One of the most important of Jung's longer works, and probably the most famous of his books, Psychological Types appeared in German in 1921 after a "fallow period" of eight years during which Jung had published little.
He called it "the fruit of nearly twenty years' work in the domain of practical psychology," and in his autobiography he wrote: "This work sprang originally from my need to define the ways in which my outlook differed from Freud's and Adler's. In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one's psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person's judgment. My book, therefore, was an effort to deal with the relationship of the individual to the world, to people and things. It discussed the various aspects of consciousness, the various attitudes the conscious mind might take toward the world, and thus constitutes a psychology of consciousness regarded from what might be called a clinical angle."
In expounding his system of personality types Jung relied not so much on formal case data as on the countless impressions and experiences derived from the treatment of nervous illnesses, from intercourse with people of all social levels, "friend and foe alike," and from an analysis of his own psychological nature. The book is rich in material drawn from literature, aesthetics, religion, and philosophy. The extended chapters that give general descriptions of the types and definitions of Jung's principal psychological concepts are key documents in analytical psychology.
Carl Gustav Jung (/jʊŋ/; German: [ˈkarl ˈɡʊstaf jʊŋ]), often referred to as C. G. Jung, was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical psychology. Jung proposed and developed the concepts of extraversion and introversion; archetypes, and the collective unconscious. His work has been influential in psychiatry and in the study of religion, philosophy, archeology, anthropology, literature, and related fields. He was a prolific writer, many of whose works were not published until after his death.
The central concept of analytical psychology is individuation—the psychological process of integrating the opposites, including the conscious with the unconscious, while still maintaining their relative autonomy. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development.
Jung created some of the best known psychological concepts, including the archetype, the collective unconscious, the complex, and synchronicity. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a popular psychometric instrument, has been developed from Jung's theory of psychological types.
Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist, much of his life's work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung's interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science. His influence on popular psychology, the "psychologization of religion", spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.
Although leaving a rich cultural legacy, C.G. Jung has had very little influence on modern psychology. A modern college textbook will typically confine discussion of him to a paragraph or two, mentioning him in reference to Freud and psychoanalysis, perhaps referring to his word-association work, perhaps summarizing his theory of a collective unconscious in a sentence. The one book Jung published which stands out as an exception is his Psychological Types. Upon it rests the popular Myer-Briggs test as well as the common distinction between extraverted and introverted "types" of personality.
In fact, the book is much more than psychology, much more than an essential framework for understanding Jung's notions of psychological development, or what he termed "individuation", and of psychic health, what he termed "wholeness". It is also a survey of the history of ideas, of philosophy in the West, a sort of psychologizing Hegelian Phenomenology. As such, it is very ambitious and, in a demonstration of his broad educational background, credible in its achievement.
As a young man, going through the Collected Works as they got published, volume by volume, this particular book awoke an interest in philosophy which eventually resulted in graduate studies in the field. Although Jung himself disliked Hegel and was barely acquainted with his work, reading the Types helped me understand the concept behind the Phenomenology of the Spirit. Although a serious philosopher would likely see Jung's survey of philosophy as too partial, too generalizing and too naive, a non-specialist may well find it as fascinating and informative as I did.
My first exposure to Carl Jung occurred about five years ago, when I wanted to learn about the psychology behind the popular Myers-Briggs personality test (my type is INTJ). I learned that the MBTI was based on the psychology of one Carl Jung, who I had never heard of, and thus began a fascinating odyssey into the life and works of the man who was able to penetrate my personality in a way that no other thinker had done. I read his memoirs in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, the seminal conversation he had with his unconscious in Liber Novus, as well as his writings on The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. But it wasn't until now that I read the work that contains the most comprehensive presentation of Jung's theory of psychological types--and what a treat it is for the devout Jungian.
Jung set out to write this work as an attempt to determine why he, Freud, and Adler were all treating patients with similar ailments and observing similar phenomena, and yet were each coming up with vastly different theoretical explanations of what they were observing. Jung hit on the idea that when dealing with things that are abstract and intangible, like the psyche, religion, or philosophy, these matters are always viewed through the subjective world of the interpreter. Much of man's metaphysical thought through the ages, Jung decided, was a manifestation of a subjective psychological orientation, and this is why metaphysicians through the ages have had such repetitive and seemingly unresolvable disagreements about fundamental ideas.
The implications of this are enormous, and Jung acknowledged that it would take a much more comprehensive study of the history of ideas to flesh out the contours of different subjective impulses and how they influenced human thought than he could provide alone, but he nonetheless attempted a cursory look at how subjective orientations have influenced major thinkers historically in the realms of theology, philosophy, poetry, and finally, in Jung's own age, the budding field of psychology. Early on, there is a fascinating study of two early Christian theologians, Tertullian and Origen. Jung believed that the intellectual differences between the two could be ascribed to the more fundamental difference between "thinking" and "feeling" as psychological functions. Origen, Jung thought, was a "feeler" who engaged in a Christian act of self-sacrifice by denying himself the full usage of his prominent feeling function and instead approaching Christian theology through the lens of the intellect. Tertullian, on the other hand, was a natural "thinker" who made a similar act of self-sacrifice and suppressed his own rationality in order to develop the irrational parts of his personality through his Christian writings.
Later on, we're treated to a Jungian examination of the differing philosophical perspectives of Goethe and Schiller, and how these affected their thought and their famous working relationship with one another. Schiller was an introvert; Goethe was an extrovert. Jung compares Schiller to the pre-socratic philosopher Heraclitus, in that the writings of both men expressed a belief in the principle of enantiodromia: that is, the principle that everything becomes its opposite. This reflects the constant interplay between the dominant and suppressed functions of the personality.
Jung came up with four fundamental psychological functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Each of these four functions may be introverted or extroverted in orientation--but introversion and extroversion for Jung did not have quite the same meaning as they do in today's popular understanding. It isn't simply that introverts are shy and extroverts are outgoing. Rather, introverts perceive things subjectively, in that they insert the inner world of their own personality between themselves and external reality, and take in the external world in this manner, while extroverts attach their subjective selves to the external realm; the world of objective objects and ideas. To briefly illustrate, you might say that an extroverted feeler determines how they feel about something, while an introverted feeler might rather determine how something makes them feel.
Jung's discussion of the nature of the different types makes up a relatively brief portion of the book, but this section would nonetheless be of the most immediate interest to those who want to know what Jung actually said about the different psychological functions. This is a good and necessary endeavor, because in my experience there are many misunderstandings within the typology community (which, as I came to discover, is a pretty active and sizable counterculture in its own right) about Jung's understanding of personality.
In the top five of the most important books for any serious student of humanity to read.
The erudition of Jung in making his argument is breathtaking, and demanding of multiple reads before the breadth and depth of his argument can be fully appreciated. This book influenced the history of my reading life more than any other. It inspired me to research many of the people and ideas he wrote about here. With Types I came to the realization that the real history of man is the history of the evolution of consciousness, not of dates and figures, and that to understand human social structures requires an understanding of human psychological development. This book is an embodiment of Jung's transcendent function in that it unites the history of events with the history of ideas but without being a history book.
The 'psychological typology' section, which is very short and often what is included in anthologies, is excellent. However, without reading the entire book, the depth and applicability of his argument becomes more an expression of an idea than a summation of an argument and is less convincing.
A remarkable read. One of the very few books I've read that completely changed my life.
По въпроса "кои сме ние" и "защо сме такива", както и "как да го променим" разсъждават митологии, религии, науки, а заради тях се водят и войните. Отговорите се множат, но истината си остава все така изплъзваща се на една ръка разстояние. Човекът все така е бойно поле на идеи, страсти, нужди и импулси.
Карл Густав Юнг дава своя принос в търсенето на отговорите, като сам изрично посочва, че психологията е млада наука и че самата тя е звено, хвърлящо мост от философия, история и схоластика към точните науки с техните елегантни формули. Както и че е една възможна гледна точка, каквито са науката и религията, и че всичко, в крайна сметка, е свързано.
Немската философска школа с нейната ясна структурираност прави Юнг достъпен, а чувството му за хумор и ирония внася приятна конкретика. По-малко приятни са референциите му към някои поетични и научни немскоезични източници от 19-ти век. От днешна гледна точка те често са излишно усложнени и отвлечени, в селенията на чистата мисъл, където въздухът е доста разреден и не е за всеки. Юнг обаче извлича есенцията от всяка достъпна му сфера - религия, философия, литература, психопатология, за да аргументира нещо относително революционно за началото на 20-ти век. Хората са различни, и трябва да се подхожда в съответствие с това. Но все пак опорни модели съществуват, и те пронизват цялата история и всяка човешка дейност и разклонение на обществения и личния живот.
Екстраверсията е вродена психична нагласа, ориентирана навън към заобикалящите ни обекти. Тя работи само посредством връзката с външната реалност. Екстравертът гради и се грижи за тъканта на обществото и обществения живот. Неговото ограничение е, че всичко извън външните обекти, включително вътрешният му свят, е илюзорно, съмнително, несъществуващо или даже враждебно. Неговият подход е конкретизирането. Опасността е да изгуби себе си сред безбройните детайли.
Интраверсията е вродена психична нагласа, ориентирана навътре, към самия субект. Всеки един външен обект преминава сложна вътрешна преработка и анализ, и едва тогава започва да съществува за интроверта. Неговият подход е абстракцията като начин да се изолира от обектите, за да може да обработи информацията. Опасността е да се изгуби в самия себе си.
Юнг ясно подчертава, че тези нагласи са вродени и не подлежат на промяна. Но в самите тях съществуват куп вариации, от които Юнг откроява четири - мислене, чувстване, интуиция и усещане - рожба на различни други психически нагласи. Тези нагласи и техните вариации могат да се развият с различна сила и в различна степен в зависимост от историческите и обществените условия, принуждаващи индивида да се адаптира към средата си. Индивидуалната психология, според Юнг, е дете на историческата епоха и на конкретната физиология.
На въпроса дали волята играе някаква роля отговорът вероятно е да, но не много. Всеки човек крие в себе си черна кутия, наречена от Юнг "несъзнавано". Тя крие всичко, което адаптацията към средата и епохата са отхвърлили като излишно за успеха на индивида и от което той по различни причини се е отказал или забравил. Крие всички онези нереализирани нагласи, които просто не намират място за проявление, защото дори човешката психика не може да се разпъне до безкрай, има си граници. Тази черна ку��ия, за моя приятна изненада, Юнг определя като нещо доста полезно и обогатяващо, когато се използва за компенсиране на ограниченията на "съзнаваното". И посредством фантазията, бляновете и творчеството черната кутия се свързва със съзнателните нагласи и може да създава цели нови светове. Естествено, тя става най-страшния ни враг, когато човек се опита да се отклони в посока, която е антагонистична на естествените му предразположености. Неврозите, комплексите, болестите са сигналът, че човек е поел не по своя път.
Юнг не е арогантен, нито самодоволен, нито самодостатъчен. Той сам посочва, че се опитва да предостави един възможен компас в океана на битието, една гледна точка. И да, на моменти сам той е леко архаичен (по отношение на социалната роля на жените, по отношение на последните днешни открития на невробиологията, по отношение дори на термини като “хистерия”, които днес не значат почти нищо), но е наясно, че самият той е продукт на епохата си и на собствения си характер, така че не си прави илюзии за общовалидност и вечност. Просто полага начало, върху което следващите след него да разсъждават и надграждат. Да конкретизират или оборват.
—— И нещо любопитно - тази книга на Юнг е в основата на теста на Myers-Briggs за различните типове личности:
▶️ Цитати: 🎨 “Нищо не е така подходящо да предизвика съзнанието и будността, както един раздор със самия себе си.”
🎨 “…човек е почти неспособен да проумее и да приеме друга гледна точка като своя собствена.”
🎨 “С психологическото различие между хората, този най-необходим фактор на жизнената енергия на едно човешко общество, няма да се справи никое социално законодателство.”
🎨 “Един непълноценен човек никога не е добър учител.”
🎨 “…фанатизмът не е нищо друго, освен свръхкомпенсирано съмнение.”
🎨 “Което у единия е в излишък, у другия е в недостиг […]” За интроверта и екстроверта
🎨 “Моралността не е недоразумение […], а […] инструмент на цивилизацията.”
🎨 “…идеите са също толкова мисли, колкото и чувства…”
🎨 “Сумата от всички цветове е сиво, светло на тъмен фон, тъмно на светъл фон.”
🎨 “…онова, което по пътя на разума е изглеждало непостижимо, често се е превръщало в човешки дела по ирационални пътища.”
🎨 “Трябва да се избира между това да формираш човек или гражданин; защото не можеш да създадеш наведнъж и единия, и другия.” Русо
🎨 “Докато обаче целта на културата не стане идентична с идеала за съвършенство на човешката същност, тези [непризнати, потиснати човешки] функции ще бъдат подложени на подценяване [спрямо одобрената функция]…”
🎨 “Всъщност даденото от християнството не е било решение, а някакво избавление, спасение… Християнството е дало една определена посока, изключвайки всички други възможни посоки.”
🎨 “Символните представи на всички религии са образи на несъзнавани процеси в типична форма, задължителна за всички.”
🎨 “…истината на единия е заблудата на другия…” за интроверта и екстраверта
This is the densest book I've read till date. And it brings out the genius of the man who was Jung, while it expands your mind...if you're oriented towards really understanding human psyche.
I'd been fascinated by Myers Briggs Personality Spectrum, but could see that there were many rough edges and generalisations there, things that come with simplifying something nuanced and complex. And so, I'd been planning to go right to the source. To Jung. The man who gave the world the concepts of Introversion and Extroversion.
And I wasn't disappointed in the least. The book opens with the conflict between the individual and the collective, goes into introversion and extroversion, history of types, their representation in poetry among other things and then finally comes to the 'general definition of types'
For my interest, I skimmed through the historical parts, as well as poetry..and right to the general definition of types. You can do the same. You can jump directly to Chapter X, once you've read the introduction if you want to understand his theories of Psychological Types.
I've become very interested in the man, and will be reading more of his books, `Dreams, memories, and reflections` to start with.
Let me begin by saying that if you don't know anything about Jungian, or analytical, psychology, you will be absolutely lost reading this tome. However, with a basic understanding of the cognitive functions, this book becomes readable. Long -- but readable.
I was mostly interested in the qualities and traits of each of the specific functions, and found it annoying that I had to read till the very end for a description of the types. I was disinterested in the type problem in poetry, the type problem in religion, in history, etc. These sections made up the bulk of the text and became quite arduous to read, especially when Jung began to speak about characters (such as in ancient Greek mythology) that I knew little about. How can I care about a fictional character's personality if I have very limited knowledge of who he even is?
That all said, Jung described the types eerily accurately. His overview of Intuition and introverted feeling (I'm an INFP) were SPOT ON, and I felt understood reading his analysis. I also stacked his description of the other types against the personalities of my own friends and family, and as a result feel that I now understand them a little better than I did before.
2.5 stars for some genuinely interesting content. Lost stars for the length and irrelevant sections.
This book has influenced my life more than any other book besides the scriptures. It is not a book I would read over and over again like I would the scriptures, or the book Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley, yet, the book has been a vital, seminal work for my own work on temperament types. Jung's Psychological types and the book Please Understand me II have have been the platform for my research and obsession with the dichotomies in human nature.
Such an important book for me to understand... I hope I understand it after the next couple times I read it through. It showed me why I'm the way I am and why people who I know are as they are - not that I should pidgeonhole people, but it's just that... now I see why some intuitives (like me) have trouble listening; I see why a certain thinking type I know refuses to look inside herself; I see...
Some quotes from Psychological Types:
On why an irrational intuitive's creative efforts can have trouble connecting with the public:
“He makes himself and his life symbolic – adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to present-day reality. He thus deprives himself of any influence upon it because he remains uncomprehended. His language is not the one currently spoken – it has become too subjective. ... The fragmentary and episodic character of their communication makes too great a demand on the understanding and good will of those around them; also, their communications are without the personal warmth that alone carries the power of conviction.”
“Rapport consists essentially in a feeling of agreement in spite of acknowledged differences. Indeed, the recognition of existing differences, if it be mutual, is itself a rapport, a feeling of agreement. … This rational presentation is valid only for rational types, but not for the irrational, whose rapport is based not on judgment but on the parallelism of living events. His feeling of agreement comes from the common perception of sensation or intuition. … To the rational type it is often a painful thought that the relationship will last just as long as external circumstances and chance provide a common interest. … Whereas it is precisely in this that the irrational type sees a human situation of particular beauty. The result is that each regards the other as a man destitute of relationships, who cannot be relied upon, and with whom one can never get on decent terms. … It frequently happens that despite an absolute difference of standpoint a rapport nevertheless comes about, and in the following way: one party (the rational), by unspoken projection, assumes that the other is, in all essentials, of the same opinion as himself, while the other (the irrational) divines or senses an objective community of interest, of which, however, the former has no conscious inkling and whose existence he would at once dispute, just as it would never occur to the other that his relationship should be based on a common point of view. A rapport of this kind is by far the most frequent; it rests on mutual projection which later becomes the source of many misunderstandings.”
On "The Inferior Function" - which I find really interesting:
“Most people, when the question of their inferior function is in any way touched upon become terribly childish and touchy; they can’t stand the slightest criticism but always feel attacked, for they are uncertain of themselves and, with that, naturally they tyrannize everybody around them; everybody has to walk carefully. If you want to say something about another person’s inferior function, it is like walking on eggs, for people just cannot stand any criticism there, and a rite d’entrée is required, waiting for the right moment for a peaceful atmosphere, and then carefully, with a long introductory speech, one might get over some slight criticism about the inferior function.”
“If people can begin to laugh about their inferior function, that can be redeeming, for then everything is twenty times better. When a sense of humor is established and you can pull the other person’s leg, as they can pull yours, a lot of trouble is cleared away.”
“The inferior function is generally slow in contrast to the superior function. Jung calls it infantile and tyrannical. this slowness is in fact one of the great troubles of the inferior function, which is one reason why people hate to start work on it, for the reaction of the superior function comes out quickly and well adapted while many people have no idea where their inferior function really is. For instance, thinking types have no idea whither they have feeling or what kind of feeling it is. They have to sit for half an hour and meditate as to whether they have any feeling about something, and if so what it is.”
Algo estranho ocorreu. Minha edição deste livro caiu da prateleira hoje e como esta é razoavelmente pesada e velhinha, acabou-se por partir ao meio. O estranho não foi isso e sim o fato que durante a queda o livro partiu igualmente ao meio o poster de Kill Bill Volume 2 que ficava alí do lado. O que dizia o livro entre as páginas partidas? "O homem sempre esquece, e volta sempre a esquecer, que o que foi bom uma vez nem sempre pode continuar a sê-lo por toda eternidade. Percorre ainda os antigos caminhos, que foram bons outrora, mas já não o são mais, pois se converteram em maus caminhos e só com os maiores sacrifícios e incríveis esforços pode desembaraçar-se da obsessão de que o bom de um tempo passado ainda é bom e não se fez velho." Rá! Go Beatrix Kiddo!
Kaip ir kasmet, atostogoms pasiimu ne visai atostogų skaitalą, nes žinau, kad bent jau laiko gilintis turėsiu. Skaitydama daugiausia galvojau apie to laikmečio įtaką visam veikalui - nuo struktūros (4/5 knygos sudaro istorinė tipų analizė, kurioje Jung'as pagrindžia savo tipologiją - tokia gana šališka analizė sakyčiau :)) iki turinio (mąstymo funkcija būdingiausia vyrams, jausmo - moterims) - ir paties Jung'o atvirumą, nes kur jam įdomu, tai analizė, palyginimai, komentarai, kur jam arba mažiau įdomu, arba viskas aišku, ar šiaip reiškinys paprastesnis - pora puslapių ir taškas.
Besitikintiems susiklasifikuoti save patį patarčiau paieškoti kokios kitos knygos (gaila, bet nieko konkretaus negaliu pasiūlyti), nes šią Jung'as parašęs lygiaverčiam diskusijos dalyviui, todėl į visokias kasdienes smulkmenas (kaip koks tipas elgiasi, su kuo geriau bendrauti ir kuo užsiimti, ir pan.) nesivelia, o daugiau kalba apie paties tipo ir funkcijos bendrus bruožus ir atsiradimą.
Mi-am completat Biblia personala cu acest volum. Daca Vechiul Testament este pentru mine Dostoievski si cunoasterea de sine prin intermediul personajelor lui, Jung a validat tot ce intuiam si a completat multe goluri in intelegerea disonantelor si antagonismelor dinauntru si dinafara, din psihicul meu si din relatiile cu ceilalti. In multe locuri este ermetic si foarte abstract, cu referinte mult peste cultura mea filosofica, medicala si chiar literara. Dar cred ca fiecare va intelege esentialul, cel putin atunci cand isi va regasi descris propriul tip.
"[...] tipul introvertit se deosebeste de cel extravertit prin faptul ca el nu se orienteaza, asemenea celui din urma, precumpanitor dupa obiect si dupa datul obiectiv, ci dupa factori subiectivi. [...] in cazul introvertitului, intre perceptia obiectului si propria sa actiune se strecoara o opinie personala care impiedica actiunea sa capete un caracter corespunzator datului obiectiv". "In vreme ce tipul extravertit se revendica precumpanitor de la ceea ce ii vine dinspre obiect, introvertitul se sprijina mai cu seama pe constelatia pe care impresia exterioara o produce in subiect". "Nu trebuie niciodata uitat - ceea ce modul de a vedea extravertit uita prea lesne - ca orice perceptie si orice cunoastere sunt nu doar obiectiv, ci si subiectiv determinate. Lumea nu este doar in sine si pentru sine, ci este si asa cum apare. In fapt, noi nu avem nici un criteriu care sa ne permita sa evaluam o lume pe care subiectul n-ar putea-o asimila. Trecand cu vederea factorul subiectiv, am nega marea indoiala cu privire la posibilitatea de cunoastere absoluta". "Dar ce este subiectul? Subiectul este omul, subiectul suntem noi. E pagubitor sa se uite ca actul de cunoastere implica un subiect si ca nu exista in general niciun fel de cunoastere si, in consecinta, pentru noi nici lume, daca cineva nu poate spune , punand insa astfel limitele subiective ale oricarei cunoasteri".
Since the collected Jung had proven to be a rather long shelf board of hazy teal, I picked Vol. 6 quite ignorantly. He must have been such a curious guy.
This one was supposedly on Psychologische Typen but I was quite entertained to find a comparative analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus with Goethe's canonical 'Prometheus'. Loved the Dionysian vs Apollonian chapter, and his interpretation of Meister Eckhart was fascinating. The overall link of those historical/ cultural sections to psychological types was quite weak in my opinion but hey, let the man ramble?
The chapter on brahmanic conceptions was probably my favourite, feeling unsure though about how precise Jung's representation is.
"Prajapati desired: I wish to be many, I will multiply myself. Then he meditated silently in his Mind, and what was in his Mind became 'brihat' (song). He bethought himself: This embryo of me is hidden in my body, through Speech I will bring it forth. Then he created Speech" (p.205).
Not sure I should even be marking this as done, as I mostly just scanned it! lol This is a veeerrry densely packed book that reads somewhat like a college textbook. I suspect it's one that would need multiple readings to really interpret Jung's full meaning. However, it gives a good, in-depth look at Jung's interpretation of the dichotomies in human nature and the human psyche.
Anyone who can read this book without being deeply affected by it, has no heart, no soul, and no brain. Jung has definitely established himself as one of the most influential psychoanalysts and the way he explores the human mind is second to none.
Jung is just ridiculous. There is no causality and conditionality. Before the chapter X. General description of the types, there are no examples of his own observations, it simply discusses the opinions and conclusions of the others, and he even proud of himself, that the opinion of the others matches with his own. And where did he got his own opinions, if not from the examples of these authors? Who have been existed before him? ohh.. come on... I understand that he draws conclusions from the types of judgments and works of some authors who before him have already given some definitions about the types of people. And he just put everything together. As if he had already taken existing types and simply gave them other names. If there will never have been Jordan, Spitteler or William James and their explanations, there will be no Jung book about the psychological types altogether. So, as I had already got acquainted with his other works before, and now as I read his other book alongside "psychological types", I can say that he (his worldview) is like a guru or esoteric, or someone like them. His types for me, like astrological divisions by the 12th signs of the zodiac. Many people believes them... For me it is generally impossible to identify people by specific types. Everyone has all types in them, only depending on the situation and on their perception of the world, they can react accordingly. And much depends on their level of consciousness and intellect. It is generally not possible to compare him with Freud. If you wanted to compare Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. And in this book, it seemed to me, that he wants to philosophize as Nietzsche, but he does not succeed. How wondrously and diligently he wants to show how clever he is. This book is more bearable than "The Man and His Symbols". It is as if the opposite of the judgments of Nietzsche's book "Will to Power" . And in the book that I'm still reading (the development of personality), he judges by the psychology of the child based on only ONE case, and from these judgments he generalizes the whole psychology of children. I'm just in shock. What the hell?? He is like a priest, only with a psychological education. He temporarily applies a soothing balm to a sore spot, but this will not treate the main cause of the disease.... Ahhh get lost Jung, i'm done with you.I am getting nausea by hearing anything about him.
Admittedly a very important book - probably Jung's most important work, and by far his most accepted "legacy" in the wider field of Psychology. Also highly influential in the way people approach the world. I would have given it 5 stars, if it were not for its intense LAG the first 260ish pages. In an attempt to review introversion/extraversion in various related and nonrelated fields, he wanders and meanders, and the reader is like to get lost in his ruminations. I was able to engross myself in the stuff he said about Gnosticism, Christian History, Grail Mythology, and Neitzche, but I found myself totally lost when he talked about Schiller, various forms of Poetry, and other subjects that I had absolutely no familiarity with. I couldn't help but think this 260 pages could have been summed up appropriately in 50-100 pages, and he could have moved on with his theory, giving more time and energy to the actual types. 4 stars because of its legacy, but no more because of the confusing style.
One of the most important books by psychologist Carl Jung. The basis for the theory of psychological types. The basis for Meyers Briggs and a number of other, in my opinion, less accurate, but more popular, theories of types. The foundation for the notions of extraversion and introversion, which are mainstream notions today. The book is a bit hard to read, though easier than some of Jung's works, and the core of the type theory section is really only about 75 pages in the middle of the book and can stand alone. His examples are good and the theory can be diagrammed as a series of diagrams. Understanding this theory of types can be a revelation about people you know and how and why that act as they do.
Limited by the Kantian worldview, Jung supposes psychology to be the defining science in the study of the human person, and thus precludes the possibility of there being something higher than the psyche in the nature of man. Nevertheless, Jung himself acknowledges that psychology pertains purely to the psyche, and proceeds accordingly, analyzing the problem of opposing types & functions first from the perspective of past poets & philosophers (recontextualizing them psychologically), and then from his own experience. A highly useful text that sheds light on man's inner operations.
Jung is a genius. If you are interested in MBTI, this book will explain more of how this system came to be. Jung is where it all began and his writing is even more fascinating than learning about the types as Myers and Briggs explain them. It just blows my mind how Jung came to realize the types. Deeply perceptive. I’ve never read a book that makes me consider my own and other personalities around me more than this.
Matyt Jungo ir mano asmenybiniai tipai taip skiriasi, kad to, kaip jis juos aprašo, man suvokt nelemta (bandžiau jau ne vieną kartą). Visai patiko istorinė tipologizavimo bandymų apžvalga, ypatingai dalis skirta Šilerio pažiūroms.
Before this book didn’t know much about C.G. Jung or analytical psychology. I chose this as an introduction to cognitive psychology. So read was quite hard at first and I had constantly perform “double-clicks” and deep dives into definitions used in this book. That took a lot of time and effort, but was one of the best things that happened to me in 2020.
The first expectation was to expand basic knowledge of the “extraversion vs introversion” concept. But all expectations changed in the first chapter. I was astounded by Jung’s erudition and depth of thought in this book. He starts with an ancient problem of universals, metaphysics, logic, epistemology. Diving into religious studies, psychological type comparison of Prometheus image in Spitteler’s in Goethe’s writings…
“Psychological Types” introduced another realm of behavior and mind development evolution theory. This book was a life changing experience as some ideas introduced new takes on efforts to define the mental connections I make. As well as valuable insights about how to approach “symbols” and why “we shouldn't let poets lie to us”.
This book definitely requires several additional readings.
After a while I started skipping 25 seconds every time I realized I wasn’t understanding shit of what was being said. Long-winded through and through. There were some gems there, as Jung is the man, but I would not say it was worth the trouble. I’m guessing Jung’s writing became less and less convoluted with time, and this was somewhere in the middle of this road to clarity.
Altså ideene hans er fantastiske og vokabularet han presenterer for å diskutere er enda bedre, MEN han er så sykt forsiktig akademiker. Hans egne ideer er fantastiske, men han bruker 90% av tiden for å vise til andre. Hadde vært så mye bedre om han bare fortalt hva han mente. Og siste 3 timene av lydboken er ordforklaringer.
I read through p. 1-81 of the 1971 edition and then decided to just skip chunks of irrelevant material; a lot of this book was Jung reviewing other people’s writings or thoughts on personality differences (and it was extremely long winded and boring) rather than Jung putting forward his own ideas. It would’ve been more beneficial to summarize previous personality writings/thoughts in just a single chapter, then use most of the rest of the book to talk about his own theories. Another thing that would’ve been helpful is if Jung included anecdotes of his patients or people he knew which made him come to his conclusions. But instead of “burdening the reader with case material,” he burdens us with what other people in antiquity have said about personality types (xi, 147). (Apparently he goes into case material in his earlier book called Symbols of Transformation .) He also goes on and on about the personality differences between a couple of guys who lived in 160-185 AD (Tertullian and Origen), and people from Greek myths who aren’t even real (12-20, 136-146)! Another annoying thing was how often Jung inserted Latin phrases and just expects his readers to know what they all mean.
“From earliest times attempts have been made to classify individuals according to types, and so to bring order into the chaos” (531). The four elements and astrology were the oldest attempts. Jung said he reached his conclusions by studying himself and his sick patients for 20 years, people of many classes and nations (xi, xiii, 548). He told men, “Look here, your wife has a very active nature, and it cannot be expected that her whole life should centre on housekeeping” (533). His theory of passive and active natures turned into one of reflective and unreflective natures, which later turned into one of introverted and extraverted attitudes (533).
“There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation. . . . The peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it” (331-332).
Everyone possesses both attitude types (extroversion & introversion) and all four functions (sensation, feeling, thinking, & intuition). (For why Jung selects these four functions, he gives no reason other than his experience, which he doesn’t elaborate on [p. 437].) Type is determined by the predominance/habit of one attitude and function (4, 286, 482). “Our habitual mode of reaction is normally characterized by the use of our most reliable and efficient function, which is an expression of our particular strength” (536). Type is instinctive and hereditary, has a biological foundation; it is not a conscious choice (331, 376). Type is present at birth, but some people will adapt their type based on their environment (18, 286, 332, 516, 529). “The types seem to be distributed quite at random. In the same family one child is introverted, the other extraverted” (331). “There are often several children who are exposed to the same influence, and yet each of them reacts to it in a totally different way” (529). In a neurotic family, one child may react with hysteria, another with compulsion neurosis, a third with psychosis, and a fourth with no abnormality at all (530). “Two children of the same mother may exhibit contrary attitudes at an early age, though no change in the mother’s attitude can be demonstrated” (332). “Naturally I am thinking only of normal cases. Under abnormal conditions, i.e., when the mother’s own attitude is extreme, a similar attitude can be forced on the children too, thus violating their individual disposition, which might have opted for another type if no abnormal external influences had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature” (332). Trying to reverse one’s natural type “often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, usually causing acute exhaustion” (333). In other words, don’t tell introverts to be extraverts.
“Introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all but mechanisms, which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will” (285-286). “The changing situations of life can have the same effect of momentarily reversing the type, but the basic attitude is not as a rule permanently altered” (287-288). Jung believes “there can never be a pure type in the sense that it possesses only one mechanism with the complete atrophy of the other” (6). He also believes that a person cannot be high in both thinking and feeling, since they are opposites; creative fantasy unites the two (59). (Although he later says Schiller’s feeling energy lent itself in equal measure to his intellect [thinking] and to his creative imagination .) Fantasies represent the repressed/unconscious opposite attitude in a person (63). “Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all his psychological functions simultaneously” (450). A person develops the function “with which he is best equipped by nature” (450). “As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded” (450). “In normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, at least in its effects; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious” (450). “Each type is an example of one-sided development,” which implies that it’s best to fall in the middle of the spectrum rather than be at either extreme (518). “For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally: thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. In reality, however, these basic functions are seldom or never uniformly differentiated and equally at our disposal. As a rule one or the other function occupies the foreground, while the rest remain undifferentiated in the background” (518). Jung believes that a person “can never be everything at once, never quite complete. He always develops certain qualities at the expense of others, and wholeness is never attained” (540).
*Extraversion: movement of interest toward the object (usually means people); relates to things more than ideas (68); open, sociable, jovial (330), confident (516); trusting (517), cares about tradition and authority; doesn’t rely on independent reflection (158). “Characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get ‘with it,’ the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert’s philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion” (549). Conforms to and agrees with whatever society says is proper (334). “At home she shows quite a different character from the one seen in society. With her, marriage is much influenced by ambition, or a love of change, or obedience to well-recognized custom and a desire to be ‘settled in life,’ or from a sincere wish to enter a greater sphere of usefulness. If her husband belongs to the impassioned [introverted] type, he will love children more than she does” (157). “What fills the extravert’s heart flows out of his mouth” (326). Most common neurosis: hysteria (336). *Introversion: movement of interest away from the object (usually means people); relates to ideas more than things (68); reserved, inscrutable, shy (330, 517), fearful, reflective (516), stubborn (517); dislikes crowds and society (550); appears awkward, feels inferior, envious, touchy, frugal, cautious, polite, critical, pessimistic, worried, loves solitude, has few friends (551); expresses mind more than emotions (155-156). “The introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. . . . His real self is not visible” (325). “His real world is the inner one” (517). He is fearful but has power fantasies. He distrusts anything new or strange (379, 517). Dislikes change. “His ideal is a lonely island where nothing moves except what he permits to move” (380). Most common neurosis: “psychasthenia, a malady characterized on the one hand by extreme sensitivity and on the other by great proneness to exhaustion and chronic fatigue” (379).
Jung’u anlamak için zaruri bir kitap. Jung’un neredeyse kullandığı tüm terimleri, hangi anlamda kullandığını açıkladığı bir kitap.
Örnek olarak; “akıldışı” kelimesini düşünelim. Jung akıldışı kelimesini akla aykırı olarak değil de aklın işlevini aşan, aklın ulaşamadığı bilgi olarak kullanıyor.
Biz Jung’un herhangi bir eserinde “Tanr�� akıldışıdır.” cümlesini okusaydık, Jung’un Tanrı’ya olumsuz bir yaklaşıma sahip olduğunu düşünebilirdik. Oysa bu kitaptaki tanımını bilen biri aynı cümleyle Jung’un olumlu ya da olumlu bir tavır takınmadığını sadece Tanrı’nın aklın işlevini aşan, akılla kavranamayacak bir şey olduğunu ifade etmek istediğini anlar.
İşte bu yüzden bu kısa ama yoğun kitap, her Jung’u anlamak isteyen insanın ilk okuması gereken kitaplardan biridir.