{"id":6284,"date":"2015-07-29T18:32:16","date_gmt":"2015-07-29T18:32:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=6284"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:50","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:50","slug":"reviewing-the-assessments-of-jungs-type-2000-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2015\/07\/reviewing-the-assessments-of-jungs-type-2000-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing the Assessments of Jung’s Type: 2000-2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Ryan Smith<\/strong><\/p>\n

In preparation for our own piece on why Jung is INFJ, we will recap some of the\u00a0previous discussions of his type. This article will review the assessments offered in major books and articles between 2000 and 2012.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ann Casement (2001): Carl Gustav Jung<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In her general introduction to Jung and his work, the Jungian analyst Ann Casement writes:<\/p>\n

“[Jung] was an introvert<\/em>, that is, someone for whom the inner world has far more importance than that of the outer world of objects, and he claimed that what took place in his own mind was of greater significance than anything else in life. He exemplified introverted thinking<\/em>, which will be elaborated in the section on his typology further in the book.”[1]<\/p>\n

However, in the explanation of introverted thinking later in the book, we do not get any arguments pertaining to Jung, only to introverted thinking. So it would appear that Casement\u2019s purpose is not so much to analyze or assess Jung\u2019s personal psychology, but more generally to introduce Jung\u2019s theories to the reader. Since Casement seems well-versed in the Jungian corpus, I would venture the guess that she was probably following Jung\u2019s own self-assessment when she wrote that he was a Ti type.<\/p>\n

Diana Baynes Jansen (2003): Jung\u2019s Apprentice: Biography of Helton Godwin Baynes<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a biography of Jung\u2019s friend and translator Helton \u201cPeter\u201d Godwin Baynes, Diana Baynes, who appears to be a relative of Peter Baynes, writes the following:<\/p>\n

“… Peter was to become Jung’s chief assistant and by now a warm relationship had developed between them. It was as though Jung recognized in Peter a man of stature who was, in terms of his personality type, his exact opposite. … Jung’s typology, as an introverted, intuitive, thinking type, was almost diametrically opposite to Peter’s which was an extravert, feeling, intuitive. Jung introduced Peter to the possibility of a rich inner life. He enabled him to find a powerful source of experience from within himself instead of relying on other people and outer life to give him his sense of himself.”[2]<\/p>\n

As we get no explanation, notes, or further fleshing-out from Jansen, we can only assume that her argument is as stated above: In Jansen\u2019s view, Jung is an introverted intuitive thinking type (i.e. Ni with T or Ti with N) because he lived \u201ca rich inner life\u201d and was able to orientate himself on the basis of inner experience. This is a valid argument, although obviously not extensive. Indeed it is quite true that both Ni and Ti types can be inner-directed in the matter described, but the stipulations given above rule out neither the Si types (who indeed have a \u201cmagical inner life”),[3]\u00a0the Fi types (who are \u201cmainly oriented to the fathomless store of primordial images\u201d),[4]\u00a0 nor the Ni type with auxiliary F (of whom it is also a defining feature that he \u201capprehends the images arising from the a priori<\/em> inherited foundations of the unconscious\u201d).[5]<\/p>\n

Paul B. Farrell (2004): The Millionaire Code: 16 Paths to Wealth Building<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In what appears to be a \u201cget rich quick\u201d book of the self-help variety, the author Paul B. Farrell finds Jung to be two different types:<\/p>\n

“Scholars who have studied Jung and his work on personality typologies generally see Jung as a Visionary<\/em> (INTP), largely because of his total focus on developing a scientific approach to psychology. Yet anyone familiar with Jung in his private life, especially thorough his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections<\/em>, will clearly see a Mystic Hero<\/em> (INFP) behind the visionary mask, and both<\/em> are the real man.”[6]<\/p>\n

Farrell appears to be deferring to the verdict of others when he casts Jung as an INTP (though it is telling that he does not touch upon Jung\u2019s self-identification as a Ti type). Conversely, Farrell appears to be offering his own opinion when he says that the Jung of Memories, Dreams, Reflections <\/em>is an INFP.<\/p>\n

Farrell\u2019s line of argument is unfortunate insofar as Memories, Dreams, Reflections <\/em>is not a genuine autobiography and thus not a look at \u201cthe real man,\u201d but rather a series of interviews that were bent into literary shape by Aniela Jaff\u00e9. According to the early research of Sonu Shamdasani and Deirdre Bair, these interviews were not only violently reworked by Jaff\u00e9, but also subjected to pressure from the book\u2019s publishers to conform as much as possible to the familiar format of a standard biography, all in the name of handsome sales figures.[7] Farrell\u2019s INFP-Jung, as he emerges from the pages of Memories, Dreams, Reflections,<\/em> is thus inseparable from that of a literary fiction.<\/p>\n

John Giannini (2004): Compass of the Soul: Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In his 2004 book, Compass of the Soul<\/em>, John Giannini asserts that Jung was an Ni type:<\/p>\n

“During this time [i.e. 1912-1916] Jung discovered his native typology as an introverted intuitive: in the past he had considered himself an introverted thinking type, evidence that he himself had been caught in a typological complex.<\/p>\n

In terms of an archetypal\/complex theory of the psyche, Jung had been born innately intuitive. However, for whatever reason, probably because our Western culture is so thinking oriented and the Swiss so dominated by sensation and thinking, Jung had erroneously adopted thinking as his dominant type. This meant that his ego complex was caught in a type complex not native to him, while his true intuitive type stays in a secondary and despised place in his intuitive thinking (NT) coupling and haunted him as a semi-unconscious complex.”[8]<\/p>\n

As Giannini is no doubt aware, Jung never publicly said that he was an Ni type, but always said he was a Ti type. However, by way of personal correspondence, Giannini has told me that his assessment of Jung as an Ni type is influenced by John Beebe\u2019s assessment. Beebe asserts that the Notes on the Seminar Given in 1925<\/em> reveal that Jung secretly considered himself an Intuitive type, while at the same time he kept stating in public that he was a Ti type, albeit with certain covert cop-outs and qualifications (such as slipping into the past tense even when asked to answer in the present tense).[9]<\/p>\n

Lucy <\/strong>Huskinson<\/strong> (2004): Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The topic of Jung\u2019s identification with Nietzsche is quite a fruitful one, which we shall return to. For now, Lucy Huskinson\u2019s 2004 offering, Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites<\/em>, has the following to say about the matter:<\/p>\n

“It is thus not unreasonable to conclude that, being fearful of his identification with the insane Nietzsche, Jung might try, unconsciously or not, to work through his own psychological issues using Nietzsche to carry his complexes. After all, Nietzsche was the most suitable and obvious candidate for this \u2013 being the \u2018archetypal\u2019 mad genius, with a similar family background and psychological disposition to Jung (i.e. both being intellectual-intuitive types).”[10]<\/p>\n

And:<\/p>\n

“As an intuitive type, Jung is encouraged to think passively or fantastically. The final paragraph of Psychological Types<\/em> (1921) supports our claim above. Here Jung\u2019s discussion of Nietzsche can be read as a description of Jung himself.”[11]<\/p>\n

Huskinson then cites the part of Psychological Types<\/em> \u00a7242 (which is oddly not<\/em> the final paragraph of Psychological Types<\/em>) that could serve as a description of both Jung and Nietzsche:<\/p>\n

“In his initial work he unwittingly sets the facts of his own personal psychology in<\/em> the foreground. This is all quite in harmony with the intuitive attitude, which characteristically perceives the outer through the medium of the inner, sometimes even at the expense of reality. By means of this attitude he also gained deep insight into the Dionysian qualities of his unconscious.”<\/em>[12]<\/p>\n

Huskinson\u2019s reasoning here calls for some elaboration. First, as readers of Psychological Types<\/em> will know, \u201cintellect\u201d is frequently used as a synonym for the thinking function throughout the\u00a0book.[13] So when Huskinson says that both Nietzsche and Jung were \u201cintellectual-intuitive types,\u201d she would seem to be saying that both were NT types.<\/p>\n

As Huskinson groups Nietzsche and Jung together on the basis of being similar types, our discussion calls for a digression\u00a0on Jung\u2019s opinions about Nietzsche\u2019s type. First, in Psychological Types<\/em> \u00a7242, Jung argues that:<\/p>\n

“The fact that it is just the psychological functions of intuition on the one hand and sensation and instinct on the other that Nietzsche emphasizes must be characteristic of his own personal psychology. He must surely be reckoned an intuitive with leanings towards introversion. \u2026 His lack of rational moderation and conciseness argues for the intuitive type in general.”<\/em><\/p>\n

So Nietzsche must be an Ni type. But we can get even closer to the matter, for Jung also says in Psychological Types<\/em> \u00a7235-238 that Nietzsche\u2019s Feeling is bound up with his inferior Sensation, while his Thinking is bound up with Intuition. So in chapter III of Psychological Types<\/em>, Jung clearly thinks that Nietzsche is an Ni-T-F-Se type.[14]<\/p>\n

But then, later still in Psychological Types <\/em>\u00a7632, Nietzsche is no longer an Ni type:<\/p>\n

“Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant. The one speaks with facts, the other relies on the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide field of objective reality. Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge. Cuvier and Nietzsche would form an even sharper contrast.”<\/em><\/p>\n

So whereas Nietzsche was an Ni with T type in Psychological Types<\/em> chapter III, Nietzsche now seems to be a Ti type in Psychological Types <\/em>chapter X. But Jung had more to say about Nietzsche\u2019s type.\u00a0In his Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra<\/em>, given in 1934 \u2013 1939, Jung would return to the topic of Nietzsche\u2019s type in order to state the following:<\/p>\n

“I have heard of mothers wanting to be paid for their love only too often. Nietzsche had not because he was a man with very developed intuition and intellect, but his feeling developed slowly.”[15]<\/p>\n

As well as the following:<\/p>\n

“[Nietzsche’s] main function is surely intuition, which would be up above, connected with the brain, with consciousness, and that is in opposition to the things below, namely the other three functions.”[16]<\/p>\n

So strictly speaking, Jung has said that Nietzsche is an Intuitive dominant type with auxiliary thinking, but in his seminar on Zarathustra, Jung has not said whether he now considers Nietzsche an introvert or an extrovert. However, any such doubt is soon dispelled, as in the same work, Jung also says the following:<\/p>\n

“In Nietzsche\u2019s case \u2026 the unconscious came up with all its extraversion and \u2026 he locked the complex away from himself and dissolved in a tremendous extraversion within his isolation.\u201d[17]<\/p>\n

So alas \u2013 if Nietzsche\u2019s unconscious is extroverted, then by implication of the enantiodromia<\/em> \u2013 \u201cthe law of running counter to” \u2013 that fuels Jung\u2019s thinking on type, his most conscious, most differentiated function must therefore be introverted.[18]<\/p>\n

Thus, to sum up Jung\u2019s views on Nietzsche\u2019s type:<\/p>\n