How Jung talked about his typology in his letters.

[CR400AF]

Jung talked about the content related to typology in many other books and lectures. However, letters are also an important source of information. I have recently searched through Jung's correspondence and found several letters that talk about typology.

It is worth noting that I think Jung's correspondence is very polite. For example, in the letter to von Fange, Jung says that he is no longer interested in typology, which is perhaps a polite way to euphemistically point out the problems with von Fange.

A total of 67 letters is cited in this post. After each letter, I will offer some of my personal remarks, which only represents my thoughts and it might differ from Jung's original meaning.

Dear Dr. Schaffer,

Sincerest thanks for your friendly and interesting letter. Your individual attempt at typization shows that the typological problem can be approached from any number of angles, and usually with considerable advantage for the inventor of the scheme in question.

Your attempt is essentially characterological, which I cannot assert of my own typology. Nor was it ever my intention to characterize personalities, for which reason I did not put my description of the types at the beginning of the book; rather I tried to produce a clear conceptual scheme based on empirically demonstrable factors. Hence my typology aims, not at characterizing personalities, but at classifying the empirical material in relatively simple and clear categories, just as it is presented to a practising psychologist and therapist. I have never thought of my typology as a characterological method and have never applied it in this sense. For any such application it would be much too general and therefore much too scanty. As you very rightly observe, one needs 27 categories and probably a few more besides in order to give an adequate characterization of mentally differentiated persons. For the psychologist, who has to deal with people in practical terms, a characterological diagnosis of the patient is of secondary importance; for him it is far more important to have a terminology in which at least the crassest differences between individuals can be formulated.

Your characterological aim is to sketch an adequate picture of a person's character. My typology aims at elucidating conceptually the empirical psychological material presented by any one individual and thus subordinating it to general points of view. This intention of mine has often been misunderstood, for the simple reason that the layman can form absolutely no conception of the peculiar material the psychotherapist is confronted with. In practical dealings with people it is certainly of the greatest importance to know with whom one is dealing. For the therapist this is a matter of indifference, since he has to deal with him anyway and the patient's psychology is such that the only thing to do is change it. Consequently, categories like "sensitivity", "good-naturedness", "intellect", etc. can be considered only as more or less pleasant concomitants.

I should like to add, however, that your findings may well be of great importance biographically and are obviously an extremely valuable contribution to our knowledge of contemporary personalities. With collegial regards,

Yours sincerely, C.G. Jung

Remark 1: Jung said that he did not try to characterize personalities and he only aimed to create a simple and clear categories to classify empirical materials that a psychotherapist is confronted with. IMO, Jung is politely defining the boundary of his typology.

Any theory has its own scope and boundary of use. Human psyche is quite complex and (as Jung said in this letter) there are numerous angles to classify humans. In this letter, Jung clearly stated that "sensitivity", "good-naturedness" and "intellect" is out of the scope of his typology.

Remark 2: I am not very interested in subype systems. Since the scope of Jungian typology is defined and limited, it doesn't fully characterize human personalities. There are many other aspects that shape a person's character. IMO, the process of one's continuous study of Jungian typology is a process of eliminating other aspects (such as culture) and becoming more aware of how the angle within the scope of Jungian typology, which is the attitude and the cognitive functions, shapes us.

It's quite nature that two persons of the same type might have some quite different characters. On the other hand, two persons of the different types might have some similar characters. At first, the mathematical discoveries of Reinin such that any pair of types have 7 common dichotomies. Then, a more important reason is that the scope and boundary of Jungian typology is limited. Many other aspects such as culture, IQ, family background, and ethical standards also shape our characters.

When learning Jungian typologys, it's essential to distinguish, to differentiate the Jungian cognitive aspects from other aspects. To some extent, subtype systems blurred the boundary of Jungian typology and it may be used as a rescue to resolve the conflicts brought by mistyping and to cover up one's inability of typing. For instance, it's quite common that MBTI users mistype LII as ILI. Then one might rescue this by creating a subtype ILI-Y to differentiate true ILIs and mistyped LIIs.

I'm not against subtype systems. But I'm against developping it too much and I think it's important to type one correctly within the 16 types at first.

Remark 3: Several other examples of failing to differentiate Jungian cognitive aspects from other aspects.
1) To type someone according to the content of his work instead of his cognitive factors. (eg. type Jung as IEI)
2) To type someone according to superficial behavioral-level type descriptions that are heavily influenced by culture. (eg. clean = Si)
3) To link political viewpoints to quadras mechanically. I don't agree with many such arbitrary claims by Gulenko. For instance,

https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=17

The Beta quadra, the central collectivist quadra, is characterized by public (state) ownership combined with authoritarian power. ... The ideal of government in the Second Quadra is the enlightened monarch.

The political ideology is influenced by many factors and I don't think beta quadra means supporting state ownership. Of course it is influenced by the Jungian cognitive factors, but there are many different aspects shaping our viewpoints. For instance, the viewpoint of a modern LII might be totally different from a LII living in 1000 years ago. It's also influenced by IQ, personal readings, family influences, culture etc.

Remark 4: Jung claimed his categories to be simple and clear. However, many find it difficult to understand and to apply Jungian typology. I'm also not an expeirenced typer and I can only type those who I'm very familiar with in my real life. IMO, the difficulty mainly lies in the task to differentiate Jungian aspects from other aspects. Also, it's important to remove all the misinterpretations of flawed or Non-Jungian systems from your mind.

[CR400AF]

The letter to G.A. Farner.

Dear Dr. Farner,

With regard to Psychological Types, I must say that I always use typology in the stricter sense as a critical apparatus, just as the idea of a psychological typology is really an attempt at a critical psychology. But I regard this as only one side of my book. The other side deals with the problem of opposites arising out of such criticism. I have discussed this chiefly in Chs. 2 and 5 on Schiller and Spitteler. There lies the gravamen of the book, though most readers have not noticed this because they are first of all led into the temptation of classifying everything typologically, which in itself is a pretty sterile undertaking. I have therefore stressed in the preface to the Spanish edition that my typology is essentially a critical apparatus for sifting the empirical material collected by analysis. So it is not the case at all that I begin by classifying my patients into types and then give them the corresponding advice, as a colleague of mine whom God has endowed with a peculiar wit once asserted. In general I use these technical terms in my practical work only when I have to explain to certain patients the one-sidedness of their behaviour, their remarkable relations with other people, and such things.

I hope these hints will suffice. Please do not upset yourself on account of possible criticism. In our Club we are in the habit of treating our speakers very civilly. With best regards and wishes for a thorough recovery.

Your sincerely, C.G. Jung

Remark: Refer to the previous letter. Jung stated that it's not the case that he begin by classifying the patients. He is also against classifying everything with the typologies.

[CR400AF]

The letter to Devatmananda.

Dear Sir,

It is exceedingly difficult to explain the nature of the archetype to somebody who does not know about the empirical material we are dealing with in psychology. The only parallel I can point to outside the psychological field is the so-called mythological motif in myths, legends, folklore, and religions. If you study such a motif you will find that it is by no means outright, but a living structure representing something that could be called an image. Inasmuch as legends etc. are transmitted by tradition, the archetypes are consciously acquired, but inasmuch as archetypes are found in the mind of the insane as well as in normal dreams quite outside all tradition, archetypes appear also to be contents of the collective unconscious and their existence in the individual mind can only be explained by inheritance.

Concerning your question about free will, the fact is that free will only exists within the limits of consciousness. Beyond those limits there is mere compulsion. Why there are people who have the will or a striving for the limitless I don’t know. I’m not a philosopher, I’m an empiricist. But I admit there are such people. I know that in the East one explains the particular form of individual character by the doctrine of karma. This is a doctrine which one can believe or disbelieve. Being not a philosopher but an empiricist, I’m missing the objective evidence. Science has no answer to questions which reach beyond human possibilities. We have no evidence for the objective functions of the psyche apart from the living brain. At all events there is no possibility whatever of examining such a psychological condition supposed to exist outside the human brain. We can think all sorts of things about such a hypothetical condition, but the answer is unavoidably a mere assumption which may satisfy the human desire for a faith but not the desire for knowledge.

You will find the definition of the collective unconscious in my book Psychological Types. The individual unconscious and the collective unconscious together form what I call the “ self.” You will find that definition also in Psychological Types.

Sincerely yours, C.G. Jung

Remark 1: The definitions in Psychological Types.

Remark 2: Jung actually have stated in several letters that he is a empiricist such that his analysis are based on empirical material. His introversion is quite obvious and it's also quite clear that he didn't like Te. IMO, it's best to attribute his such emphasizes to his Se-PoLR. This is how PoLR works.

[CR400AF]

Letters to Bendit on intuition.

Dear Dr. Bendit,

I have read your essay on Paranormal Cognition (P.C.) with greatest interest and I fully agree with you in all your general statements. There are only some minor points which I want to comment on. The fact, for instance, that you couldn’t find a word about the famous ψ in my writings is merely due to the misfortune that a considerable part of my work is not translated. You would have found not only an acknowledgement of “telepathy” but also an example of P.C. in Kerenyi and Jung: Einfuhrung in das Wesen der Mythologie (Amsterdam 1941, p. 230 f.).

I’m acquainted with P.C. and I have seen many a case of it. The reason why I haven’t said more about it publicly is that I don’t like to talk about things which are difficult to prove.

I include P.C. in the concept of intuition, “perception by the way of the unconscious.” Sensation is perception in absolute time and space, intuition is perception in relative time and space, or “elastic” time and ditto space. Dunne is by no means the first to have recognized the prophetic quality of dreams. Any old medicine man 10,000 years ago has done so.

What’s wrong with intuition? Is there any difference between “perception by the way of the unconscious” (i.e., you don’t know how you get it) and P.C. which is also “perception in an unknown way”? Or does P.C. claim to know what P.C. is? I confess I don’t know how to make a difference between intuition and P.C.

I like your little book, and I appreciate your unorthodox attitude in that case where it was chiefly a matter of an insufficient adaptation to P.C. I suppose you have also seen cases where P.C. developed under the influence of analytical treatment? I am fully aware of the extraordinary importance of such phenomena, which transcend our actual means of understanding. They give you a certain feeling of hopelessness. This has been one of the main reasons why I tried to explore the unconscious from another side, which seemed to be more accessible than the “parapsychological” phenomena, which are, at least for the time being, far beyond the reach of our actual mental capacity, although I always kept them in mind and left a place for them in my definition of intuition. Physiology has not done so yet, but it ought to leave room for paraphysiology, which comes in where it is a question of materialization. I have seen enough of this phenomenon to convince me entirely of its existence. Being an honorary member of the British and American SPR I have read almost all the important publications in this field. All this on top of my own experiences has led me to the conclusion that space as well as time and matter are relative to the psyche, i.e., they are to a certain extent psychic functions. I discussed this problem with Rhine whose experiments with the space and time factor prove my hypothesis with sufficient evidence. I don’t know whether Rhine has already published his experiments concerning the psychic influences on mechanical dice-throwing. They prove, as far as I know, the extension of psychic relativity to matter. If this is true, my hypothesis would be at least a point of view from which a theoretical handling of P.C. and paraphysiology could start.

I should like to send you something in exchange for your book but unfortunately I have no copies left of my English translations. Not knowing whether you are sufficiently acquainted with the German language I don’t dare to send you one of my German publications, but let me know in case you do read German.

Sincerely yours, C.G. Jung

Dear Dr. Bendit,

I do remember X. and I’m sorry to hear that he died. He was my patient once. I’m glad to know that his end was correct.

Concerning Ascona I must sav that the meetings continued throughout the whole war. You should apply as soon as possible to Mrs. Frobe (Casa Gabriella, Ascona-Moseia, Tessin) for tickets. The meeting will take place at the end of August. It would be a great pleasure to meet you there and to discuss matters with you.

Your views about extra-sensory perception are not fundamentally different from mine. It’s only the definition which I was criticizing. People are apt to consider intuition as something quite particular, something much “ higher” than sensory perception. As you know I call intuition any kind of perception which takes place in a way that cannot be explained by the function of the senses. Intuition of divine thoughts or of a small tumour in the bone is in no way different as the nature of an object has nothing to do with the function of intuition. It has to do with it just as little as the faculty of seeing with the nature of the object which you see. It is always the function of seeing or hearing, the nature of which does not depend upon the object. I do not make the difference between intuition as a merely unconscious perception and a hypothetical intuition which would produce say a pneumatic truth. Whether intuition takes place in a normal state of mind or in an ecstasy or in a delirium, it is always the same function which in certain cases however reaches an acuteness or an autonomy which it does not in other cases. But there are people with an unusual faculty of thinking or reasoning or with an extraordinary sense-perception; for instance there are chamoix-hunters in our country who see the stars in bright sky during daytime, etc. This is the reason why I classify any kind of extra-sensory perception under the term of intuition, no matter what the object is.

Inasmuch as any function of consciousness can be directed, controlled, differentiated, intuition also can be practised and differentiated. That you can perceive things which your senses would not allow you to catch hold of or your thinking would not allow you to infer forms an additional problem. It forces us to speculate about the nature of time and space. The fact that extra-sensory perception is real proves that time and space are psychically relative. That means that they can be more or less annihilated. If that is the case, an extreme also is possible where time and space don’t exist at all. If a thing is capable of non-existence then we must assume that it is also capable of absolute existence. We know that time and space are indispensable and inalterable conditions of our three-dimensional world, what you call the world of the soma. The non-existent space and time cannot be an object of our observation. Therefore there is no possibility of proving that they do not exist. The most we can know is that under certain psychic conditions time and space reveal a certain elastic quality, i.e., a psychic relativity, where they begin to behave as if they were dependent upon the psyche. From this fact I conclude that the human psyche (and presumably the animal psyche too) has a non-spatial and a non-temporal quality, i.e., a relative power to make time and space non-existent. This would speak in favour of a relative immortality, as only in time can some thing come to an absolute end, but in relative time it can only come to a relative end. Concerning space we would come to the conclusion that the psyche is only to be located relatively. In other words, the whereabouts or the extension of the psyche in space is relatively uncertain.

Concerning spirit (pneuma) I want to say that spirit and matter are a pair of opposite concepts which designate only the bipolar aspect of observation in time and space. Of their substance we know nothing. Spirit is just as ideal as matter. They are mere postulates of reason. Therefore I speak of psychic contents that are labelled “pneumatic” and others “material.”

I’m much obliged to you that you mention a possible translator of my writings. The great difficulty of translating my works consists in the fact that one rarely finds a translator who is educated enough to understand ray technical language or my thought. I have a thoroughly humanistic training and my language is imbued with all sorts of allusions which are completely dark to somebody lacking an academic training. (…)

Yours sincerely, C.G. Jung

Remark 1: A good clarification on intuition functions.

Remark 2: People might attribute people with higher intellect as intuition types because once you find their reasoning to be very hard to follow you tend to attribute it to intuition as they understand intuition as something much "higher". This is another example of mixing Jungian typology with other out-of-scope aspects.

[CR400AF]

Letter to Hanhart.

Dear Colleague,

Very many thanks for kindly sending me your offprint, which I have read with great interest. The fate of children born of incest was most interesting and instructive. With regard to your questions, I much regret that I am no longer in a position to see you personally. Your letter arrived at the moment of my departure.

The question of the identity of psychological and physiological types is a complicated one. Kretschmer's types are based primarily on somatic criteria. My typology is based exclusively on psychological premises which can hardly coincide with physiological or somatic qualities. Somatic characteristics are permanent and virtually unalterable facts, whereas psychological ones are subject to various alterations in the course of personality development and also to neurotic disturbances. Even though assignment to a particular type may in certain cases have lifelong validity, in other very frequent cases it is so dependent on so many external and internal factors that the diagnosis is valid only for certain periods of time. Freud was just such a case. On the basis of an accurate knowledge of his character, I consider him to have been originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking. When I got to know him in 1907 this original type was already neurotically blurred. In observing a neurotic, one does not know at first whether one is observing the conscious or the unconscious character. Freud, then as later, presented the picture of an extraverted thinker and empiricist. His overvaluation of thinking coupled with his irresponsible manner of observation aroused my doubts as to his type. The subjective overvaluation of his thinking is illustrated by his dictum: "This must be correct because I have thought it." His irresponsible manner of observation is demonstrated by the fact, for instance, that not one of his cases of "traumatic" hysteria was verified. He relied on the veracity of his hysterical patients. When I analysed Freud a bit further in 1909 on account of a neurotic symptom, I discovered traces which led me to infer a marked injury to his feeling life. Experience shows that at such moments a feeling type switches over to thinking as the counterfunction, together with the compensatory overvaluation. The original auxiliary function -in this case intuition- is replaced by a somewhat deficient "fonction du reel." This transformation has been described by the French as "simulation dans la charactere." Freud, when one got to know him better, was distinguished by a markedly differentiated feeling function. His "sense of values" showed itself in his love of precious stones, jade, malachite, etc. He also had considerable intuition. Yet the superficial picture he presented to the world was that of an extraverted thinker and empiricist who derived his philosophy of life from the man in the street, which is supposed to be modern.

This mutability of the psychological type makes the question of its relation to the somatic type an extremely complicated problem. And when we take the results of personality development into account, the crude features of introversion and extraversion are also reversed. The case of a man of 36 with a cardiac neurosis may serve as an example. He was an obviously extraverted type, and his wife was introverted to a pathological degree. They got a divorce. He then married an extremely extraverted woman, lost his cardiac neurosis, and became a typical introvert with the feeling that this was his true nature. He was a successful businessman who from humble beginnings had worked his way to the top. His originally introverted disposition was kept under by his hard struggle and energetic will, but had to be married in the form of an introverted wife and paid for with a cardiac neurosis.

I hope these few hints will show you why I regard the identity of somatic and psychological types, if not exactly as a question of incommensurables, then at least as a problem that at present remains completely unsolved. With collegial regards,

Yours sincerely, C.G. Jung

Remark 1: Neurotic diseases might change, or blur one's type.

Remark 2: It's hard to type neurotic people correctly. Jung used Freud as an illustration.

[CR400AF]

Letter to von Fange.

Dear Mr. von Fange,

I have read your letter with great interest and I congratulate you on your attempt at further investigation in the field of typology.

It is a line of thought which I have not pursued any further, since my original tendency was not the classification of normal or pathological individuals but rather the discovery of conceptual means deriving from experience, namely the ways and means by which I could express in a comprehensible way the peculiarities of an individual psyche and the functional interplay of its elements. As I have been chiefly interested in psychotherapy I was always mostly concerned with individuals needing explanation of themselves and knowledge of their fellow-beings. My entirely empirical concepts were meant to form a sort of language by which such explanations could be communicated. In my book about types I have given a number of examples illustrating my modus operandi. Classification did not interest me very much. It is a side-issue with only indirect importance to the therapist.

My book, as a matter of fact, was written to demonstrate the structural and functional aspect of certain typical elements of the psyche. That such a means of communication and explanation could be used also as a means of classification was an aspect which I was rather afraid of, since the intellectually detached classifying point of view is just the thing to be avoided by the therapist. But the classifying application was -I almost regret to say- the first and almost exclusive way in which my book was understood, and everybody wondered why I had not put the description of the types right at the beginning of the book instead of relegating it to a later chapter. Obviously the tendency of my book has been misunderstood, which is easily understandable if one takes into account that the number of those people who would be interested in its practical psychotherapeutic application is infinitely small in comparison with the number of academic students.

I admit that your statistical line of research is perfectly legitimate but it certainly does not coincide with the purpose of my book, which in my humble opinion aims at something far more vital than classification. Though I have expressed my therapeutic views most emphatically only very few of my readers noticed them. The possibility of classification seems to be far more attractive.

By this rather longwinded peroration I am trying to explain to you why I am more or less unable to give you any helpful suggestions in your specific enterprise, since my thoughts do not move on this line at all. I am even sceptical in this respect.

I hold the conviction that for the purpose of any classification one should start with fundamental and indubitable principles and not with empirical notions, i.e., with almost colloquial terms based upon mere rules of thumb. My concepts are merely meant to serve as a means of communication through colloquial language. As principles however I should say that they are in themselves immensely complicated structures which can hardly fulfil the role of scientific principles. Much more important are the contents conveyed by language than their terms.

Sincerely yours, C.G. Jung

Remark 1: I personally think that Jung stated that he was no longer interested in typology is a polite rejection to discuss further with von Fange. Since Jung didn't agree with the statistical methodology of von Fange.

Remark 2: Jung stated that he aimed to demonstrate certain structural and functional aspects of certain typical elements of the psyche. This is more important than typing itself. I agree with that and I believe that when learning Jungian typology it's very important to keep this in mind.

Remark 3: The last paragraph of this letter provides a good guideline for studying Jungian typology. He stated that one should start with fundamental and indubitable principles. As far as I'm concerned, such fundamental principles are the structural and functional aspects he tried to demonstrate. We need to focus on the fundamental things at first instead of the colloquial terms. IMO, fundamental principles in Jungian typology include introversion/extraversion, collective unconscious, differentiation, repression and compensation etc. It's essential to understand such fundamental aspects as deep as possible. Flawed or non-Jungian systems mostly stick to the colloquial terms and ignore the fundamental principles. Also, it's very essential to notice that many terms used in Jung's texts have it's unique meaning.

[godslave]

Great work and contribution CR400AF !

[Tallmo]

Great work. Very valuable information you have found.. I'll comment later.

[Tallmo]

@CR400AF

So basically Jung typed Freud EII.

It was interesting to read about Freud. Marie-Louise von Franz, who was a jungian analyst and Jung's collaborator said:

Marie-Louise von Franz: "Lectures on Jung's typology" (von Franz, Hillman), page 60-61

Jung never said anyting about Freud's type as a human being; he only pointed out in his books that Freud's system represents extroverted thinking. What I add now is my own personal conviction, namely, that Freud himself was an introverted feeling type, and therefore his writings bear the characteristics of his inferior extroverted thinking.

She probably didn't know about the letter you posted, so she (semi)independently typed Freud Fi. That's interesting. She also gives some arguments for Fi in the book but I can't write them all here.

(Yes, these neurotic changes in type happen. I know an LII who could seem very outgoing and seem like an Fe type especially around women. Very convincing, but I felt that something was not quite right. When the situation changed and I was alone with him he became completely introverted.)

[CR400AF]

@CR400AF

So basically Jung typed Freud EII.

It was interesting to read about Freud. Marie-Louise von Franz, who was a jungian analyst and Jung's collaborator said:



She probably didn't know about the letter you posted, so she (semi)independently typed Freud Fi. That's interesting. She also gives some arguments for Fi in the book but I can't write them all here.

(Yes, these neurotic changes in type happen. I know an LII who could seem very outgoing and seem like an Fe type especially around women. Very convincing, but I felt that something was not quite right. When the situation changed and I was alone with him he became completely introverted.)

Interesting. I will read that when I have time.

Personally I actually have a quite small typology sample size in my real life since I'm not social. I haven't know any neurotic people IRL. But this interesting fact do reminds me of the Suggestive function. Does neurotic people more likely to shift toward the suggestive? I think Jung once said that the inferior function (suggestive) is somewhat a gateway to the subconscious.

It reminds me of several points:

1) Many socionists claim that Demonstrative is the second strongest function and the strongest vital function. However, it seems that Suggestive is actually playing an important role in the unconscious, which is much richer than dual-seeking. In Model A it's considered as the information entrance point in the.vital ring. Jung himself actually have a quite strong Demonstrative, but it didn't surpass his ego block. when reading his writing carefully it seems that the Ni character is still quite limited. His writing is quite Ti-Ne although he has a superbly strong Demonstrative.

2) The other example in this letter also shift between introversion and extraversion. Also, in PTypes Jung wrote a number of Suggestive-shift neurotic examples. I doubt it might also be a Suggestive-shift. It's not possible to be a Demonstrative-shift though since Demonstrative has the same altitude as Leading.

I havent read any other examples so I cant reach a conclusion here yet. But perhaps these show that Suggestive is the most important vital function.

3) Suggestive is also highly related to individuation. I don't know much in this concept yet

4) I do noticed my potential in my Suggestive after reading Jung. I remembered that when I read a poem which is full of emotion, I can actually read it pretty well, create numerous emotion. However in daily life I looks like someone without Fe.

[The Reality Denialist]

Overall this sees to confirm that Jungian typologies are very much incompatible with Big5 (but in some cases sometimes it may be correlative) .