Carl Jung Acknowledging The Tendency Of People Labelling Others.

[Huston]

As it will become apparent, this is a forward Jung Provide in the English translation of Psychological Types.

FORWARD TO THE ARGENTINE EDITION

No book that makes an essentially new contribution to knowledge enjoys the privilege of being thoroughly understood. Perhaps it is most difficult of all for new psychological insights to make any headway. A psychology that is grounded on experience always touches upon personal and intimate matters and thus arouses everything that is contradictory and unclarified in human psyche, If one is plunged, as I am for professional reasons, into the chaos of psychological opinions, prejudices, and susceptibilities, one gets a profound and indelible impression of the diversity of individual psychic dispositions, tendencies, and conviction, while on the other among the chaotic multiplicity of points of view. This need calls for a critical, not too specific in their information, which may serve as points de repère in sorting out the empirical material. What I have attempted in this book is essentially a critical psychology.
This fundamental tendency in my work has often been overlooked, and far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking the Chapter X ("General Description of the Types") represents the essential content and purpose of the book, in the sense that it provides a system of classification and a practical guide to a good judgement of human character. Indeed, even in medical circle the opinion has got about that my method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system and giving them corresponding "advice." This regrettable misunderstanding completely ignores the fact that this kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlour game, every bit as futile as the division of mankind into brachycepahlics and dolichocephalic. My typology is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical. For this reason I have placed the general typology and the Definition at the end of the book, after having described, in chapters I to IX, the process in question with the help of various examples. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V. He will gain more from them than any typological terminology superficially picked up, since this serves no other purpose than a totally useless desire to stick on labels.


C.G. Jung


xv

Jung, C.J. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

I just got the book recently, and found this forward to be quite satisfying. I have had this perspective of typing for some time to, this is the first time I saw in Jung's own words the problems this use of thinking can lead to, and where Psychological types have become Personality type with MBTI could become problematic and even detrimental to those who may limit themselves to only acting as this certain type. Although, not that it is an easy process to integrate other types, in fact most of the time it may become a full reversal. Examples giving in the first chapter of Origen castrating himself to rid himself of sensation and focus on the intuition commonly in Gnosticism, or Tertullian giving up his introverted thinking (for feeling) in order support his claim (which ironically created through introverted thinking) the belief is absurd (or Credo quia adsurdum est/I believe because it is absurd) and supported the sacrificium intellectus.

[INTrPosr]

Jung, C.J. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

I just got the book recently, and found this forward to be quite satisfying. I have had this perspective of typing for some time to, this is the first time I saw in Jung's own words the problems this use of thinking can lead to, and where Psychological types have become Personality type with MBTI could become problematic and even detrimental to those who may limit themselves to only acting as this certain type. Although, not that it is an easy process to integrate other types, in fact most of the time it may become a full reversal. I absolutely agree with the Forward, although suspect of whether it was written by Jung unless he had the foresight to know what would become of his work. MBTI was still at the research stage, at the time of Jung's death (1961), and I think the first prototype for the indicator did not occur until after 1968. I am unsure how much of his work was being discussed, at least mainstream, prior to MBTI. Nevertheless, labeling is quite dangerous, and the average person never reads anything of Jung. I think all of the systems, including Myers-Briggs can be blamed for their limits to his work. Good point Huston. I hope the topic provides some good feedback.

[Capitu]

I Nevertheless, labeling is quite dangerous, and the average person never reads anything of Jung. I think all of the systems, including Myers-Briggs can be blamed for their limits to his work. Good point Huston. I hope the topic provides some good feedback.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Jung's work is so amazing and it seems psychological types gets most of the attention.

[mancroft]

Huston, you seem to have more understanding of this psychology stuff than most people on this forum... myself included.

You make a very valid point but does not diminish, in my opinion, the usefulness of MBTI when it comes to dealing with different types of people.

[venerationOFrabbits]

It is a great tool for understanding, it should be used to strive as opposed to a crutch when dealing with yourself and with others.

["?"]

Very true Frabbits. I think this forum must admit that, INTPs (or at least those claiming to be INTP) appear notorious for making excuses and using the system as a "crutch" in handling real world issues.

[euterpenc]

As my understanding of Jung increases my appreciation for MBTI decreases. MBTI appears to be no more than a labeling system. It provides a common system for each type to act within. I find that it particularly excludes unconscious processes, though it mentions their supposed existence in the typing model.

From my understanding of it, Jung's intention in creating the types was as a way of reconciling the different perspectives of people. The goal is to help people to better understand each other, not to classify. A particular expression, thought, or feeling will be influenced by a certain inward disposition, which isn't necessarily constant, though it may appear to be so. Jung's work is intended to highlight these tendencies so that they may be identified and communication may be continued on the proper level.

For instance, I have noticed a tendency for introverts and extraverts to argue about the same thing from different perspectives and both be correct. This is because they each view the world in a fundamentally different way. The idea is to understand when people are coming from different viewpoints, and have both parties understand this so that they may better understand the world, themselves, and each other.

[PonderBee]

Labeling is a double-edged sword used for good and bad. Personally I've used the intp result as a means to better understand myself and to explore & identify the strengths and weaknesses within my own personality. I view my weaknesses as a list to be improved upon or compensted for - I don't make excuses.

My gut tells me that the introspective (and mature) intp's would allow themselves far less leeway and forgiveness for excusing less desirable behaviors than most other MBTI types.

[azurwarrior]

I just read the last post, but I wanted to say I despise labels. Internal directed or external.
In the words of Dr. Wayne Dyer: "When you label me, you negate me!"

[euterpenc]

I just read the last post, but I wanted to say I despise labels. Internal directed or external.
In the words of Dr. Wayne Dyer: "When you label me, you negate me!"

That makes sense.

I've been reading Wittgenstein, so some of you may get where I'm coming from here:

It seems to me that a label is equivalent to a name, and names are only used to distinguish things from each other. They do not describe or have substance. So, by labelling someone (giving them the name of "INTP" for instance), you are thereby negating the person themself (the object, and objects can only be shown how they are, not what they are). By naming something you are creating a picture, and pictures are made to represent reality (be the picture true or false). So, by labelling you are making a picture of someone (which may be wrong or right) but in doing so you are seperating them from reality by giving this picture to represent the person, rather than having the person exist on his own. The picture is not reality, it represents it. The person (object) is the actual reality. Would we rather have the person (reality) or a picture (representation of reality)?

[marmalade]

I absolutely agree with the Forward, although suspect of whether it was written by Jung unless he had the foresight to know what would become of his work. MBTI was still at the research stage, at the time of Jung's death (1961), and I think the first prototype for the indicator did not occur until after 1968. I am unsure how much of his work was being discussed, at least mainstream, prior to MBTI. Nevertheless, labeling is quite dangerous, and the average person never reads anything of Jung. I think all of the systems, including Myers-Briggs can be blamed for their limits to his work. Good point Huston. I hope the topic provides some good feedback.

I've read in a biography of Isabel Myers that she had discussed her work w/ Jung, but as far as I know this correspondence wasn't recorded. It would be interesting to hear them discuss it together. Also, there was a Jungian-based typology test that came out before MBTI. I'm sure Jung was well aware of the trend towards testing when he wrote this.

[marmalade]

I just read the last post, but I wanted to say I despise labels. Internal directed or external.
In the words of Dr. Wayne Dyer: "When you label me, you negate me!"


That makes sense.

I've been reading Wittgenstein, so some of you may get where I'm coming from here:

It seems to me that a label is equivalent to a name, and names are only used to distinguish things from each other. They do not describe or have substance. So, by labelling someone (giving them the name of "INTP" for instance), you are thereby negating the person themself (the object, and objects can only be shown how they are, not what they are). By naming something you are creating a picture, and pictures are made to represent reality (be the picture true or false). So, by labelling you are making a picture of someone (which may be wrong or right) but in doing so you are seperating them from reality by giving this picture to represent the person, rather than having the person exist on his own. The picture is not reality, it represents it. The person (object) is the actual reality. Would we rather have the person (reality) or a picture (representation of reality)?

I disagree. This labelling process you speak of is the very basis of all language and all intellectual pursuits including science. It has its weaknesses and it has its strenghts. To be fair, not labelling also has its strengths and weaknesses. I can speak to a person using language filled w/ its labels and abstract concepts and be aware of the other person at the same time. This is the ability of a fully mature person. Our direct perceptions of the person can be incorrect also. Labels and awareness together create a more true comprehension of reality than either one alone.

[Ivy]

I just read the last post, but I wanted to say I despise labels. Internal directed or external.
In the words of Dr. Wayne Dyer: "When you label me, you negate me!"

I thought that was Kierkegaard, or Dick Van Patten?

[Jennywocky]

I disagree. This labelling process you speak of is the very basis of all language and all intellectual pursuits including science. It has its weaknesses and it has its strenghts. To be fair, not labelling also has its strengths and weaknesses. I can speak to a person using language filled w/ its labels and abstract concepts and be aware of the other person at the same time. This is the ability of a fully mature person. Our direct perceptions of the person can be incorrect also. Labels and awareness together create a more true comprehension of reality than either one alone.

I think I agree with you more on this one.

Zeitgeist brings up an interesting point but only offers a binary conclusion -- i.e., we are only permitted to use a label or interact with the object. Why not both?

And how do we interact with objects that are Not Us, except through some sort of label or interface or translatory speech full of labels? Everything seems to be a sign of some sort, rather than the thing itself. The object is Other than us -- so we cannot actually interface directly with the object, EVER, can we? We are always communicating into some intervening medium to connect with object anyway. If the label conveys the concept we need to get across, why not use it as part of communication?

This is the same conundrum in "living in the moment." To examine our lives and see if we are really living in a meaningful way, we have to step outside ourselves and stop living. Every moment we are aware of ourselves, we have stopped living/Being and now are contemplating Being instead.

Does this mean self-awareness is bad? No. We use self-awareness to keep ourselves on track and to imagine the future, while living in the moment (Being) as we possibly can.

[meanlittlechimp]

As my understanding of Jung increases my appreciation for MBTI decreases. MBTI appears to be no more than a labeling system.

You like his other stuff better? re: dreams, archetypes etc? or just misuse of typology?

I think most of the problem with labeling lies with the simplification or misunderstanding of the concepts in the person who is doing the labeling; not with labeling itself. And yes I agree that it is merely a construct but a good one. 16 types is arbitrary in the sense it's an arbitrary stopping point. Humans are too complex to be boiled down to 16 types. There are probably hundreds of types, even thousands. It just depends on how granular you want to go. Doing just extroverts and introverts would be far to simplistic. 32 types would be too much for most people to juggle in their heads. 16 was just a convenient stopping point for Jung. Furthermore, it's far from figured out completely and some of the ideas in it are probably wrong.

Labeling is necessary to have a dialogue, with common terms, understood by both parties. Without these labels the conversation on this board regarding personality and relationships in general; would be much more simplistic and generalized. Just find another board, without mbti, discussing these issues and you'll see what I mean.

[beyonder]

As it will become apparent, this is a forward Jung Provide in the English translation of Psychological Types.

FORWARD TO THE ARGENTINE EDITION

No book that makes an essentially new contribution to knowledge enjoys the privilege of being thoroughly understood. Perhaps it is most difficult of all for new psychological insights to make any headway. A psychology that is grounded on experience always touches upon personal and intimate matters and thus arouses everything that is contradictory and unclarified in human psyche, If one is plunged, as I am for professional reasons, into the chaos of psychological opinions, prejudices, and susceptibilities, one gets a profound and indelible impression of the diversity of individual psychic dispositions, tendencies, and conviction, while on the other among the chaotic multiplicity of points of view. This need calls for a critical, not too specific in their information, which may serve as points de rep?re in sorting out the empirical material. What I have attempted in this book is essentially a critical psychology.
This fundamental tendency in my work has often been overlooked, and far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking the Chapter X ("General Description of the Types") represents the essential content and purpose of the book, in the sense that it provides a system of classification and a practical guide to a good judgement of human character. Indeed, even in medical circle the opinion has got about that my method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system and giving them corresponding "advice." This regrettable misunderstanding completely ignores the fact that this kind of classification is nothing but a childish parlour game, every bit as futile as the division of mankind into brachycepahlics and dolichocephalic. My typology is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical. For this reason I have placed the general typology and the Definition at the end of the book, after having described, in chapters I to IX, the process in question with the help of various examples. I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V. He will gain more from them than any typological terminology superficially picked up, since this serves no other purpose than a totally useless desire to stick on labels.


C.G. Jung


xv

Jung, C.J. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

I just got the book recently, and found this forward to be quite satisfying. I have had this perspective of typing for some time to, this is the first time I saw in Jung's own words the problems this use of thinking can lead to, and where Psychological types have become Personality type with MBTI could become problematic and even detrimental to those who may limit themselves to only acting as this certain type. Although, not that it is an easy process to integrate other types, in fact most of the time it may become a full reversal. Examples giving in the first chapter of Origen castrating himself to rid himself of sensation and focus on the intuition commonly in Gnosticism, or Tertullian giving up his introverted thinking (for feeling) in order support his claim (which ironically created through introverted thinking) the belief is absurd (or Credo quia adsurdum est/I believe because it is absurd) and supported the sacrificium intellectus.

The entire jungian notion of individuation is about becoming more ballanced, something wich a label like inferior function really doesn't help in. Jung believed (as do I) that these things are rather in a state of flux, where psychological functions change all the time (I can grab my copy if you want me to be more specific).

[marmalade]

The entire jungian notion of individuation is about becoming more ballanced, something wich a label like inferior function really doesn't help in. Jung believed (as do I) that these things are rather in a state of flux, where psychological functions change all the time (I can grab my copy if you want me to be more specific).

Didn't Jung mention the inferior function? I thought he considered the function opposite the dominant as the doorway to the shadow. I do agree that the personality is in a greater state of flux than many type adherents give it credit for. I'm very much interested in the notion of individuation.

[beyonder]

Jungs notion of individuation centers around integration of the unconscious into the conscious; it's very different from Maslow and Rogers' notions, wich are fundamentally conscious.
And, doorway to the shadow? No. With 'shadow', jung means the personal unconscious, where the complexes reside... He mentions that it's only a shadow, as long as we remain unconscious of them (meaning, remaining unconscious about our own complexes).

From "the psychology of transferrence" (did I translate that correctly? All my books by Jung are in Dutch, btw):

"An integrating part of the work is the black shadow ("Darkening of the sun" or "black sun" of the alchemists) that everyone carries within themselves, the inferior, so, hidden aspects of ones personality...

and:

It can't possibly be an ideal that people remain infantile, being blinded about oneself, attributing everything they hold to be unpleasant to their neighbors, and plagueing them with their prejudices and judgements?

From "The I and the unconscious":

By saying that it's useless, we rob our personality of it's accompanying shadow, and with it, lose all form. The 'living form' needs a deep shadow to gain depth. Without a shadow she'll remain a flat illusion, or a more or less well-raised child.

And, with inferior function, Jung meant the least developed function of what he held to be the four main ways of approaching reality: senses, emotion, intuition and thinking. He warns about 'onesided development of ones personality' throughout "Psychological types"... Jungian individuation is all about actually being the center (consciousness) of the mandala (self), something wich is mentioned in "the secret of the golden flower", wich he wrote together with Wilhelm.