(question) Jung on intertype relations

[Nowisthetime]

On this page I read:

***
Second, in Psychological Types (1920) he [Jung] wrote about interaction between his types. He wrote about “special charm”, “influence at the level of the subconscious” that have towards each other representatives of complementary types. These complementary types should be both rational, or both irrational, and other criteria should be different (for example, ES – IN, or ET – IF). Alas, this hypothesis was expressed only in brief phrases, Jung did not develop it later.
***

So Jung had already discovered duality? Anybody has the book (Psychological types)? What exactly did Jung write about this? I think only chapter 10 is online. Thanks.

[rat1]

Of course he had. The functions are mathematical. Duality is at the basis of mathematics. Jung had alot of things to say about duality in his other work.

[ArchonAlarion]

I have the book. Only scattered references to inter-type relations are there and they aren't systematized in any way.

This part contrasts rational and irrational understanding of psychological rapport and explains how these types perceive each other (I put some notes in brackets):

Chapter X, Recapitulation of the Extraverted Irrational Types:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

"This point brings me to the problem of the psychic relation between the representatives of the different types. Following the terminology of the French school of hypnotists, the psychic relation among the more modern psychiatrists is termed I 'rapport'. Rapport chiefly consists in a feeling of actual accord, in spite of recognised differences. In fact, the recognition of existing differences, in so far as they are common to both, is already a rapport, a feeling of accord. If we make this feeling conscious to a rather high degree in an actual case, we discover that it has not merely the quality of a feeling [ie "Feeling"] that cannot be analysed further, but it also has the nature of an insight or cognitional content, representing the point of agreement in a conceptual form [ie "Thinking"]. This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events. His feeling of accord is the common perception of a sensation or intuition. The rational would say that rapport with the irrational depends purely upon chance. If, by some accident, the objective situations are exactly in tune, something like a human relationship takes place, but nobody can tell what will be either its validity or its duration. To the rational type it is often a very bitter thought that the relationship will last only just so long as external circumstances accidentally produce a mutual interest. This does not occur to him as being especially human, whereas it is precisely in this situation that the irrational sees a humanity of quite singular beauty. Accordingly each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, upon whom no reliance can be placed, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. Such a result, however, is reached only when one consciously tries to make some estimate of the nature of one's relationships with one's fellow-men. Although a psychological conscientiousness of [p. 471] this kind is by no means usual, yet it frequently happens that, notwithstanding an absolute difference of standpoint, a kind of rapport does take place, and in the following way. The one [Rational] assumes with unspoken projection that the other [Irrational] is, in all essential points, of the same opinion as himself, while the other divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the latter [Irrational] that his relationship must rest upon a common point-of-view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests upon projection, which is the source of many subsequent misunderstandings."

[Jarno]

I've read the book twice, and didn't encounter anything of it. I have the 1947 edition.

But ofcourse I might have missed it. But at least there isn't anything obvious in it about intertype relationships.

[ashlesha]

thats really interesting aa.