Typology Article

A Hard Sell

Typology has the curious distinction of being perhaps the most popular and widely accepted theory of Carl Jung, and yet it is also one of the least discussed and most poorly understood topics in Jungian studies and clinical circles. Aside from his fledgling work on word associations, typology is one of the few parts of Jung's work that has seen some use by academic psychologists. Experimental researchers have found that Jung's typology “presents some hypotheses which are amenable to experimentation,” whereas the rest of Jung's work is generally seen as “unscientific, and has consequently been dismissed.”¹ Jung's original theory of the psychological types has been cultivated and schematized to create the widely-used type tests.² What is interesting to note here is that many of these type tests were invented and are used by people who do not consider themselves Jungians. By far the most successful typology inventory on the market today is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother Katherine Briggs. Neither were Jungian analysts.³ The MBTI is regularly used by career counselors and human resource departments to assess potential clients throughout the world.⁴ 1.5 to 2 million people take the test every year in the United States alone.⁵ Additionally there are various other type inventories that draw from Jung's typology that are systematized very similarly to the MBTI, and were developed either analogous to the MBTI or derived directly from it.⁶ Some of these, such as The Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS), have also enjoyed considerable success.⁷ Irrespective of the brand, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its kin typologies also enjoy widespread popularity on the internet: one typology message board alone has over a million posts and 14,000 registered users.⁸ Thus, Jungian typology and its offspring have propagated far into society.

That said, many academic psychologists dismiss the notion of personality types, or at the very least they are hesitant to use type inventories for experimental research.⁹ The statistical validity of type inventories has been questioned. In a particularly negative review of one offshoot of typology, clinical psychologist Terry Sandbek suggests that typology is akin to astrology and is suspect to the phenomenon called the Forer Effect, where type profiles are written to be vague and positive enough so that virtually anyone will agree with their result.¹⁰ To be dismissed as unscientific is a trend typology shares with other branches of Jung's psychology, and in his article Sandbek takes the time to dismiss the grandfather of types himself:

The mention of Carl Jung’s name for adding credibility is also dubious [...]Though many mental health professionals claim to be Jungians, none of them are scientists. Jungians have the opposite orientation of scientists by embracing mysticism and even the occult[...] Jung was a closet racist, devoted to neo-paganism, and suspicious of scientific findings that did not fit his theories. He conducted no research but offered his hypotheses with a strength of conviction that still sways the scientifically naive.¹¹

Considering this passage as well as typology's notable popularity, it is therefore ironic that the detractors of personality types include not just academic psychologists but many Jungians themselves. John Beebe notes that typology is a “hard sell” amongst Jungian analysts.¹² A study published by Plaut in the early seventies suggested that less than half of Jungian analysts even use typing in their clinical work.¹³ In general, it would seem that many Jungians hold reservations about typology for being rather systematic compared to the rest of Jung's methods.¹⁴ The study of personality types is essentially an offshoot of analytical psychology in the same way that analytical psychology was an offshoot to psychoanalysis: Just as many Jungians do not observe the principles of psychoanalysis, many typologists do not consider themselves Jungians or adhere to any tenants of analytical psychology beyond some scant references to the appendix of Psychological Types.¹⁵ The disconnect here is mutual: In Jungian studies typology is simply not emphasized in the same way that other aspects of Jungian theory are. In the 2011-2012 academic year, the curriculum for the MA in Jung and Post-Jungian Studies at the University of Essex, one of the foremost programs for Jungian studies in the world, held a total of 72 classes divided evenly into four modules held across two terms. Out of those 72 classes, a dozen classes focused directly on archetypes, with virtually every class touching upon them in some way, but just one session dealt with psychological types. Furthermore a module dedicated to the “Key Texts of C.G. Jung” never once touched upon volume six of his Collected Works, Psychological Types.¹⁶ The situation is no different in the clinical setting: Beebe laments that many clinicians do not “even recognise the eight function-attitudes,” and that, for instance, they confuse “introverted feeling with introverted intuition,” or do not know elementary things such as “the difference between extraverted and introverted thinking, and so on[...] many do not really understand the difference between introversion and extraversion as processes in the self.”¹⁷ In other words, the gulf between Jungians and typologists is vast.

With this in mind one gets the impression that personality typology has nothing of import for analytical psychology. But the truth is that typology offers a powerful complement to the rest of Jungian theory: While the bulk of analytical psychology is concerned with the nature of the unconscious, typology focuses on the nature of the conscious- a psychology of the ego. Additionally the Jungian scholar Sonu Shamdasani has observed that typology grew out of Jung's desire to wrestle with the 'personal equation,' or the inevitable relativity that comes with the subjectivity of psychological research. Typology was part of Jung's effort to create a superordinate science. Says Shamdasani:

If all knowledge, if all psychology, is determined by one's personal equation, what chance is there of any objectivity, of any means of adjudicating between the claims of rival theories, or any possibility of a unified science of psychology? Jung's attempted solution was to provide a theory of the subjective determinants of the personal equation. Not only would this secure the scientific and objective status of psychology, psychology itself would be a superordinate science, as it alone could provide an explanation of the subjective determinants of all knowledge. This issue was predominant in[...] Psychological Types.¹⁸

It is also interesting to note that the psychological types initially grew out of Jung's work in William James' practical psychology, which tried to deal with the personal equation by creating methods that were useful to people even if they did not necessarily correspond with reality. This inspired Jung's own synthetic or constructive method. As Shamdasani writes, “while a scientific theory remained an ultimate goal, the time for this had not yet arrived. The value of the constructive method was that it gave rise to concepts that were practically useful.”¹⁹ In Jung and the Making of a Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science, Shamdasani highlights Jung's struggle to make a psychology that was not merely clinical useful, but also a descriptive science. In many ways typology is a manifestation of this struggle, for on one hand Jung had crafted a theory meant to link the individual and the universal, a possible solution to relativism in science, and yet after the publication of Psychological Types he referred to his typology as a “critical system of orientation,” something for practical psychologists and not a true “characterology.”²⁰

Thus it would seem that typology does indeed offer something important not just in the context of analytical psychology, but also in the epistemology of psychological research. Typology forms a vital complement to the rest of analytical psychology: for while the bulk of analytical psychology is concerned with unconscious processes, typology is Jung's psychology of the ego. To properly assess typology's place in both the legacy of Jung and psychology as a whole, it seems prudent to unpack how typology has evolved over the years, and perhaps more importantly disentangle the original theory from succeeding iterations. A deeper look into the history of typology and the variations of type theory will perhaps underscore the importance of typology and, as Jungian typologist John Beebe hopes, motivate “many more analytical psychologists to become much more type-literate than they are nowadays. Then we can hope for some interesting research that follows up the implication of Jung's theory of psychological types, research that can also move our understanding of the actual path of individuation forward.”²¹

While post-Jungians such as Loomis and Singer have done interesting work in challenging the mechanics of Jung's typology, this autopsy of typology's development focuses largely on four central figures.²² This lineage demonstrates how the theory has essentially embraced social psychology far more than Jung originally envisioned. The reader should keep in mind two points lest they desire to drown in a sea of typological jargon. One, it will prove enlightening to observe what aspect of the psyche each of these four typologists place the utmost premium on. Two, note where typologists place the starting point for their models: individual functions or a complete personality type. In other words, some typologists start from the bottom and work upwards, others choose a top-down approach. Some we will see avoid reductionism altogether.

Carl Jung's Psychological Types²³

In 1921 Jung publishes Psychological Types. In Memories, Dreams, Reflections Jung states:

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 attitudes the conscious mind might take 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 psychological of consciousness regarded from what might be called a clinical angle[...] The book on types yielded the insight that every judgment made by an individual is conditioned by his personality type and that every point of view is necessarily relative.²⁴

Thus Jung himself effectively states that he was setting out to create an ego psychology. He also affirms the fact that Psychological Types was an attempt to tackle the problem of relativism in science. This passage from MDR also propagates the commonly-held belief that typology grew out of Jung's desire to do justice to the differences between his psychological theory and those of his former colleagues, Freud and Adler. There is certainly truth to this, though as Jung began delineating aspects of type four years prior to his split with Freud, his motives are a good deal more ambitious than personal reconciliations. Actually, Jung first recognized that there were at least two varying styles of consciousness appeared in his work on word association back in 1902.²⁵ From the results, Jung and his colleague Riklin noted that two recognizable types emerged:

1. A type in whose reactions, subjective, often feeling-toned experiences are used.
2. A type whose reactions show an objective, impersonal tone.²⁶

A decade later, Jung tried to explain the split of Freud and Adler by applying the notions of 'tender-minded' and 'toughminded' from William James' practical psychology:

At the time [1912], Jung was envisaging psychoanalysis as a pluralistic discipline capable of containing divergent viewpoints and approaches within it[...] While Adler's perspective corresponded to the “tender-minded” viewpoint, Freud's corresponded to the “toughminded.” In conclusion, he claimed that what was at work in the Adler-Freud opposition was a clash of unconscious world views.²⁷

Then, in 1913, in a lecture delivered to the Psychoanalytic Congress in Munich, Jung went a step further and began to formulate a new theory of the libido. Sonu Shamdasani explains:

Jung contrasted the clinical portraits of hysteria and schizophrenia. He summed up the difference by stating that the former consisted in a centrifugal movement of the libido, while the latter consisted in a centripetal one. This centrifugal movement, in which the subject's interest was predominantly directed towards the outer world, he termed extraversion. The centripetal movement, in which the subject's interest was direct towards himself, he termed introversion.²⁸

Jung first used the term introversion in 1909. Over the next four years he took James' categories and reframed them in terms of his new theory of the libido. Jung's argument is that “Freud's work presented an example of an extraverted theory, and that Adler's work represented an example of an introverted theory.”²⁹

Thus we see that Jung's origin point for his typology, introversion and extraversion, did not come out solely from his efforts to examine the differences between competing psychological theories, but also from his reformulation of the libido that was also occurring at this time. Shamdasani also makes note of Jung's interest in creating a psychology that could overcome such personal biases. He speculates that “such a psychology would be able to surpass the conflict between introverted and extraverted theories, through presenting a theory that was not shaped by a typological bias, and hence resolved the problem of the personal equation.”³⁰

While the years following Jung's break with Freud are most well known for Jung's ensuing breakdown and his writing of the so-called Black Books, it is interesting to point out that during this period he was mapping out the schematics of his typological theory. Between 1913 and 1921 he gradually teases out the other aspects of the psychological types: the functions of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. While Jung would take the bulk of the credit for these definitions as the result of countless hours with his patients, the truth is that Jung's various collaborators at the time helped mold the theory. It was Maria Moltzer, for instance, who first devised the function of intuition.³¹³² Beebe succinctly describes how the development unfolded:

In the next seven years, with the help of Hans Schmid-Guisan and Toni Wolff, Jung began to unpack his typological theory. The correspondence with Schmid-Guisan particularly helped him to examine and get past his preliminary equation of feeling with extraversion and thinking with introversion. His close associate Toni Wolff made him aware that beyond extraversion-introversion and thinking-feeling, which so far organised the psyche along strictly rational grounds, there was another axis of orientation altogether that his theory would need to take into account, the 'irrational' axis of sensation-intuition...³³

Thus, Jung's colleagues helped sculpt his completed typology:

By the time he came to write Psychological Types in 1919 and 1920, he had already envisioned a sophisticated system of analysis of types of consciousness characterised by four main dichotomies: extraverison-introversion, thinking-feeling, sensation-intuition and rational-irrational. It was this system that he continued to defend for the rest of his life and that informed all subsequent work on Jung's psychological types.³⁴

The starting point to determining one's psychological type in Jung's model is the axis of extraversion and introversion: Is a person's psychic energy focused first and foremost outward, towards the object, or inward, towards the subject? This describes the dominant attitude of the individual. But in addition to this topic of orientation towards the inner or outer, as Jung illuminated in his analysis of Freud and Adler, there are the four functions or properties³⁵ of consciousness.³⁶ Jung identified the functions as thinking, which is the property of impersonally assessing what a thing is, what category it may belong to, and what is its logical purpose; feeling, which is the function of considering the value of something, assessing the effect and affect a thing has on oneself or other people; sensation, the property of digesting information through the five senses, informing us what is immediately and concretely available to us; and intuition, which tells us what could be, where something may go, hunches without tangible evidence. Furthermore Jung divided the functions into two pairs, a rational pair (thinking and feeling) and an irrational pair (sensation and intuition). The logic here is that the functions are grouped into the tasks they perform: thinking and feeling act as determinants or decision-making functions (hence rational), whereas Jung saw intuition and sensation as dealing more with the experience and perception of reality (irrational). Eventually Jung would adopt the terms crafted by Isabel Myers: perceiving for irrational and judging for rational.³⁷³⁸

Each individual has all four of these functions, just as every person has tendencies towards both introversion and extraversion. But because consciousness typically has an unambiguous aim, says Jung, one function is dominant over the others in each individual. This leads to a preliminary result of four possible types. However, a person also has a dominant attitude (introversion or extraversion) that colors the functions in distinct ways. While the brevity of this paper does not allow for greater exposition, one example would be that an introverted-thinking type obsesses with their own thoughts, while the extraverted-thinking-type instead “becomes enamored of established ideas.”³⁹ By multiplying the four functions with introversion and extraversion we now have eight possible types.⁴⁰

But as Jung explains, there is also a secondary function:

Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence[...] Its secondary importance is due to the fact that it is not, like the primary function, valid in its own right as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.⁴¹

This auxiliary function is not randomly assigned. It is determined by the nature of the dominant function:

Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the dominant function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function alongside thinking, because it is by its very nature too strongly opposed to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must rigorously exclude feeling[...] Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus, thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation is antagonistic to thinking; they need not be absolutely excluded, for they are not of a nature equal and opposite to thinking, as feeling is which, as a judging function, successfully competes with thinking-but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought.⁴²

Thus, the possible dominant-auxiliary combinations yield sixteen personality types. Jung also states that the two functions that do note make up the dominant-auxiliary axis of a person's ego create an unconscious axis that correspond in a predictable way: a person's inferior functions will be the exact opposite of their conscious tendencies. So for instance, an extraverted sensing-type with a secondary function of introverted feeling would have a crude tertiary function of extraverted thinking and a fourth, completely unconscious inferior function of introverted intuition.⁴³ We now have a picture not just of the person's ego, but their shadow as well.

In short, Jung's emphasis on attitudes and his subsequent description of functions allow us to systematically describe not just a person's ego, but their ego's interaction with the unconscious. But while Jung laid out the groundwork of sixteen possible types, he himself never formalized this model. One reason may have been that his own position was that typology acted as a compass and to take it further would inevitably lead to pigeonholing.⁴⁴ In the 1940s the Gray-Wheelrights were the first to created a formal inventory based off psychological types.⁴⁵ Interestingly though, the first derivative of Jung's typology occurred before Psychological Types was even published: In 1922 Beatrice Hinkle, Jung's most ardent supporter in America at the time, published an article named “A Study of Psychological Types.” Though published after Jung's book, she had written it “prior to reading his work.” Consequently Hinkle's derivations began solely with the notion of introversion and extraversion: she thought both concepts needed to be further nuanced, and broke them down into three categories: objective, simple, and subjective. Whereas the simple types “corresponded to Jung's original classification,” the other two groups did not. Hinkle believed that these other two groups comprised the majority of people. Obviously this is a very different model from that of Jung's, which led to the question of whether or not both models were limited by the typologies of their respective creators⁴⁶

All this aside, the most successful descendant of psychological types, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, would loyally adhere to Jung's classifications but at the same time would present a system that would be copied by competing models for years to come.

Isabel Myers: Gifts Differing

Myers formalized Jung's model by officially classifying the sixteen types and then categorizing them into groups based on the dominant function. She classified each type by formulated a notation for each axis, as seen below:

Attitude: (E) Extraversion (I) Introversion

Irrational/Perceiving Function: (N) Intuition (S) Sensation

Rational/Judging Function: (T) Thinking (F) Feeling

Expressive Irrational/Rational: (P) Perceiving (J) Judging

The notation allows us to effectively classify the various types. For instance, someone who is a dominant extraverted thinker (shorthand Te) and a secondary introverted intuitive (shorthand Ni) would therefore be predominantly extraverted (E), more intuitive than sensing (N), a great thinker than feeler (T) and expressively judging in their interactions with the world (J). Therefore the shorthand for their personality type would be ENTJ.⁴⁷

As noted previously, Myers threw out the words 'rational' and 'irrational' and replaced them with the clearer 'perceiving' and 'judging.' She also determined that a person was more perceiving or judging based not on whether the most differentiated perceiving or judging function was the dominant, but rather which of the two conscious functions were extraverted. For instance, an INFJ, despite having a dominant perceiving function of introverted intuition, would be classified as a J, because they interacted with the world primarily through extraverted feeling.⁴⁸ Some post-Jungians as well as other offshoots to typology, such as the Russian-based Socionics, would dissent from this logic.⁴⁹ Nevertheless, Myers' thinking here demonstrates a trend towards seeing the whole type as greater than the parts. At the same time she still adheres to Jung's model by placing utmost importance on extraversion-introversion and categorizes the types based on functions.

David Keirsey: Portaits of Temperament

David Keirsey first unveiled his model in 1976. Later on he would acknowledge the debt he owed to Isabel Myers in the creation of his own 'personology,' and he would stress the importance of Jung's hypothesis that differences in people innately existed. That aside Keirsey's model differs from Jung and Myers in many respects. He accuses Myers of “unwittingly adopting Jung's 19^th century elementalism, which assumed that personality could be pieced together from independent elements,” whereas Keirsey describes himself as a subscriber to “organismic wholism.”⁵⁰Classifying types purely through behavior and action, he notes:

I must say I have never found a use for [the] scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental make-up- what's in their heads- something which is not observable, and is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation, and occasionally of projection. A good example of the difficulties such guesswork can introduce is the way in which Jung and Myers confound introversion with intuition, saying that the introverted types are the ones “interested in ideas and concepts,” while the extraverted types are “interested in people and things.” In my view, which is based on close observation of people's use of words, the intuitives are the ones primarily interested in ideas and concepts, while the sensing types are those primarily concerned with concrete things. Indeed, after forty years or so of typewatching, I have not found any [sensing types] who were more inclined to discuss conceptual matters[...] than to discuss factual matters[...] The sensing types are more perceptual than conceptual, while the intuitive types[...] are more conceptual than perceptual.⁵¹

Ergo Keirsey challenges the very need for functions themselves. In addition he also doubts that extraversion and introversion play such a strong role in determining type:

In my view [introversion and extraversion] border on trivial compared to S-N, and is much less useful than T-F and J-P. Presumably extreme introverts and extreme extraverts are easy to spot, and that may be the reason the Jungians and therefore the Myersians consider the concept so important.[...] Important or not, Myers's E-I scale is badly flawed because she inherited Jung's error of confusing extraversion with observation (S) and introversion with introspection (N).⁵²

Therefore, Keirsey takes a strong turn from the Jung-Myers lineage by placing so little importance on the I-E axis. Indeed, in Portraits of Temperament he describes only eight types by virtually ignoring I-E altogether.⁵³ Keirsey instead finds the S-N axis to be the greatest divisor between people. Based on his observations he then divides the types into four groups: sensing-perceivers, sensing-judgers, intuitive-thinkers, intuitive-feelers. Keirsey argues that his four temperaments are the same social quaternity described throughout history since the Greeks spoke of four bodily humors that determined a person's character and health.⁵⁴ Thus, Keirsey differs starkly from Jung-Myers while at the same time provides us with an efficient way of categorizing the types, as well as a top-down typology that relies on societal roles and largely ignores individual functions.

We now have a system that focuses on societal roles, placing greater import on intuition and sensation than introversion and extraversion while essentially discarding the need for functions altogether. This change would not seem heretical just to Jungians: The Myers and Keirsey camps famously do not get along or share much in the way of information.⁵⁵ This may leave the reader with the impression that typology does not have much to offer analytical psychology after all. However, our final typologist seems to have found a way to effectively bridge the developments in typology with the core tenants of Jungian psychology.

John Beebe: The Eight-Function Model

Following the work of Marie-Louise Von Franz, John Beebe's eight-function typology model is unique for two reasons: One, Beebe preserves the existence of functions- additionally he argues that each person has all eight functions (the original four times the two attitudes). Secondly, he links each of these functions with an archetypal figure. For instance, the dominant function corresponds to the hero archetype, whereas the inferior function is symbolized by the anima/animus. The four functions that Beebe claims are beneath the inferior would comprise the shadow. What Beebe has done here then is create a model that appeals to the Jungians by bridging functions with the archetypes of individuation. The point is that typology not only describes different ego styles, but also can be used as a map for the individuating process- a possibly invaluable tool in the therapy room. As Beebe explains:

It has not always been clear to students of Jung's analytical psychology what his famous 'types' are types of. But for Jung, they were types of consciousness, that is, characteristic orientations assumed by the ego in establishing and discriminating an individual's inner and outer reality. For psychotherapists, an understanding of these different natural cognitive stances can be invaluable in the daily work of supporting the basic strengths of their clients' personalities and of helping a particular consciousness to recognise its inherent limitations. The understanding of individual differences communicated on the basis of this theory can reduce a client's shame at areas of relative ego weakness and diminish the client's need to buttress the ego with strong defences that complicate treatment.⁵⁶

In addition Beebe has noted various fellow Jungians such as James Hillman who expostulated upon types in some way, usually through a connection to the archetypal, the message being that typology is not a dead subject to all analytical psychologists, and that it in fact has something to offer the Jungian community.⁵⁷

The Pygmalion Project

In the legacy of Carl Jung, typology is Jung's ego psychology, his compass to individuation, and the product of his wrestling with the useful and the actual. Though scorned by some researchers, others outside of the Jungian community have adopted it and have effectively created an entire separate field of study. But Beebe's model indicates that typology can potentially offer Jungians the best of all worlds: a social psychology, an ego psychology, and a map to the unconscious.

Indeed, typology does indeed act as a guide to coming to grips with the shadow. But as Keirsey stresses, perhaps the most valuable aspect of typology is that it eschews the Pygmalion habit of attempting to mold people to become things they are not. Rather, typology accepts and encourages the diverse differences amongst people.⁵⁸ No matter what person or model, what may be the most significant contribution that typology makes to analytical psychology, and to psychology as a whole, is celebration of the individual.

Works Cited

" University of Essex :: Course Materials :: Psychoanalytic Studies." University of Essex :: Course Materials. http://courses.essex.ac.uk/pa/default.aspx (accessed April 8, 2012).

Carlstedt, Roland A., and Ph.D.. "American Board of Sport Psychology - Home." American Board of Sport Psychology - Home. http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/ (accessed May 8, 2012).

Jung, C.G.. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Ed. By Aniela Jaffe. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965.

Jung, C. G.. Psychological types. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971.

Jung, C. G.. Experimental researches. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Keirsey, David. Portraits of temperament. 2nd ed. Del Mar, Ca.: Prometheus Nemesis ;, 1989.

Keirsey, David. Please understand me II: temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1998.

Loomis, M. and Singer, J. “Testing the bipolar assumption in Jung's typology,.” Journal of Analytical Psychology 25., no. 4 (1980) 151-6.

Myers, Isabel Briggs, and Peter B. Myers. Gifts differing: understanding personality type. Palo Alto, Calif.: Davies-Black Pub., 1995.

Papadopoulos, Renos K.. The handbook of Jungian psychology: theory, practice and applications. London: Routledge, 2006.

Plaut, F. "Analytical psychologists and psychological types: comment on replies to a survey,." Journal of Analytical Psychology 17, no. 2 (1972): 137-151.

Samuels, Andrew. Jung and the post-Jungians. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1985.

Shamdasani, Sonu. Jung and the making of modern psychology: the dream of a science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

"Typology Central Statistics." Typology Central. www.typologycentral.com/forums/forum.php (accessed April 13, 2012).

Zemke, Ron. "Second Thoughts about the MBTI." Training 29, no. 4 (1992): 43.

1Sonu Shamdasani, Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: A Dream of a Science”, (Cambridge, 2003), 30.

2John Beebe, “Psychological Types,” Ch.6 in The Handbook of Jungian Psychology, Ed. By Renos K. Papadopoulos, (Routledge, 2006) 146.

3Ibid., 146.

4Ibid., 147.

5Ron Zemke, “Seconds Thoughts about the MBTI,” in Training, (5) April 1992 vol. 29, 43.

6Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 146.

7David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence, (Prometheus, 1998).

8“Typology Central Statistics,” Typology Central, accessed 13 April 2012, http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/forum.php

9Zemke, “Second Thoughts about The MBTI.”Training 29, no. 4 (1992): 43.

10Terry Sandbek, “Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading,” from The American Board of Sports Psychology, accessed 10 April 2012, http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/

11Sandbek, “Brain Typing,” accessed 10 April 2012, http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/

12Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 148.

13F. Plaut, “Analytical psychologists and psychological types: comment on replies to a survey,” Journal of Analytical Psychology, 1972, 17(2): 137-151.

14Observed in class lectures given on 23 November 2011 by Jim Fitzgerald and 7 March 2012 by Mark Saban, for PA973, University of Essex.

15David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence, (Prometheus, 1998).

16“Course Materials: Centre for psychoanalytic studies,” University of Essex e-learning: course materials repository, accessed 28 April 2012, http://courses.essex.ac.uk/pa/default.aspx

17Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 148.

18Shamdasani, “Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology,” 75.

19Ibid., 65.

20Ibid., 87.

21John Beebe, “Psychological Types,” Ch.6 in The Handbook of Jungian Psychology, Ed. By Renos K. Papadopoulos, (Routledge, 2006) 149.

22 Loomis and Singer, “Testing the bipolar assumption in Jung's typology,” Journal of Analytical Psychology (1980) 25:4 351-6.

23Author Note: While Jung first referred to his typology as the psychological types, they are popularly known simply as personality types. At times Jung himself seems to use these phrases interchangeably. Those associated with the MBTI call their subject 'personality types' or 'personality typology,' whereas David Keirsey opts for the term 'personology.' To avoid confusion in this paper, note that the term 'psychological types' refers specifically to Jung's original formulations, while 'personality types' correspond to the MBTI and similar offshoots. 'Typology' is used as an all-encompassing umbrella term that encapsulates both Jung's original theories and all its derivatives.

24C.G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, (Vintage, 1965) 207.

25Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 130-131.

26C.G. Jung, “Experimental Researches,” The Collected Works (Bollingen, Princeton, 1971), vol. 2, pp. 148.

27Shamdasani, “Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology,” 57.

28Ibid., 62.

29Ibid., 62.

30Ibid., 63.

31C.G. Jung, “Psychological Types,” The Collected Works (Bollingen, Princeton, 1971), vol. 6.

32Shamdasani, “Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology”, 70-72.

33Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 131.

34Ibid., 131.

35Andrew Samuels, Jung and the Post-Jungians (Routledge, 1985), 62.

36C.G. Jung, C.W., vol. 6.

37C.G. Jung, C.W., vol. 6.

38Isabel Myers, “Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type,” (Davies-Black, 1995) 2^nd ed.

39Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 137.

40C.G. Jung, C.W., vol. 6.

41C.G. Jung, C.W., vol. 6, pp. 667.

42Ibid., pp. 667-669.

43Ibid., pp. 668-671.

44Shamdasani, 60-99.

45Beebe, 146.

46Shamdasani, 81.

47Myers, “Gifts Differing.”

48Ibid.

49David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence, (Prometheus, 1998).

50Ibid., 30.

51Keirsey, “Please Understand Me II,” 30.

52Ibid., 331.

53David Keirsey, “Portraits of Temperament,” (Prometheus, 1988).

54Keirsey, “Please Understand Me II.”

55Ibid.

56Beebe, “Psychological Types,” 130.

57Ibid., 141.

58Keirsey, Please Understand Me II.