Personality Cafe banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

MOTM June 2010
2,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Following is Jung’s description from the Classics in the History of Psychology. For those who have found hid work hard to followd, I have edited the information without hopefully diluting the meaning. Below is a syllabus of words that have been changed per my own translation. If you have read Jung and see that my translation is in error, please let me know:

Conscious = Dominant Function
Unconscious = Auxiliary Function
Attitude = Extravert/Introvert
Object = External
Subject = Internal



In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or energy movement, while the latter I would call function-types.

The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the external world. The introvert's attitude to the external is an abstracting one. At the very least he is always facing the problem of how their energy can be withdrawn from the external world, as though an attempted ascendancy on the part of the external had to be continually frustrated. The extravert on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the external world. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his extraverted attitude is continually being orientated by and related to the external. The internal can never have sufficient value for him therefore its importance must always be paramount.
The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast that their existence even to the uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.

Naturally at first, one is inclined to regard such differences as mere individual idiosyncrasies. But anyone with the opportunity of gaining a fundamental knowledge of many men will soon discover that such a far-reaching contrast does not merely concern the individual case, but is a question of typical attitudes with a universality far greater than a limited psychological experience would at first assume. In reality it is a question of a fundamental opposition, at times clear and at times obscure but always emerging whenever we are dealing with individuals whose personality is in any way pronounced. Such men are found not only among the educated classes but in every rank of society; with equal distinctness. Therefore our types can be demonstrated among laborers and peasants as among the most differentiated members of a nation.

Furthermore, these types over-ride the distinctions of sex since one finds the same contrasts amongst women of all classes. Such a universal distribution could hardly arise at the instigation of consciousness, as the result of a conscious and deliberate choice of attitude. If this were the case, a definite level of society linked together by a similar education and environment and therefore, correspondingly localized, would surely have a majority representation of such an attitude. But the actual facts are just the reverse, for the types have apparently, quite a random distribution. In the same family one child is introverted, and another extraverted.

Since, in the light of these facts, the attitude-type regarded as a general phenomenon having an apparent random distribution, can be no affair of conscious judgment or intention. Its existence must be due to some unconscious instinctive cause. The contrast of types, as a universal psychological phenomenon, must in some way or other have its biological precursor.

The relation between the internal and the external, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the external world therefore are adaptation processes. Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation that determine the further existence of the living organism the one is by increased fertility, accompanied by a relatively small degree of defensive power and individual conservation. The other is by individual equipment of manifold means of self-protection coupled with a relatively insignificant fertility. This biological contrast seems not merely to be the analogue but also the general foundation of our two psychological modes of adaptation. At this point a mere general indication must suffice. On the one hand, I need only point to the peculiarity of the extravert, which constantly urges him to spend and propagate himself in every way; and on the other, to the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external claims, to conserve himself from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, thus consolidating for himself the most secure and impregnable position.

The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood which constitutes the compelling factor in favor of a definite attitude. We might however, demur and indeed with cogency, that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument though appealing to incontestable facts has none-the-less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother. Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must of course in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition. Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases that occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions, when there is an extreme and therefore abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude. But this entails a violation of their individual disposition that quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way.

As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well being of the person, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.

MOTM June 2010
2,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #2


In our descriptions of this and the following type it will be necessary, in the interest of lucid and comprehensive presentation, to discriminate between the dominant and auxiliary function psychology. Let us first lend our minds to a description of the phenomena of dominant function.

Everyone is admittedly orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him. Yet we see that this may be the case in a way that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become hardened finds this unnecessary. One man admires the new tenor because the world admires him. Another withholds his approbation not because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable. One submits to a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible. Another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the external data; the latter reserves a view that is as it were, interposed between the self and the external fact.

Now, when the orientation to the external and to external facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by internal values but by external relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with external conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the external rather than the internal value that plays the greater role as the determining factor of his dominant function. He naturally has internal values, but their determining power has less importance than the external conditions.

Never does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside the self. In hindsight his inner life succumbs to the external necessity, not of course without a struggle that always ends in favor of the external determinant. His entire dominant function looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. But it comes to him from without only because that is where he expects it. All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude.

Interest and attention follow external happenings and primarily those of the immediate environment. Not only persons but things seize and rivet his interest. His actions therefore are also governed by the influence of persons and things. They are directly related to external data and determinations and are, as it were, exhaustively explainable on these grounds. Extraverted action is recognizably related to external conditions. In so far it is not purely reactive to environmental stimuli, the character is constantly applicable to the actual circumstances and it finds adequate and appropriate play within the limits of the external situation. It has no serious tendency to transcend these bounds. The same holds good for interest: external occurrences have a well-nigh inexhaustible charm, so that in the normal course the extravert's interest makes no other claims.

The moral laws that govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral viewpoint. If the generally valid view were different, the internal moral guiding line would also be different without the general psychological habits changing. It might almost seem, although it is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by external stimuli would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to external data such as we have described must of course seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists. But from a higher point of view, it is by no means granted that the standpoint of externally given facts is the normal one under all circumstances. External conditions may be either temporarily or locally abnormal. An individual who is accommodated to such con certainly conforms to the abnormal style of his surroundings, but in relation to the universally valid laws of life.

He is in common with his environment, in an abnormal position. The individual may however thrive in such surroundings but only to the point when he, together with his whole environment, is destroyed for transgressing the universal laws of life. He must inevitably participate in this downfall with the same completeness as he was previously adjusted to the externally valid situation. He is adjusted but not adapted, since adaptation demands more than a mere frictionless participation in the momentary conditions of the immediate environment. Adaptation demands an observance of laws far more universal in their application than purely local and temporary conditions. Mere adjustment is the limitation of the normal extraverted type.

On the one hand, the extravert owes his normality to his ability to fit into existing conditions with relative ease. He naturally pretends to nothing more than the satisfaction of existing external possibilities, applying him self for instance, to the calling which offers sound prospective possibilities in the actual situation in time and place. He tries to do or to make just what his environment momentarily needs and expects from him, and abstains from every innovation that is not entirely obvious, or that in any way exceeds the expectation of those around him. But on the other hand, his normality must also depend essentially upon whether the extravert takes into account the actuality of his internal needs and requirements; and this is just his weak point, for the tendency of his type has such a strong outward direction that even the most obvious of all internal facts, namely the condition of his own body, may quite easily receive inadequate consideration. The body is not sufficiently external, therefore the satisfaction of basic requirements which are indispensable to his physical well-being are no longer given their place. The body accordingly suffers, to say nothing of the soul. Although, as a rule, the extravert takes small note of this latter circumstance, his intimate domestic circle perceives it all the more keenly. The loss of equilibrium is perceived by himself only when abnormal bodily sensations make themselves felt.

These tangible facts he cannot ignore. It is natural he should regard them as concrete and 'external', since in his mind there exists only this and nothing more -- in himself. In others he at once sees "imagination" at work. A too extraverted attitude may actually become so removed from the internal that the latter is entirely sacrificed to so-called external claims; to the demands for instance, of a continually extending business, because orders lie claiming one's attention or because profitable possibilities are constantly being opened up which must instantly be seized.

This is the extravert's danger; he becomes caught up in externals, wholly losing himself in their toils. The functional (nervous) or actual physical disorders which result from this state have a compensatory significance, forcing the subject to an involuntary self-restriction. Should the symptoms be functional, their peculiar formation may symbolically express the psychological situation; a singer, for instance, whose fame quickly reaches a dangerous pitch tempting him to a disproportionate outlay of energy, is suddenly robbed of his high tones by a nervous inhibition. A man of very modest beginnings rapidly reaches a social position of great influence and wide prospects, when suddenly he is overtaken by a psychogenic state, with all the symptoms of mountain sickness. Again a man on the point of marrying an idolized woman of doubtful character, whose value he extravagantly over-estimates, is seized with a spasm of the oesophagus, which forces him to a regimen of two cups of milk in the day, demanding his three-hourly attention. All visits to his fianceé are thus effectually stopped, and no choice is left to him but to busy himself with his bodily nourishment. A man who through his own energy and enterprise, has built up a vast business, entailing an intolerable burden of work, is afflicted by nervous attacks of thirst, as a result of which he speedily falls a victim to hysterical alcoholism.

Hysteria is in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type. The classical example of hysteria is always characterized by an exaggerated rapport with the members of his circle, and imitation to surrounding conditions. A constant tendency to appeal for interest and to produce impressions upon his environment is a basic trait of the hysterical nature. A correlate to this is his proverbial suggestibility, his pliability to another person's influence. Unmistakable extraversion comes out in the communicativeness of the hysteric, which occasionally leads to the divulging of purely fantastic contents; whence arises the reproach of the hysterical lie. To begin with, the 'hysterical' character is an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the side of the auxiliary function, which manifests its opposition to the extravagant extraversion in the form of physical disorders, whereupon an introversion of psychic energy becomes unavoidable. Through this reaction of the auxiliary function, another category of symptoms arises which have a more introverted character. A morbid intensification of fantasy activity belongs primarily to this category. From this general characterization of the extraverted attitude, let us now turn to a description of the modifications, which the basic psychological functions undergo as a result of this attitude.

MOTM June 2010
2,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #3


As I have already explained in section A (1) of the present chapter, the introvert is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that unlike the latter who is prevailingly orientated by the external world and external data, the introvert is governed by internal stimuli. In the section alluded to I mentioned that the introvert interposes an internal view between the perception of the external and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the external situation. Naturally, this is a special case, mentioned by way of example, and merely intended to serve as a simple illustration. But now we must go in quest of more general formulations.

The introverted dominant function doubtfully views the external conditions, but it selects the internal determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided therefore by that factor of perception and cognition that represents the receiving internal disposition to the sense stimulus. Two persons for example see the same external, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference both in kind and degree, in the psychic assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers pre-eminently to that which reaches him from the external, the introvert principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates in the subject. In an individual case of apperception, the difference may of course be very delicate. But in the total psychological economy it is extremely noticeable, especially in the form of a reservation of the ego. Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, internal, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert.

We must not forget, although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so, that all perception and cognition is not purely external. It is also internally conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was inassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the internal factor, it would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a re-chute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch, an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the external powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the internal factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man, we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge, and for us no world where “I know” has not been said. Although with this statement one has already expressed the internal limitation of all knowledge.

The same holds good for all the psychic functions. They have a subject that is just as indispensable as the external. It is characteristic of our present extraverted valuation that the word 'internal' occasionally rings almost like a reproach or blemish. But in every case the epithet 'merely internal' means a dangerous weapon of offence, destined for that daring head that is not unceasingly convinced of the unconditioned superiority of the external. We must therefore, be quite clear as to what meaning the term 'internal' carries in this investigation.

As the internal factor then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the external, makes a new psychic fact. Now in so far as the internal factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself -- since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same -- it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer external. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially changeless reality would be altogether inconceivable, and any understanding with posterity would be a matter of impossibility. Therefore the internal factor is something that is just as much a fact as the extent of the sea and the radius of the earth. Also the internal factor claims the whole value of a world-determining power that can never under any circumstances, be excluded from our calculations. It is the other world-law, and the man who is based upon it has a foundation just as secure, permanent, and valid, as the man who relies upon the external

But just as the external world and external data remain by no means always the same inasmuch as they are both perishable and subject to chance, the internal factor is similarly liable to variability and individual hazard. Hence its value is also merely relative. The excessive development of the introverted standpoint in the dominant function for instance does not lead to a better or sounder application of the internal factor, but to an artificial subjectivity of the dominant function, which can hardly escape the reproach 'merely internal'. For as a countertendency to this morbid subjectivity there ensues a non-subjectivity of the dominant function in the form of an exaggerated extraverted attitude that richly deserves Weininger's description "misautic". Inasmuch as the introverted attitude is based upon a universally present, extremely real and absolutely indispensable condition of psychological adaptation, such expressions as 'philautic', 'egocentric', and the like are both external oriented and out of place, since they foster the prejudice that it is invariably a question of the beloved ego. Nothing could be more absurd than such an assumption. Yet one is continually meeting it when examining the judgments of the extravert upon the introvert. Not, of course, that I wish to ascribe such an error to individual extraverts; it is rather the present generally accepted extraverted view that is by no means restricted to the extraverted type. For it finds just as many representatives in the ranks of the other type, albeit very much against its own interest. The reproach of being untrue to his own-kind is justly leveled at the latter, whereas this at least, can never be charged against the former.

The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever-present internal factor. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego because the former also embraces the auxiliary function, while the latter is essentially the focal point of the dominant function. Were the ego identical with the Self, it would be unthinkable that we should be able to appear in dreams in entirely different forms and with entirely different meanings. But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, that he tends to confuse his ego with the Self, and to exalt his ego to the position of subject of the psychological process, thus effecting that morbid subjectivity of the dominant function, mentioned above which so alienates him from the external world. The psychological structure is the same. Semon has termed it 'mneme',[2] whereas I call it the 'collective unconscious'. The individual Self is a portion or excerpt, or representative of something universally present in all living creatures, therefore a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process that is born anew in every creature.

Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the external world I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the archetype. This term embraces the same idea as is contained in 'primordial image' (an expression borrowed from Jakob Burckhardt), and as such I have described it in Chapter xi of this book. I must here refer the reader to that chapter, in particular to the definition of 'image'. The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective auxiliary function are represented in the dominant function in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the external world incorrectly, at bottom-since they have their source in the auxiliary function structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the external stimuli. These internal tendencies and ideas are stronger than the external influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the external should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a internal standpoint can be superior to the external situation. He reaches the unavoidable conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or incredibly rigid.

Recently he seems to have reached the conclusion that the introvert is constantly influenced by an auxiliary function power struggle. The introvert unquestionably exposes himself to this prejudice for it cannot be denied that his definite and highly generalized mode of expression apparently excludes every other view from the outset, lends a certain countenance to this extraverted opinion. Furthermore the very decisiveness and inflexibility of the internal judgment, which is super-ordinated to all external data, is alone sufficient to create the impression of a strong egocentricity. The introvert usually lacks the right argument in presence of this prejudice for he is just as unaware of the auxiliary function, though thoroughly sound presuppositions of his internal judgment, as he is of his internal perceptions. In harmony with the style of the times he looks to the external world instead of behind his own dominant function for the answer. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of a more or less complete auxiliary function identity of the ego with the Self, whereupon the importance of the Self is reduced to nil, while the ego becomes inflated beyond reason. The undeniable, world-determining power of the internal factor then becomes concentrated in the ego, developing an immoderate power claim and a downright foolish egocentricity. Every psychology that reduces the nature of man to the auxiliary function power instinct springs from this foundation. For example, Nietzsche's many faults in taste owe their existence to being subject to the auxiliary function.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts