What MBTI type was Carl Jung

[docdi60]

Some have posited that Jung was a "pure type":

In the MBTI, all types are purposely treated as if the first and second functions of individuals NECESSARILY have opposite directions. This is because those who have designed the instrument believe that pure types will lack a necessary balance between introversion and extraversion, and this will be less healthy. 1

Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -

Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: they are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary. To live happily and effectively in both worlds, people need a BALANCING auxiliary that will make it possible to adapt in both directions -to the world around them and to their inner selves.

This theoretical bias in the MBTI is so strong, and has become so deeply embedded in how the system operates and is understood, that we would venture to guess that most MBTI practitioners never learned about the possibility of 'pure type' in the first place. Or, if they had, they surely no longer give much consideration to how the profiles of pure types may differ from profiles of the others. Even those who once were aware of the distinction come to forget, over time, about the possibility of 'pure' types. As we have shown elsewhere, this accounts for an interesting contemporary confusion about the personality type of Jung himself. Although one camp argues that he was an INTP (ie, Jungian IT) and the other argues that he was INTJ (Jungian IN), both remain unaware - because they are caught up in MBTI assumptions - of the fact that Jung was, ironically, himself a 'pure' type. A person who had introverted thinking and introverted intuition as his first two functions (with the former as dominant at some points in his career, and the latter dominant at other times), Jung was one 'pure' or 'extreme' type who not only lived 'effectively', but also made an extremely significant contribution.

Which could explain why people see him as an INTP or INTJ. The existence of "pure types" would explain people like my partner, who clearly seems to favor Ti and Si... without much Fe (just a smidgen) or Fi (almost none) to speak of. In my partner's case, this seems to make him extremely introverted and even less practical than I am as an INFP (as hard as that is to believe).

 

[docdi60]

The weirdness for me is that I have recently once again taken the Meyers Briggs more than once online and have tested as Both INTP And INTJ. Since my analysis from a Jungian-Freudian eclectic German Andreas Marcotty, now dec'd, I have known how introverted I am and yet how adapted I was and now not so much, to my life both as a Commercial Loan Officer at a bank, then student again and wrier then Doctorate and then as practicing analyst. I am now retired and am shirking whatever vestige of public persona I grabbed onto and am finding my two adult children to be very confused and upset in ways I never expected. So confusion is part and parcel of my life as a student of Jung. I did attend the NY Jungian Institute between careers for two weeks and felt oh, so t home..What a place that is and it deserves a visit from across the pond. As this is first post I will tune out and see what happens! Dr. DianeDianehttp://www.typologycentral.com/forums/images/smiliesimport/mellow.gif

 

[docdi60]

I now the original testing given to me at the Jung Institute in NYcity. I will take it again and then see where I stand i the typology..still think it will be INTJ Oh dear.

 

[spirilis]

Fwiw, John Beebe in his book "Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type" firmly types Carl Jung as INTJ during analysis of the Red Book as a work of conscience of Jung's own psyche.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Fwiw, John Beebe in his book "Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type" firmly types Carl Jung as INTJ during analysis of the Red Book as a work of conscience of Jung's own psyche.

Having read a lot of Jung at this point (at least, a few of his biggest and most famous books), I would strongly agree that Jung was Ni-Dom.

Example: The trajectory of his explorations shows a certain "universality" that I equate with Ni-Dom. Rather than settling into any one speciality, he was aiming for a kind of "unified field theory" of psychology. So he didn't just stop and investigate any one phenomenon for long (for instance, archetypes and the collective unconscious). Instead, he was always taking his investigations to the next level: Gnosticism, medieval literature, alchemy, mandalas, Eastern mysticism, synchronicity, telepathy, etc. It left him with a very scattered legacy (even a legacy as flakey and unreliable, which he himself acknowledged), and it also left some important themes only lightly developed (example: cognitive functions). But it showed his cast of mind.

And being Ni-Dom would give him better access in his own daily thinking to certain concepts that would be more hazy to users of other cognitive functions: Specifically, archetypes and the collective unconscious. Thus it makes sense that those particular concepts were discovered and explored by Jung rather than other psychologists.

And I would probably agree with INTJ over INFJ. Jung definitely seemed "chillier" in temperament than the usual INFJ. For example, Freud did a lot of patient studies in his writings. Whereas Jung didn't tend to do as many patient studies; he did some, but they're actually pretty rare compared to his more theoretical writings. IOW, it seems like he was more into theory than actual patients.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

[Pionart]

I've done text typing on his book and audio typing on his interview and I came to the same conclusion both times: INTP.