re an INTJ, they apparently think you’re a narcissist (or at high risk for it).
- They say on their profile page that INTJs are “Strongly linked to the Narcissistic personality.”
- They have an article saying that Newton was an INTJ (and Narcissist).
- They even wrote a book on Amazon.com titled INTJ and the Narcissistic Personality Style.
Okay, we get it! You seem to think INTJs are narcissists!
Sadly, most people who follow my channel came from rough backgrounds. Some endured physical, emotional, or sexual abuse as a child. Some were social misfits or suffer from intense social anxiety, schizoid, or other issues. Others have Asperger’s or autism.
If anyone is to blame for narcissism, it’s the promoters of typology, which suggests that a focus on “self-discovery” (finding your arrangement of the four elements) will lead to better relationships, career growth, personal development, etc.
IDR Labs argued that typology doesn’t poison EVERYONE’s perception:
Jungian typology corrupts everyone in at least two ways:
- Intellectually (by promoting pseudoscience).
- Spiritually (by teaching paganism/Gnosticism).
Next, they claim that Philemon was actually one of the first Christians instructed by Paul. They also suggest Philemon is a symbol that God is always near to us.
Nice try, guys, but Philemon the demon has nothing to do with Philemon in the Bible!
- In the Bible, Philemon was a church leader whose bondservant, Onesimus, ran away. This bondservant eventually met the Apostle Paul and converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon (a church leader) with a letter explaining what had happened. Philemon performed no recorded miracles in the Bible, and he was just a church leader who has NOTHING to do with Jung’s spirit guide, which was an Alexandrian Gnostic.
- Jung claimed that Philemon represented a force that was distinct from his own psyche, and he gave Jung his greatest insights as they strolled along the garden.
- This spirit could not have been in Jung’s mind for two reasons:
- Other people witnessed these paranormal events. Freud, an atheist, witnessed Jung’s paranormal activity and even fainted. Jung’s own family also witnessed these paranormal events, and he himself maintained it was supernatural event.
- These spirits told Jung the same things that other people all over the planet have been told when making contact with these spirit entities (aka demons).
- Jung later said that Philemon was so powerful that he mentored “Buddha, Mani, Jesus Christ and Mohammed.” 
- Philemon isn’t even his real name. He first identified himself as Elijah, then Philemon, an Alexandrian Gnostic, Basillides (another Gnostic), and then he finally revealed his true identity, which I will reveal later.
Even worse, IDR Labs tries to pass Jung off as Christian! No one believes this guy is a Bible-believing Christian! He is alleged to have carried on affairs throughout his life. He practiced every form of sorcery, which is prohibited throughout the Bible (his CG Jung institutes still teach it today). Jung revealed his agenda to transform Christ back into the “soothsaying god of the vine.” He would say that there was as much truth in other religions as in Christianity, the trinity should be a quaternity, and so on.
Jung was a master deceiver and apostate who would sometimes profess Christianity outwardly, but inwardly, he was trying to destroy it by mixing it with psychologized forms of Gnosticism and paganism, which is exactly what Philemon instructed Jung to do!
If you type this phrase into Google [“to no longer be a Christian is easy” Carl Jung Red Book], you should be able to see one of the recorded conversations between Jung and “Philemon the demon.” Just look at how he is instructing Jung on what to do, and telling him that he has what it takes to teach these devilish philosophies.
Furthermore, Jung did not consider himself a Christian so much as he considered himself to be Christ!
- He had a deification experience, during which his demons announced that he was made into Christ.
- He would write things like, “I must become a Christ. I am made into Christ,” 
- And that “You should all become Christs.” 
Jesus warned us about people like Jung when he said, “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many” (Matthew 24:4-5, KJV).
Who would have guessed that this deception would be perpetrated under the pretense of Jung’s psychology and typology, among other New Age false teachings?
Next, they claim that I can’t say that Jung experiencing Philemon as a spirit guide is necessarily unchristian:
They’ve got to be kidding me! Of course I can say this is unchristian:
- The Bible roundly condemns the use of “familiar spirits,” and the Old Testament sanctioned the death penalty for such an act: “Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:31).
- The Bible says, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1).
- The Bible also tells us, ” believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
Let’s put Philemon to the test:
- He addressed Jung as Christ, check.
- He told Jung to abandon Christianity and proclaim the new false religion, check.
- He told Jung the highest God’s name was Abraxas, which is Satan/Lucifer in the Gnostic traditions, check.
- Yep, sounds like a demon to me!
People keep saying to me, “Ben, even though Jung was a bit crazy or channeled demons, it doesn’t mean his theory is invalid!” Of course not! Jung’s theory is invalid because:
- It lacks empirical evidence for the functions and fails to meet other scientific criteria.
- It has been ripped to shreds by scientists and psychologists alike.
- It is based on long-debunked pseudoscience and occult concepts.
- Jung couldn’t determine his own type.
- Typology experts can’t agree on Jung’s type.
- The leading typology channel on YouTube, IDRlabs.com, has failed time and time again to accurately identify a person’s temperament, much less their type.
- And that’s what invalidates Jung’s theory!
The demon stuff simply reveals where this came from and that Jung had an agenda behind it.
They claim that I overstate the connection between Philemon and the Theory of Psychological Types.
Wrong. The Theory of Psychological Types is undeniably linked with Philemon, and even John Beebe realizes this. Reflecting back on the demonic episode that produced the Seven Sermons to the Dead, Jung wrote that “My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from [that encounter]….Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then.”
So his entire life’s work was to try to prove what the demons taught him. The title of Jung’s book was Psychological Types: Or, the Psychology of Individuation. The demons referenced the concept of individuation in the Seven Sermons to the Dead.
The book should have been titled Psychological Types: Or, the Seductive Whispers of Philemon. Another title could have been Psychological Types: Or, Every Dumb Pagan Concept Rolled into One Theory and Called Science.
Jung did find concepts in other places to try to prove what the demons taught him:
- In Memories, Dreams, Reflections, he talks about finding concepts of tension of opposites in Taoism.
- Otto Gross, a drug addict who allegedly helped Carl Jung embrace the idea of polygamy, came up with some concepts. Jung wrote, “Gross deserves full credit for being the first to set up a simple and consistent hypothesis to account for this [the extraverted] type” (Jung,  1971: par. 466).
However, this was all to prove what the demons originally taught him, and Jung consistently turned to Philemon, the I Ching, astrology, his mandala, and other occult methods for answers, despite enduring criticism from real scientists. Oh, and they still teach this occult stuff in the C.G. Jung Institutes!
They Claim the Bible Has Four gospels because there are four (unproven) temperaments, with each gospel presenting Jesus as a certain temperament type.
- Let me point out the obvious: since you can divide the Myers-Briggs 16 types neatly into the long-debunked four temperament model, it should be the dead giveaway for any “logical person” that this is not science but pseudoscience! This is nothing new. It’s just a different spin on the same old four elements.
- Next, it doesn’t matter how many so-called Christians taught typology or claimed that the Bible promotes the temperaments. The Bible, which is the final authority on all doctrinal matters, never says that the four gospels are related to four temperaments, ever. In fact, the Bible itself not only tells us to stay away from astrology, which is based on the same four elements, but it also tells us why some of the gospels were written:
- John wrote: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31, KJV), not so that we can see Jesus as an NF. I’m supposedly an “NT,” and my wife is an “SJ.” Our favorite gospel is John.
- Luke’s gospel was written to a person to provide “an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4), not to present Jesus as an NT type.
- Matthew included genealogies and rituals, not to present Jesus as an SJ type, but to prove to his Hebrew audience that Jesus had come through the lineage of David and fulfilled the messianic prophecies and Old Testament laws. Luke also recorded the genealogies.
- Mark focused more on Christ’s suffering, service, and shows us that side of Christ.
- We have four gospels so that both Jews and Gentiles could have an accurate picture of the life and person of Jesus Christ, to document the claims he made, the miracles he performed, his death, burial, and resurrection, and his fulfillment of messianic prophecy so that by believing we can have life through His name.
To say that there are four gospels because there are four temperaments is just as foolish as saying there were 12 disciples because of the 12 astrology types, or 9 fruits of the spirit because of the 9 Enneagram types. The Bible itself rejects such foolish conjecture!
Finally, IDRLabs claimed in the comments that Irenaeus, an early church leader, was connecting the gospels to the four temperaments, which YouTuber Sarpedon did a great job of refuting in their comments, so I won’t touch on that.
But IDR Labs made a huge blunder in presenting that argument. Here’s why:
Philemon [the demon] appeared to Jung under many names: Elijah, Basilides (a Gnostic), Philemon (an Alexandrian Gnostic), but In Jung’s Red Book, Philemon the demon finally reveals his true identity as none other than Simon Magus.
Simon Magus, also called Simon the Sorcerer, is a man who was using occultism to channel demons, as described in Acts 8:
“But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Simon Magus, like Jung, was dabbling in the occult and had no doubt been in communication with spirits who were teaching him similar esoteric philosophies. The Bible continues:
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done” (Acts 8:9-13).
At first glance, it seems that Simon was saved. However, his “belief,” like Jung’s, was only an outward profession and not a true inward change, for the Bible continues:
“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8: 18-23).
So, Simon Magus professed to be a Christian with the hopes of accessing the power of God for his own selfish gain, but he was never really saved. The Bible never tells us what happened to Simon, but early church leaders had very much to say about Mr. Simon Magus:
Irenaeus was an early church leader who IDR Labs claims promoted the four temperaments model. He is known for fighting against the “Carl Jung Gnostics” of his day, and he pinned all of the Gnostic corruption on Simon Magus, calling him the “Father of all Heretics:”
“I should bring to light the Valentinian doctrines…showing that they spring from Simon, the father of all heretics…” (Book III, Preface, Verse 1).
Justin Martyr also condemned Simon Magus, pointing out that he claimed to be God:
“[Justin Martyr] describes Simon as a man who, at the instigation of demons, claimed to be a god.”
All these early Christian leaders traced early Gnostic corruption back to Simon Magus and considered him the “father of heretics.” The same demon that taught Simon Magus his corrupt theories turns out to be the same demon that instructed Carl Jung!
Thus, IDRLabs has proven my point that Jungian typology (and its derivatives) is not only pseudoscience to the extreme, but it is also blatantly anti-Christ, and it should be eradicated from any and all Christian organizations.
Notice the similarities between Simon Magus and Jung:
- Both professed Christ outwardly while inwardly rejecting the fundamentals of the faith, desiring to destroy it.
- Both lusted after spiritual experiences and power.
- Both claimed to be Christ or God, and had apparent deification experiences.
- Both used extensive sorcery methods, which the Bible condemns, to contact spirits and gain insights.
- Both used the tactic of syncretism to blend paganism with Christianity.
- Both started entire movements and had dedicated followers: Simon had his Simonians, and Jung had his Jungians.
Finally, In the comment section, someone asked IDR Labs why they bothered to make a video response to me, to which they replied, “Someone was wrong on the internet.” Yep, and that someone was IDR Labs!
- Wikipedia contributors. “Mahābhūta.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Aug. 2017. Web. 16 Jan. 2018.
- Booth, M. The Sacred History: How Angels, Mystics, and Higher Intelligence Made Our World, 395. New York, 2013. Simon and Shuster.