Why Jung Is INFJ, Part 1: How Jung Saw Himself

By Ryan Smith

Much has been written on the matter of Jung’s type, and while the INFJ assessment seems to be gaining traction, many professional typologists still believe Jung was INTJ. Simultaneously, Jung’s own self-assessment (as an ITP type with inferior Feeling) does not appear to have many supporters left.

Whatever type Jung was, however, it seems to me that: (1) A thorough discussion of Jung’s type and review of the evidence is lacking and (2) Jung’s personality presents us with a lot of “noise” from those aspects of his personality that do not pertain to type. (Indeed, as Jung himself said, the question of his personality was a tricky one to resolve.)[1]

In this series of articles, I will attempt to discuss the matter of Jung’s type, handling not just the question of his type, but also these other areas of his personality, as well as the question of how Jung saw himself. Before we begin, however, it serves us well to note that we were not the first to identify Jung as INFJ. As far as we can tell, that honor belongs to Keirsey and son.

How Jung Saw Himself

The question of Jung’s self-assessment is an intriguing one. As is now familiar to most, Jung publicly identified his type as Introverted Thinking with Sensation (Ti-S-N-Fe) on one occasion and Introverted Thinking with Intuition (Ti-N-S-Fe) on another. Less well-known are a number of loose asides and partial self-identifications given by Jung elsewhere. Adding to our troubles, there is a somewhat strident myth in the Jungian community that Jung has somewhere identified himself as an Introverted Intuitive with Thinking (Ni-T-F-Se) type. But as we shall see, that interpretation owes more to wishful thinking than to anything Jung himself said.

Having reviewed a great deal of material, some of it unpublished, I have never found anything to suggest that Jung ever identified as anything but a Ti-dominant type. At the same time, however, it is nevertheless obvious that Jung – as with so much else in his life – was at pains to install opaque qualifiers and “secret outs” in his recorded statements about his own type. Since Jung was so cagey and disobliging, it is not enough to read this or that and then attempt to interpret it in isolation when seeking to understand how Jung saw himself. One must trace the broad contours of his thinking on the matter in order to understand both what he was saying and what he was attempting to hide.

We start at the beginning.

1915: EFs and ITs

Prior to coming up with the present-day scheme of typology as a system of four functions (F, T, S, N) and two orientations (E, I), Jung had collaborated with his colleague Hans Schmid-Guisan on a typology consisting of only two types: The Extroverted Feeler (EF) and Introverted Thinker (IT). As the two freely admit in The Question of Psychological Types, they based their rough typological schemes on their own psychologies: Schmid-Guisan was to be the EF and Jung the IT. These “original types” were created out of an opposition, formed between just two parties in an intimate microcosmos where it was not possible to see the full view. Of Schmid-Guisan’s type, John Beebe has said (and we agree) that he was an ENFP (Ne-Fi-Te-Si) type. However, like Jung, Schmid-Guisan’s personality seemed to possess more than its normal share of quirks, stemming from elements of the psyche “outside of type.” While certainly no intellectual bystander to Jung in their correspondence, the picture of Schmid-Guisan that emerges from those letters is that of a jovial, intensely caring and enthusiastic personality who lovingly put people at the center of his world. In the tightened duality of just these two personalities, it would therefore be easy for the more brooding and self-centered Jung to conclude that since he was “colder” than Schmid-Guisan, he must therefore have been his opposite.

Even before the existence of the Intuitive type, then, Jung had formed an impression of himself as a Thinking type. Since the EF/IT system suggested an oppositional scheme between the two types, it is also likely that Jung had not only formed an image of himself as a Thinking dominant type, but also as a type with inferior Feeling. Of course it is still possible that upon discovering the existence of the Intuitive type, Jung took a step back and re-evaluated his previous self-assessment from scratch. But while we cannot be sure, the evidence suggests that he probably did not do so. For example, as I have pointed out in my review of The Question of Psychological Types, much of the terminology that made sense in the EF/IT system of Jung and Schmid-Guisan is carried over into Psychological Types itself with little to no modification. The material pertaining to the old schema of two types (EF/IT) was imported into the new system where it tends to make less sense. It seems to me that just as Jung did not expend much critical thought on how the old material would fit into the new system, so he probably did not take care to seriously consider the possibility of he himself being anything but an IT (Ti-dominant) type – at least not until 1925.

What Happened in 1925?

In 1925, Jung gave his famous Seminar on Analytical Psychology, the contents of which were supposedly “secret knowledge.” In Jung’s own lifetime, to be allowed to read the minutes from that seminar required many hours of “Jungian analysis” as well as Jung’s personal permission.

In this seminar, Jung describes a series of complicated personal transformations, involving dreams, mythological considerations, and personal fantasies (so-called “active imaginings”), which Jung apparently regarded as real (since they were ostensibly messages and lessons sent to him through the Collective Unconscious). Into this highly personal and opaque mix, of which Jung himself says that he is not telling the participants of the seminar everything, Jung throws in some typological terms, which are for the most part applied very loosely. He does say, however, that (in his own opinion) he used to be an ISTP (Ti-S-N-Fe) type until some psychic transformation happened. Jung then continues this murky narrative for quite some time, until he reveals a chart saying that Intuition is now “superior.” This statement has been taken by theorists such as Beebe, Giannini, and others to mean that Jung now identified as an Ni type with auxiliary thinking. In my opinion, however, there are several problems with such an interpretation; for example, speaking of the chart Jung himself says that “it is very much better to leave the figures as they are, namely as events, experiences” (and in the very next lecture, he speaks of himself as an Introverted Thinking-dominant type with inferior Feeling again). Therefore, it is in my opinion dangerous to rely on the extraordinarily personal and murky Seminar of 1925 as the sole source of Jung’s self-assessment. I have my own opinion of what the 1925 lecture might mean too, of course, but my interpretation will make more sense if viewed alongside Jung’s other statements about his type. We set it aside for Part 2.

If Jung Had Known That He Had Misidentified Himself, Would He Have Said so in Interviews?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that theorists like Beebe and Giannini are right and that Jung actually did change his self-assessment in 1925. If he had done so, would he have publicly admitted that he had had a change of heart? Or would he – for some reason or other – have continued to claim that he was a Ti type (even if that was not his true view)? Such questions are usually very hard to settle, but there may be a way for us to settle it by proxy, namely by examining the case of how Jung spoke of Alfred Adler.

In Psychological Types, Jung had said of Adler and Freud that:

“Freud would like to ensure the undisturbed flow of instinct towards its object; Adler would like to break the baleful spell of the object in order to save the ego from suffocating in its own defensive armour. Freud’s view is essentially extraverted, Adler’s introverted. The extraverted theory holds good for the extraverted type, the introverted theory for the introverted type.”[2]

Now of course, one can argue that Jung is here only talking about their views and not their types, but most people (including Jungians themselves) took this statement (and others like it) to mean that Freud was an E type and Adler an I type.

Psychological Types was published in 1921, but in a private latter, dated 1941, Jung returns to the matter of Freud’s and Adler’s types:

“I discriminate between the ordinary ego-consciousness of the man and his creative personality. Very often there is a striking difference. Personally a creative man can be an introvert, but in his work he is an extravert, and vice versa. … Adler, whom I met as a young man, being of my age, gave me the impression of a neurotic introvert, in which case there is always the doubt as to the definite type. … Freud as well as Adler underwent a change in their personal type. …

… Adler, I suppose, was never a real introvert, therefore as soon as he had a certain success he began to develop an extraverted behavior. But in his creative work he had the outlook of an introvert. The power complex which both of them had showed in Freud’s personal attitude, where it belonged. In Adler’s case it became his theory, where it did not belong. This meant an injury to his creative aspect.”[3]

(Bear in mind that this was a private letter, not meant for public circulation.) Here, even in spite of hedging his bets by “discriminat[ing] between the ordinary ego-consciousness of the man and his creative personality,” Jung admits that he now supposes that “Adler was never a real introvert.” No big problem, since every major theorist in the field of Jungian typology has had to revise and update their assessments, right? Well, perhaps Jung thought otherwise.

In a (public) interview given in 1955, Jung was asked about Freud’s and Adler’s types:

Interviewer: “You’re an introvert. … And Adler?”
Jung: “He is equally introverted.”[4]

So even though Jung had come to the conclusion that Adler was an extrovert, and the interviewer is clearly asking Jung about Adler’s personal type (and not Adler’s “theoretical standpoint”), Jung still says that Adler is an introvert. He remains consistent with his previously printed and public views on the matter, even though his private letters reveal that he thought he had probably been wrong about Adler and that he was most likely “never a real introvert.” So, by extension, if Jung had changed his view of his own type, maybe he would not have said so in public interviews either.

That still leaves the case for Jung self-identifying as INJ rather wobbly, though. In the scholarship on Jungian typology, the majority of theorists have assessed Jung to be an Ni (INJ) type – an assessment that we agree with. However, we must be careful not to let our own wishful thinking exude a retroactive influence over the historical record. It may be tempting to “bend” the evidence to fit one’s preferred conclusion, but in all of the instances of Jung discussing his own type that we are aware of, he never identifies as anything but a Ti (ITP) type. Some type practitioners do not like the idea that Jung could have been wrong with regards to his own type, but as the man himself said “…it is often very difficult to find out whether a person belongs to one type or the other, especially in regard to oneself. In respect of one’s own personality one’s judgment is as a rule extraordinarily clouded.”[5]

Conclusion to Part 1

  • Jung had identified himself as an IT type prior to the formation of the present system of types and most likely carried his old self-identification uncritically over into the new system, causing him to identify as a Ti type.
  • To our knowledge, at least, Jung has never publicly identified as anything but a Ti (ITP) type. Though he does present a chart in the “secret” Seminar of 1925, saying that Intuition is “superior,” there are several problems with simply taking this statement to mean that he now identified as an Ni (INJ) type (see above).
  • On the other hand, the theorists who believe that the Seminar of 1925 constitutes proof that Jung had changed his self-assessment to INJ have the point going for them that, judging by Jung’s public statements on Adler’s type, Jung may not have wanted to admit to the public that he had changed his mind about his own type.
  • However, in my opinion (and that of my co-admins) the account given in Seminar of 1925 is still pretty shaky, and need not even mean that Jung identified as INJ. There is another interpretation that makes just as much sense, which we shall see in the next part of this series.

REFERENCES


[1] Jung, quoted in Bair: Jung (Little, Brown and Company 2003) p.640

[2] Jung: Psychological Types §91

[3] Jung: Letters vol. 1 (Princeton University Press 1973) p. 301

[4] Jung: C.G. Jung Speaking (Princeton University Press 1987) p. 257

[5] Jung: Psychological Types §91

Parmenides Fragment 2

PREFACE TO PARMENIDES’ FRAGMENTS

In this series, I am going to analyze the meaning of the Parmenides fragments as I presently understand them. I am going to argue that, far from being the “single-brained super-logician” that modern scholarship takes him to be, Parmenides was in fact a shaman-healer and initiate of an Apollo mystery cult in his home town of Elea (an assertion borne out by archaeological evidence, no less).* Adopting this interpretation will allow us to make sense of the classical, hitherto unsolvable “Parmenides problems,” such as (a) what is the subject for being? (b) why does the goddess call her own account ‘deceitful’ (8.52)? and (c) why is the Way of Seeming (doxa) included in the poem, and elaborated upon in great detail, if false? 

It must be stated that I am not the first to have gleaned the “mystical” meaning of the Parmenides poem. Predecessors such as Peter Kingsley, Thomas McEvilley and others have proposed similar interpretations of the poem, although as far as I am able to tell, the precise contents of their analyses are almost entirely different from mine. At any rate, though, the view of Parmenides as a shaman is still an absolute minority view, with most scholars either asserting that he was a single-minded remorseless logician or a primitive physicist and physician....

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Psychology in Hinayana Buddhism

By Ryan Smith

The psychological theories of Buddhism have attracted much attention from Western writers, being lauded as both “modern” and “scientific.” As a rule, any prolonged study of psychology will inevitably spill over and become, at least in part, a study of personality as well. But while numerous titles on Buddhist psychology exist, works detailing a definite Buddhist theory of personality have so far proved elusive. I do not claim that this short article will be any different, but I can perhaps collect the scattered sayings on personality that exist throughout the Hinayana corpus, as well as draw up an outline of the general Hinayana theory of psychology.

buddha goldThis absence of a definite personality theory should come as no surprise, since many Buddhist writings deny the existence of abiding substances in favor of a process metaphysics in which substance is an illusion and everything is modes and conditions. As opposed to the Western view of personality as a composite of structural (fixed) and functional (fluid) elements, the Buddhist is more likely to view everything about the personality as fluid. A popular analogy in early Buddhism is that of comparing the mind to a flame; constantly changing and devoid of any fixed form....

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Jesus and Eastern Influences

By Ryan Smith

It is, as a rule, very hard to uncover the historical facts of the Christian inception, and whatever we can say must be stated with great reserve. On the other hand, it is easily demonstrable that many pertinent and illuminative facts are left out of most Christian accounts. In this article, I shall attempt to supply some of these facts, so as to give the reader a full understanding of the doctrines of Jesus. As with my articles on Buddhism and Hinduism, I shall not say anything about the spiritual truth of these doctrines, for I could not settle that question even if that had been my aim; it is a matter that everyone must decide for themselves.

First, it is almost completely certain that Jesus existed; that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans (probably while he was in his early or mid-30s). But beyond these facts, almost nothing can be known for certain of him. This paucity of information has caused considerable division in the modern interpretations of Jesus’ life and works. Did he preach a coming apocalypse? Did he identify himself as the Jewish Messiah? Was he a charismatic wonder-worker akin to Empedocles? Was he simply a moral teacher and social reformer? Or was his aim to preach a Jewish variant of Cynicism?...

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Functions for Beginners, Part 2

John Barlow is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Barlow’s piece represents his own insights and assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this piece, Barlow attempts an informal and colloquial exposition of basic function theory. 

By John Barlow

In my last article, I talked about the functions. I also put up some disclaimers about my articles not being academic, which are still in effect. In this article, I’m going to talk about the difference between dominant and inferior functions, and I’m going to be stealing — uhm, I mean paraphrasing — a lot of stuff from a student of Jung’s called Marie-Louise von Franz (you can read more about her stuff here)....

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Functions for Beginners, Part 1

John Barlow is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Barlow’s piece represents his own insights and assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this piece, Barlow attempts an informal and colloquial exposition of basic function theory. 

By John Barlow

In this article, I will try to explain function-based typology to newcomers and beginners. Similar to Mary Arrington’s sweet piece here, I will try to make my presentation colorful and entertaining. So if you’re already an expert, or if you’re a stickler for academic references and precision, I suggest you read some of the other (excellent) articles on the site instead. Still here? Okay, let’s go!...

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

The Anaximanderian Conception of Function Axes

“The Boundless is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which coming-into-being takes place, and into that which things return when they perish by mortal necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, in accordance with the order of time.” – Anaximander: Fragment DK12 B1 

By Ryan Smith

From the get-go, our conception of function axes has been imbued with a Heraclitean scaffolding, akin to the one foreshadowed by Jung.[1] However, as I have pointed out in previous articles,
anaximandersome of the framework that Jung attributed to Heraclitus should more properly be credited to Anaximander.[2] Jung himself did not appear to be aware of this....

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Determining Function Axes, Part 9

Lee Morgan is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. As always with guest writers on the site, Lee’s piece represents his own insights and type assessments and not necessarily those of the site. In this article, Lee seeks a tighter, Wittgensteinian definition of the function axes. 

By Lee Morgan

  1. The Quiddity Perception Axis (Se/Ni): This axis yields a cognitive preference for perceiving in terms of quiddity (that is, whatness, essence, usage). This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as appearance and immediate reality, which is the specialty of Extroverted Sensation, and extrapolations from givens and the archetypical thing-in-itself, which is the specialty of Introverted Intuition.
  2. The Abstraction Perception Axis (Si/Ne):This axis yields a cognitive preference for perceiving in terms of the abstractions they evoke. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as compilation and continuity, which is the specialty of Introverted Sensation, and as possibility and analogy, which is the specialty of Extroverted Intuition.
  3. The Rounded Judgment Axis (Fe/Ti):This axis yields a cognitive preference for judging in terms of qualifications. Just as all points on a circle may lead to its center, so every initial viewpoint, if undertaken in earnest and apprehensive of the right qualifications, may eventually lead to the truth. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as courtesy towards, and validation of, the viewpoints of others, which is the specialty of Extroverted Feeling, and as qualification, or the doubting of and continuous precision-seeking with regards to existing judgments, which is the specialty of Introverted Thinking.
  4. The Angular Judgment Axis (Fi/Te): This axis yields a cognitive preference for clearly stated and definite judgments. Just as a square is defined by its four angles, giving structure and form to the whole edifice (and other ways of defining a square would be less categorical), so each judgment is posited in opposition to competing judgments, with each judgment being irrevocably different from its counterparts. This preference expresses itself in two distinct ways, namely as sincerity and candor in the presentation of one’s own judgments, which is the specialty of Introverted Feeling, and the forceful and compelling marshaling of facts, which is the specialty of Extroverted Thinking.

Star Wars Big Five: Darth Vader

By Sigurd Arild, Eva Gregersen, and Ryan Smith

This series of articles analyzes the characters from ‘Star Wars’ (original trilogy only) on the basis of the Big Five system of personality which is the most widely used personality test in social science and which has sometimes been referred to as “the only truly scientific personality test.” Compared to Jungian typology, the Big Five is more empirical and ‘external,’ positing a straightforward relationship between personality and observed behavior, which makes it easier to achieve consensus.

Below Average Openness...

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.

Star Wars Big Five: Emperor Palpatine

By Sigurd Arild, Eva Gregersen, and Ryan Smith

This series of articles analyzes the characters from ‘Star Wars’ (original trilogy only) on the basis of the Big Five system of personality which is the most widely used personality test in social science and which has sometimes been referred to as “the only truly scientific personality test.” Compared to Jungian typology, the Big Five is more empirical and ‘external,’ positing a straightforward relationship between personality and observed behavior, which makes it easier to achieve consensus.

High Openness...

This article requires site membership. If you are already a member, click here to log in. If you are not a member, go here to create your account and become a member of the CelebrityTypes community today.