I just saw this article from the chat box of this forum. It's quite interesting. So I leave some quick comments here in the forum to make it more permanent.
I agree with it. This article argues that the letter from Jung to Myers was actually written by his secretary in order to be diplomatic. I think it's quite possible. It seems entirely possible to me that Jung could have done something like this. He had inferior Fe, so he may have wanted to appear polite, and at this point had his secretary write some of the more diplomatic letters. This article cites numerous pieces of evidence to try to show that Jung's letters of appreciation for Myers were diplomatic, and I think his inference is quite convincing.There is a popular misunderstanding that C.G. Jung approved of Isabel Briggs Myers’ work. However, he repeatedly objected to the popular interpretation of his book Psychological Types and research based on the MBTI® instrument. There was a rift between I.B. Myers and C.G. Jung which has been hidden for more than half a century from those who use Myers-Briggs typology (Myers, S. 2019).
The misunderstanding is largely due to a complimentary letter from Jung to Myers in 1950. However, Jung did not write it and it did not represent his opinion. It was written by his secretary who couched it in diplomatic language to conceal Jung’s disapproval.
This is one of the most interesting bits in this article. He says that a doctoral student once wrote to Jung to ask him to comment on his MBTI study, and Jung refused and opposed such a study. I looked up this letter according to the index listed in the article and found that it was the letter to von Fange that I had mentioned in 16t. Link:https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...in-his-lettersFirstly, the letter contradicts the views that Jung expressed elsewhere. For example, when asked in an interview about the American interpretation of his typological theory, he said ‘God preserve me from my friends’ (Jung 1957, p. 304). Another example is Jung’s response to a PhD student, who contacted Jung to ask for comments on his MBTI research. Jung refused to help, saying this type of work did not align with the content of his book (Jung 1977, pp. 550-52). Jung made various objections to the popular interpretation of his typological theory from the early 1930s to the late 1950s.
Now, an interesting question is whether Jung would have opposed Socionics. many people may think that since Jung opposed MBTI, he must have opposed Socionics. i think such a judgment is arbitrary. There is no doubt that Jung would not have agreed with all of the Socionics community's research. But logically, although both MBTI and Socionics evolved from Jung's typological system with 16 types, we cannot directly assume that MBTI and Socionics are logically equivalent because of this. Therefore, I do not think that Jung's opposition to MBTI means that he would necessarily oppose Socionics, because there are several important differences between Socionics and MBTI.
1) In its interpretation of the underlying concepts, Socionics offers a completely new interpretation of I/E, but there is no doubt that this interpretation is closer to the true meaning of Jung's original work. Although I admit that there are errors in the examples of Socionics (especially Ti/Te), and just as Jung's original work is constantly misunderstood, the definition of Socionics is constantly misunderstood and stereotyped in the process of dissemination. But when we go back to the most basic definition, IMO Socionics is the best successor to the real ideas of Jung's original work.
2) In their judgments of type, early Socionics researchers do not seem to have been keen on testing. Rather, they preferred to judge the Model A functions of their clients through consultations and interviews, while MBTI advocated the use of psychological questionnaires to test and count clients on a large scale at a very early stage.
It is then an interesting fact that these two key differences are precisely the reason why Jung objected to his research in this letter to von Fange. One very important piece of information that this web page provides is that this page states that the letter discusses the MBTI study. Previously, I had not noticed this in the C.G. Jung Letters, because Jung did not mention the term MBTI in his reply.
Let's review the letter:
That's what Jung have specifically opposed against in this letter:Originally Posted by Jung to von Fange
1) the statistical line of research.
2) interpreting his work literally while ignoring the inevitable core concepts
IMO, Socionics is doing pretty well in these two aspects.
To that extent, actually, I think MBTI is more in line with Big Five. Both are statistical, both use tests, and both interpret I/E in the Non-Jungian way.