News Flash!
It’s not a “smoking gun” by any means, but I confess I’m pretty excited about it.
Last night a message come through my email notifying me that someone had just posted a response online to a thread I once commented on.
Big deal. Happens all the time. I almost didn’t chase it down.
But I did. In between processing some files I had a little time to kill.
The thread originated when somebody asked about C.G. Jung’s type. Yeah, that ole thread. It started out like this (the quotations are verbatim):
“Does anyone know what Jung’s personality type would be according to the Myer-Briggs Personality typology? In one online source I found, the author states that Jung’s type is the INTP, while another proposes that he is an INTJ. Anyone have any thoughts on this?”
Followed, of course, by all the same old stale replies that always follow such a query:
“I thought he was INFJ.”
“I would propose that if we dare lay the Myers-Briggs schema on Jung (who never identified the J/P types), that he would be a “P”.” (Etc.)
“I remember,Myer has written Jung’s type.I surely remember he was INTP.”
and even,
“Scientologists would say he’s an “SP”!”
All of these comments were old news, guaranteed to generate either yawns of boredom or moans of annoyance at the lack of sophistication.
And then… I came upon the new message.
I read it cursorily at first, expecting the same old drivel.
“It is more interesting and relevant to ask how Jung identified himself on his own typology.
I have direct evidence on this point. I had a long talk with Jung at his home in Kusnacht on the morning of December 18th, 1959. I was aged 21, a Fellow of the Bollingen Foundation, and had been corresponding with Jung since 1957.
I said, innocently, and in passing, “I must be what you call a thinking type.” He immediately broke in and said. “No you are an introverted intuitive type” and then he added, “just like me”. This meant, of course, that I could read Jung knowing that his prejudice coincided with mine.”
The message was signed, “Stephen Abrams (London).”
My jaw dropped. I read it again. And again, just to make sure I hadn’t taken leave of my senses.
Yep, that’s what it said alright.
I rapidly followed up and contacted the author of the message and enjoyed a brief exchange with him. To my surprise, we share the same birthday, July 15th, albeit in a different year, of course. His birth year is 1938 (I shan’t tell you mine, but it’s significantly later).
I was tickled that we had the same birthdate, and asked him if it would be all right if I called it “synchronicity.” To which he kindly replied,
“My correspondence with Jung, between 1957 to 1960 was about synchronicity. Most of his letters to me are published more or less complete in Vol. 2 of the Jung Letters.”
Wow, in those two sentences he both established tremendous credibility AND in a heartbeat altered the sequence of my extensive reading list!
As you can imagine, I feel pretty excited about this discovery. It vindicates Dr. John Beebe’s position, and authenticates Angelo Spoto’s premise as written in his book, Jung’s Typology in Perspective.
Arguments about Jung’s type have raged for years. It is commonly known that Jung at one time professed to be a Thinking type, so the INTPs naturally laid claim to him. Dr. Beebe’s hypothesis is that Jung discovered his true pattern over time, and that excavation is demonstrated via his written works — the development shows up there. (I guess if you’re a brilliant Jungian like Dr. John Beebe is, you might be able to discern such a thing.)
Certainly it’s highly evident that Jung was a curious combination of “mystical” and “empiricist.” That alone seemed like decent evidence of INTJ preferences to me, especially seeing as how I got married to someone with that particular type pattern — at Stonehenge no less! And yet there are those who say one of Jung’s contemporaries, J.H. van der Hoop, claimed that Jung’s preferences were for ISTP. Hm, that would indicate a compromise of sorts — with that pattern, Jung would have access to both introverted Thinking AND introverted intuiting.
It seemed destined to remain a mystery, lost forever in the mists of time. But no, through the miracle of the internet and a brief act of synchronicity, it appears there is someone credible who can tell us — can confidently serve as reliable witness, in fact — that by his own admission, Jung’s true disposition was for INTJ.
At least I think it’s INTJ! I forgot to ask for clarity around Thinking versus Feeling.
…Is there really any doubt about that?
PS: When I wrote Dr. Beebe about it, his reply was “Eureka!”
PPS: Angelo writes, “Great piece of good fortune, and yes, synchronicity. Thanks for letting me in on your “Eureka” moment.”
I have composed a postscript to this post in answer to a valuable challenge which may be found here.
I coach people to identify and develop their natural personality strengths in order to maximize their potential.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
Pretty interesting…thanks for sharing.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Hello, Vicky.
Well, today I was discussing with someone precisely Jung’s type (would you call that synchronicity?). My impression was introverted intuition all the way. But, seemingly unlike you, I tend to think he uses introverted thinking intensely (more than a NiTe should). What if he was an infj who (willingly) developed his tertiary to a great extent, maybe to counterballance his secondary?
To you he seems so similar to intjs? My husbad is also intj (I’ll just ignore the coincidence) and he’s much less interested in ‘human systems’ than Jung was. He does have that mystical/empiricist combo, though. But maybe it also depends on each person’s evolution and calling.
October 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I’ve always thought he was an INFJ with a very developed Te tertiary. Most INFJs I know in modern society *must* develop the tertiary more than normal because the INFJ preferences are ill-suited for our modern world devoid of mysticism and poetry (to summarize a very complicated reasoning). The INFJs I know who don’t develop Te “out of order?” - they’re poets and mystics.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
My experience with Type is certainly limited compared to the other writers…..but my impression in reading Jung was that he’s either INTP or writing in a style more often used by INTP’s. I’m INTJ and have wondered if he purposefully wrote using the style of his auxiliary or tertiary…..weird theory, but it keeps popping up as a possibility in my mind.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Oops, I meant to say Ti tertiary. I actually dreamt about the mistake. Talk about a WWJD (What would Jung do) moment.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
As an INTP, I was always a bit tepid on the idea that Jung was my type. He was so much broader in his imagining and mysticism (dare I say this). An INFJ or INTJ seemed more likely.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“At least I think it’s INTJ! I forgot to ask for clarity around Thinking versus Feeling.
…Is there really any doubt about that?”
Would it be possible for you to contact this person again in order to verify the INTJ/INFJ question by 100%?