Sign Up | Log in |

Carl Gustav Jung MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Carl Gustav Jung'
Carl Gustav Jung MBTI type



INFJ - 107
INTP - 93
ISTP - 4
INFP - 3
INTJ - 3

[Famous INFJs]

Log in to vote!


9W1 - 21
5W6 - 19
5W4 - 11
4W5 - 2
1W9 - 1
9W8 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 9]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

IXTP 9 sometimes looks like IXFJ. he is an INTPHe is very analytical, charismatic and he appears very fixed, stubborn, like J types are. He also considers himself a natural scientist, which is very INxx of him. I can definitely see why so many INTP votes, but he was a physician with a lot of humanity and a prolific writer about people and psychology.

MBTI type of Carl Gustav Jung

. Very likely to be an Ni dom.Interesting.

Find out about Carl Gustav Jung personality type

...Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Carl Gustav Jung.he has that estranged look of an inferior Fe user. But on the other hand, his "Ti" obviously doesn't exist as he wouldn't have come up with so many worthless, ill-explained theories.Which of the 16 personality types is Carl Gustav Jung?. His eyes have an Fi glint to them, so he's most likely an ESFP. Definitely a dominant Se user with weaker Fi. Might have been stuck in an Se-Te loop that gave him the inferior Fe look.Yeah, INFJ. Si was a total mystery to him.@Scotty Thanks for ruining my joke Scunty.I'm the .1 that is missing from your bad math97.2% of this site would take it up the ass from this man. And btw I'm the 2.7% and if that's not enough you're gonna be my dinner tonight pussies.I read his book and in my view he was probably INFJ.It's also no surprise that Jung had an intense interest in supernatural/paranormal affairs, studied occultism. Most of what Jung believed in-- the sort of connections he made to the spiritual realm-- most INTPs would have laughed at.Yeah, INTPs aren't that great at blending themselves into their environment. Take INTP celebrities like Jesse Eisenberg and Richard Ayoade for instance. They have a very particular socially awkward and somewhat nervous energy to them that is noticeable to the skilled observers.gerden, that is not being a chameleon. I am sorry but INTPs don't adjust and fit in easily like Jung did.Reddit topics; -INTP: Create fake personas for different social groups? -The chameleon effect and losing sight of one's self. : INTP -INTP's and the "Chameleon Effect" (adapting to others) -Question people who experience the "Chameleon Effect" : INTP -INTP Chameleon Effect : Applied in Drawing ? : INTP I'm a social chameleon myself and it's common topic on INTP fb groups.I watched 30 minutes video by INTP girl, who talked about how INTPs are chameloens and this video was her most watched one. That scared her because she was afraid more of her friends will watch it and she deleted all her mbti videos. She still has a blog though. ( 'I can confirm that the Chameleon thing seems legit. I maintain that I think everyone does this to some extent, but I had one person tell me in surprise how differently I behaved in one video to the other – the whole “what changed?” conversation happened – and another friend confirms that I’m fairly normal around most of our friends but around some I will change, and it’s a noticeable change. I’m not saying I’m living in “bad faith” to borrow from Sartre.'/'Not everyone I know have seen what I consider my “actual” self. I’m not even sure what that is when around others. Acting on camera didn’t make that easier, and it’s confused me. When I’m on camera, alone, in my room, with just me, shouldn’t I just be… me? Sure, I showed a side or two of me, but it still felt like I was somehow unauthentic.Vincent Brome, an english writer who knew Freud and Jung and who went on to write biographies on them, said that Carl Jung had a chameleon personality. Jung himself went on to write about his chameleon nature in his manuscript "The Red Book". I don't know any INTPs who are able to chameleon themselves. The man was an INFJ. "All your rebirths could ultimately make you sick. The Buddha therefore finally gave up on rebirth, for he had had enough of crawling through all human and animal forms. After all the rebirths you still remain the lion crawling on the earth, the Chameleon, a caricature, one prone to changing colors, a crawling shimmering lizard, but precisely not a lion, whose nature is related to the sun, who draws his power from within himself, who does not crawl around in the protective colors of the environment, and who does not defend himself by going into hiding. I recognized the chameleon and no longer want to crawl on the earth and change colors and be reborn; instead I want to exist from my own force, like the sun which gives light and does not suck light. That belongs to the earth. I recall my solar nature and would like to rush to my rising. But ruins stand in my way. They say: "With regard to men you should be this or that." My chameleonesque skin shudders. They obtrude upon me and want to color me. But that should no longer be." - Carl G. Jung (The Red Book)INTP is just so incredibly off the mark. Also of all types an INFJ would be most likely to lie about their type for a certain purpose.Seriously I can't believe it's 2016 and people still think he was a rapist. HE WAS NOT CONVICTED OF RAPE. He was convicted of grabbing the girl's ass or something, it was bullshit.Also I think he was INFJ. He had no comprehension of Si at all.DAMNNNN, LOOK AT THAT SPAM WAR THOUGH"Recollection of the outward events of my life has largely faded or disappeared. But my encounters with the 'other' reality, my bouts with the unconscious, are indelibly engraved upon my memory. In that realm, there has always been wealth in abundance, and everything else has lost importance by comparison." - Carl G. Jung. Ni-dom with inferior Se.5w6? What are you people on? He's gotta have a 4 wingThe funny thing is how many people don't realise Jung was an astrologer and that his typology (just like every characterology tentative) comes from astrology...He is not INFJ because INFJ was little Ti. He is obvius an INTx This is Jung on Hitler. Look how he analyses his character and his role in Germany. He doesn't analyses through the archetype of the god Wotan: very Ni-dom analysis, not Ti-dom. “When, for instance, the belief in the God Wotan vanished and nobody thought of him anymore, the phenomenon originally called Wotan remained; nothing changed but its name, as National Socialism has demonstrated on a grand scale. A collective movement consists of millions of individuals, each of whom shows the symptoms of Wotanism and proves thereby that Wotan in reality never died, but has retained his original vitality and autonomy. Our consciousness only imagines that it has lost its Gods; in reality they are still there and it only needs a certain general condition in order to bring them back in full force.” Also, this quote: “Christianity split the Germanic barbarian into an upper and a lower half, and enabled him, by repressing the dark side, to domesticate the brighter half and fit it for civilization. But the lower, darker half still awaits redemption and a second spell of domestication. Until then, it will remain associated with the vestiges of the prehistoric age, with the collective unconscious, which is subject to a peculiar and ever-increasing activation. As the Christian view of the world loses its authority, the more menacingly will the “blond beast” be heard prowling about in its underground prison, ready at any moment to burst out with devastating consequences. When this happens in the individual it brings about a psychological revolution, but it can also take a social form.'' This is the kind of analyses Nietzsche makes in his books: abstract, holistic, and with a metaphoric beauty to it, as if he just caught the whole of history in the palm of his hand and read in it. The man is a pretty clear Ni-dom.Why do people take everything Jung says for the right thing? If we agree with MBTI is because we find it resembles our personal observation, not because Jung says so. Otherwise, it's an appeal to authority. Anyway, someone below suggested that he said of himself as being Ti-dom in order to be seen more seriously as a scientist. And indeed, from what I understand, for Jung, ISTP seems to have been one of the most scientific type, compared to Ni-doms who were a more irational type, so saying he's ITP was probably an attempt to make himself look more credible.@Zeego just as a heads up Blake from Stellar Maze changed his position on Jung and now considers him an INFJ. He says" So, you have made something click for me. Yes, you are right. Jung was an INFJ. Of course he was. Duh. You have raised an important point about how astrology colors the influence of one’s inborn type, which is what this site is about in large part. Congratulations on your cogent analysis. Jung was an INFJ who had a lot of introverted thinking due to Aquarius rising and a lot of down-to-earthness in his first house Saturn in Aquarius. He also had a Taurus Moon, which correlates to Si id, which is the natural id position of an ISTP. So, it is things like this that contribute to the emendation of one’s natural type. So, Jung was an INFJ, a very ISTPish one." Now obviously to a lot of people, and rightfully so, the fact that he came to this conclusion using astrology is a bit alarming. But nonetheless he did come to this conclusion. Some of the statements in the quote you posted are pretty hilarious though I must say.From the infinite wisdom of Stellar Maze: "I think Jung is an ISTP. [...] Anyway, Jung himself, considered himself an introverted thinking type. And I agree with that. Though, I don’t think he has auxiliary intuition as he also suggested in his book. He was probably referring to his tertiary function. [...] Anyone who knows anything wouldn’t class Jung as having extraverted intuition as an auxiliary function. Definitely using introverted intuition (can’t imagine a psychologist that wouldn’t), but not as a dominant function either." *facepalm*If we accept ISTP for Jung, than MBTI becomes meaningless. Someone like Kubrick for example is still a visual crafter fore-most so SP makes sense even if atypical, but there's nothing SP about Jung.It's all built on intuitive insights.I agree that he's not INTP because he doesn't show Ti dominance. What I really don't understand, though, are the arguments for ISTP over INTP. That doesn't solve anything (ISTP is still Ti-dom), and the whole "tertiary Ni" thing takes for granted that function stacks work exactly the way they're theorized to work. Tertiary function my ass, he's simply not a Sensor.We don't think he's INFJ because of Fe mainly. We think he's INFJ because he's an obvious Ni-dom as made clear in this tread by now, and not Ti-dom. If we go by subtypes he's clearly INFJ subtype Ti. The Red Book is not made by an INTP.Sorry guys, this man is INTP, with a strong Fe, he has a subtype-Fe which give him this INFJ-character. Jung said he was INTP, don't mess with Carl G Jung ^^He is clearly an INFJ who developed Ti, which consequently ended up looking more like an NT, but it obviously shows Ni. Scotty is a fool who does not believe in the development of tertiary function, but think INFP's may have a Ti side more developed than INFJ's ... really a big jerk.Another thing to keep in mind is that Jung's function model was very different from the modern MBTI model. Based on what he wrote in Psychological Types, it seems he believed that the dominant and auxiliary were both oriented in the same direction, and the tertiary and inferior were both oriented in the opposite direction. So for example, ISTP would be Ti-Si-Ne-Fe. Then again, Jung was never 100% clear on how exactly his system worked, so this may be an inaccurate reading.ISTP is what I understood from his own description, not INTP. There could be strong arguments in favour of this typing, which corelates to the same function as INFJ (even though I'm pretty sure about INFJ myself).ISTP may make sense from a functional standpoint, but there's no way Jung was a sensor. He was intuitive to the bone. (In fact, this was the source of much of his conflict with Freud.) I personally think he was INFJ, but I'd still consider INTP before ISTP.He could have been an ISTP with well developed Ni. He defined himself as an introverted thinker (ITP), so I don't see why should we doubt it; he knew himself more than others knew him. A Ti dom can be warm too, or it could have been just a facade.Thank you. Interesting, I am looking for the next part. Their articles on Jung are all rather complete and accurate.CelebrityTypes just published an article about why he's an INFJ. I haven't read it but I just thought I'd inform you all.Jung was a very warm man. People were surprised to meet him at his home, and to find a tall large man who looked like a farmer and had nothing of a cold cerebral academic. He even coined the psychological types for people to understand each other, that we don't all function in the same way. His difficulties with feelings do not mean he was not an F type. ExFP and IxFJ can have hard times mastering their auxiliary, which is the key to the balance of the overall type. If we can bu sure of one thing about Jung typing himself, it is that he was a Ti user. But Scotty does not understand what an INFJ using Ti is, obviously. Nothing new under the sun. The INTJ possibility, interesting in itself, surely needs more investigation.Well, Ni and F suppressed by T = INTJ right? He didn't really seem to like working with emotions directly which makes INFJ seem way off, but it also seems like he has more of an abstract/intuitive rather than completely logical understanding at his core (which he then tried to describe) which makes Ti not make that much sense. Reminds me of Newton's Principia and how he is seen as the mystic scientist.My vote will stay firmly on INTJ :) You guys fight over the rest.I'm constantly switching votes, and, as I was specting, it just get spammed back(let's say, not alwayas are spam, a lot of times it comes with real votes). So, the worth thing here to look are the comments, that are full of nice information and opinions. The score isn't that important, because there's no information at all but spam votes.Yes, indeed. It you read his autobiography, you'll find the books and people whom influenced him most: Goethe's Faust, Plato, Schopenhauer, the Book of Job, Zarathustra, the divine comedy... All Ni stuff...Wow, the Red Book is really fascinating stuff!He was INFJ for sure. People voting INTP are just doing so based on his own comments which were part of his attempt to pass as a serious scientist and not a mystic (and he was both). Celebrity types work on his particular profile is great, documented. Von Franz comments are also a clue. Not hard to know after reading the red book that he is a Ni user. People also forget he was a strong, vivid man (not so 9ish when he was young, at all, much more 8) and an artist (good painter, he was very sensitive to music) and had from a young age a very good sense of his own individuality (4) that was counter-balanced by the way he later disguised himself to appear normal (6). There are mystical INTPs (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a great example), but Jung was not. Of course you're right, everything with Jung comes back to the same archetypes (Ni, convergent). Read his autobio, he hated maths, was bad at sports, lots of clues of inferior sensation (Von Franz said he did scarve stones to help his inferior sensation). Jung had a complex and did not want to pass for a prophet. It took him years to publish his work on personality types, it took him nearly all his life to have the courage to publish answer to job, a deeply religious and Ni work.To be honest, haven't read him, but isn't allot of his thinking based on archetypes of religious, mythological or merely conceptual nature? That seems allot like a Ni-dom, not a Ti-dom. Him trying to systematize his concepts in nothing uncharacteristic of INFJ who develop their Ti. And between INTPs and INFJs, INFJs are the ones who have both Ni and Ti in their first functions. So, I don't see much confusion here. The confusion comes from him typing himself as INTP, but I think I might now were this comes from: he was trying unconsciously to develop his Ti further and further in order to systematize his tough, as such he might have been more aware of his Ti because he was actively working on it. I also don't see any contradiction between being INFJ and clarifying one's terms, it just looks like intellectual honesty, Spinoza also started his Ethics by claiming that philosophers should clarify how they use their terms in order not to create confusion, and is still considered INFJ by allot of people. The whole unity of opposites that Scotty doesn't like in the MBTI system also seems a Ni thing that conflicts with Scotty's Ti dominance. The ''collective unconscious'' also sounds awfully Ni-Fe.rationem impiorum, faile experti simulare, sed opera reliqua multitudo. et suum cuique , manifese patet, sed quod ita aemulationes. honesta, credo, in promptu estnesti. Crte turpis, sed ita se res habeat, quod facile brutis disponitur er culpam, elit elit,. Quis dabit me vacuum, quod est justum, et exitum cnsiderare pros et cons evidential genera elit, quantum sinit fur rapere vlunt, si boni omnes, laudatur, et furta fatetur. Paratus sum, si modo in ratine eo tantum nisl. Si quis malit corrigere laude prosecutus est, id es, si quid est quod in aliqua lingua schola Exspecta secundo. Curabitur ut videtur, recipiendum augue excideris et sic faciunt, fruantur. enique non licet manducare eorum tabulas, in qua opinione eorum conaus, in communi, per hoc referatur ad festum counterevidence reabsorbiterations. Negassent elit fundamenta eis pecuniam negssent. Nunc autem et alia per ut mirum. Quasi primum, qui solum propterse gerendi ratione, et negatio est status hominis opus est propositum. Pe salutem tuam, et pecuniam, quae ex impressione purgamenta editoribs. Sine me nihil ambiguum est recta aestimatio de cum consilium suadre videantur. Ego instare ut quam sit legitima conjungat. Nunc fateor iperiosa, qui confirmabit vos, non degenerare tamen in ordinead moresYou just made everyone's posts bold lol. Anyway I brought up the other two types for a reason. If we are to listen to Jung himself who says he has this strong Ti then you get INTP or ISTP but if we are to follow the idea that he did not actually have strong Ti by our more modern interpretation, and that rather he was Ni dominant, I think INTJ makes quite a bit more sense than INFJ. And that is what I voted.Ignore that half my post is bold. That was an accident.Even an INTJ or ISTP is much more likely to define things with meticulous precision than an INFJ.He said of himself he was Introverted Thinking and (extroverted) intuition. A word to the wise, however.Jung being consistently described by his peers and posterity as some one with a very uncritical and unsystematic mind somehow makes me question his dominant Ti function. I know there is some kind of spamming going on so I decided to declare my vote here openly before actually voting. I shall expand on my idea of Jung's self perception later but I think both INTJ and INFJ are better choices than INTP purely based on his dominant and very notable Ni function. There can be an argument between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti but I prefer the arguments for latter. So INFJ.I looked through all the comments, and I think I'm going to tip the tied scale towards INFJ. It's often harder for Fe users to understand the own workings of their minds. Sometimes a Fe user has to look at himself objectively with his Ti to understand his own mind and most people, even Ti-doms don't do that, since mbti is a subjective subject. Example: I always thought of myself as a feeler, but I didn't accept the fact that I was a thinker until I listened to what other people saw in me and looked at my own behavior through an objective lense and not a "I wish I were that, so I am that" kind of logic, which is what a lot of unaware people fall in the trap of doing. Jung claimed to be a Ti-dom, but the mystical style of writing proves that wrong from the start. A Ti-dom would be way more focused on a logical point with his/her writing, but Jung's writing was far too out there to be a dominant thinking type. You could just give up and say that he's INTJ, but Jung created the theory to understand the workings of people's minds, which is a Ti driven decision. You guys can go with what he says if you want, but it is implausible that he is INTP based on his writing style and way of dealing with people, both of which are Fe-Ti based.Those aren't even the worst cases of spamming. Penny from the Big Bang theory got like 15 INFJ votes out of nowhere.I am sure the spammer(s) is/are not very old and have alot of time and energy to pull this kind of shit.Pretty sure more than half the votes here are spams. I raised the issue before and similar ones on other entries like Luna Lovegood where such spamming has been happening for a while. Sadly the site admin is not interested in solving this issue.There's been some ridiculous spam war between (at least) 2 persons (or even more crazy, just 1) going on there, and probably for a while! Still haven't made up my mind so try and convince me :p Btw do you think there is a type more likely to act like this? Imposing his/her own opinions on others even if they know the result is fake and not honest?If he hadn't mentioned his introverted thinking, he'd have a ton of INTJ votes.Even years later when he had a much better grasp on functions he still felt at ease within the realm of logic and uncomfortable with feelings the most. The point where I would doubt INTP would be Ne-Si over Ni-Se (and this might be caused of a mistranslation of his model into MBTI), but clearly he was a strong T and weak F.(In a lecture in 1925, he identified himself as a Thinking-Sensation type with Introverted attitude and inferior Extraverted Feeling) : ##### I meant to place feeling in opposition to thinking. As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious. ##### Suddenly I found myself completely isolated. This, however disadvantageous it may have been, had also an advantage for me as an introvert; that is it encouraged the vertical movement of the libido. Cut off from the horizontal movement which activity in the outside world brings, I was driven to investigate full the things within myself. ##### There followed much discussion here and there among friends and acquaintances, through which I found that I had the tendency to project my inferior extraverted side into my extraverted friends, and they their introverted sides into me. By discussion with my personal friends, I found that because of this continued projection into them of my inferior function, I was always in danger of depreciating them. My patients I could take impersonally and objectively, but my friends I had to meet on a feeling basis, and as feeling is a relatively undifferentiated function in me, and therefore in the unconscious, it naturally carried a heavy load of projections. Little by little I made a discover that was shocking to me, name the fact of this extraverted personality, which every introvert carries within him in his unconscious, and which I had been projecting upon my friends to their detriment. It was equally annoying to my extravert friends to have to admit and inferior introvert within themselvse. Out of these experiences that were partly personal, I wrote a little pamphlet on the psychological types, and afterwards read it as a paper before a congress. There were contained in this several mistakes which I afterwards could rectify. Thus, for example, I thought that an extravert must always be a feeling type, which was clearly a projection growing out of the fact of my own extraversion being associated with my unconscious. ##### (In an interview in 1957, he identified himself as a dominant Thinking type) : ##### I saw first the introverted and extraverted attitudes, then the functional aspects, then which of the four functions is predominant. Now mind you, these four functions were not a scheme I had invented and applied to psychology. On the contrary, it took me quite a long time to discover that there is another type than the thinking type, as I thought my type to be — of course, that is human. It is not. There are other people who decide the same problems I have to decide, but in an entirely different way. They look at things in an entirely different light, they have entirely different values. There are, for instance, feeling types. And after a while I discovered that there are intuitive types. They gave me much trouble. It took me over a year to become a bit clearer about the existence of intuitive types. And the last, and the most unexpected, was the sensation type. And only later I saw that these are naturally the four aspects of conscious orientation. ##### (In an interview in 1959, he identified himself as some kind of Thinking-Intuitive type) : ##### am INTP but Jung INFJ because he is very spiritualNot sure how there are still INTP votes here...Don't you see that he's an INTFPJ ?if you understand Jung's theories, and read his main sources (Vico, Plotino, Ficinio, Nietzche), you will understand what he was. He also said what he was but you don't want to belive, he is the theory describer not you an nor myers and briggs, that adapt their thest without a theory to Jung's theory. His theory was only made for one thing the path to individuation, not the carreer settings of MB and other shit like this.If the INTP typing is only (or even mainly) motivated by Jung's pronouncements then this tie of votes is an outrage. Guys, know the difference between what Jung talked about and MBTI before you vote!He's also mentioned to have been unconfortable with feelings his whole life. That is INTP, not INFJ.I don't know. I understand the function stack to be about the most "potent" functions, potency being non-average (either sophistication or underdevelopment). When there's no Si in the stack it only means his Si abilities are average. It doesn't make his mistyping himself more likely. Actually he'd be more likely to mistype himself (at least initially) if he were INTP (where Si is tertiary).bobnickmad is right, his writing appears to derive from Ni. In Drenth's writing on personalityjunkie, INFJ may have trouble looking inward , since there is no Si, whilst with an amplified outlook on the external world (Fe). Some of his insights are similar to Dostoevsky's, same Intuitive root and depth, different form of expression. It is understandable how people think he is an INTP, since he did have a developed tertiary Ti, however where do you see Ne there for any matter, if you'd consider INTP? He looks at the essence of everything that has to do with the human psyche - Ni + Fe and Ti for categorizing all the Ni insights in an internal framework. Ni users feel a need to flesh out their insights in the most perfect manner possible, and this perfectionism leads to theoretical longevity - Guess whose Ni insights we are ironically using now as a mirror to determine his and many other people's personality types? Simple as that, in my view. He is thankfully an easy to discern INFJ, whilst many are invisible or the society's "chameleons"In fact his typing himself "thinking" and his students typing him "introverted intuitive" together point squarely at INFJ.The paradox concerning him typing himself is easily resolved: He isn't the author of the MBTI and understanding him to have typed himself as INTP is an anachronism. His saying he is a thinker would only refer to his description of the "Introverted thinking" type, which, in MBTI terms, is roughly INxx.He created the system. If he says he's an intp thats probably what he is.would anyone willing to explain his Ne vs Ni? he could be an INFJ with a very developed Ti or an INTP used Fe...Not all INTP have superhuman logical skills which lead to writings exempt from human mistakes.I got some user names mixed, so what I said will be hard to understand.& Debaser's is very good too.This is an interesting one. Me responding to the intp side: Hermann's intp argument (I'm sorry) is not very strong, but* HarmonicPsyche's intp argument might be!He is just not, absolutely not a logical scientist at all. His writings, most of them are a far cry from anything remotely scientific, measurable or logical. He is not a. INTP and Ii've changed my vote from INFJ to INTP several month ago. Indeed he was very weak in feeling, and as Exil said he was to much doubtful, nipticking and scrupulous about logical consitency to be INFJ. I think he is an INTP 9w1 who can be confused for an INFJ, like Yoda.You can argue and argue and argue all you like. Jung may have been wrong about all his other typings, but only he truly knew himself. And he clearly said he was very weak in feeling. Wouldn't make sense for an INFJ. Wouldn't make sense for an INFJ to be as scattered and disorganized either. And really, you have to question why anyone would follow a man who they don't even believe was competent to type himself according to the rules he made up in his own system.Couldn't have said it any better myself, HarmonicPsyche.I'm surprised to see so many arguing for Jung as an INTP here. I thought the consensus was that he would most closely correspond to INFJ in MBTI terms, having described himself as both a Ti and an Ni user, and being widely accepted as an intuitive, which would rule out ISTP. I'm thoroughly convinced of it myself. Everything the guy wrote during the most prolific period of his career came from a series of unconscious visions he had during the First World War. The esoteric "vision" was the kernel of all his thought, and he made it his life's work to give intellectual form to this formless, Dionysian image. He saw the symmetrical, circular wholeness of the mandala as a representation of the psyche and the process of individuation, with everything springing from - and at the same time looking back in upon - the center. He looked at the disparate elements of the psyche and reduced them into a hard core of insight. This is Ni, not Ne or Ti. Ne users branch out on disparate intellectual pathways rather than trying to hone everything down into a unified system, and Ti-doms approach things with conscious logic leading the way, which Jung clearly did not do. I think Fe also accounts for the genuine interest he took in people (as he needed to as a psychiatrist), and the themes of interconnectedness between people that characterize many of his concepts - particularly that of the collective unconscious. Although he spent a lot of time alone, everything i've read by and about him suggests that he was quite a warmhearted and personable fellow, which to me suggests a comfortably prominent Fe ( Why would an INTP be as fascinated by religious mysticism as Jung was? And by the way, for those who say he typed himself as a INTP, please remember that we are dealing with the Myers Briggs interpretation of Jung's system, rather than Jung's himself.The fact that Jung identified himself as lead introverted thinker and thus he is an ITP is wrong because Jung, his ideas and works contradicts his very own definition of Ti. Even a casual study of Jung will highlight he is far from being a dispassionate analyst who seeks to reduce things to their basic principles. On the contrary his works are highly nuanced and complex and requires alot of decoding.Jung: "The intellectually detached classifying point of view is just the thing to be avoided."Apparently Jung also mentioned he had abundance of sensation along with thinking. That would make him IST . He also proposed ST to be the scientific type and typed Newton ISTJ and Darwin ESTJ. He typed Martin Luther (A clear INTJ) as ESFP. He typed Freud INFP and so on. So no while we do like Jung's theory we don't understand how he reached his typings. He is not a clarifier like an INTP would be....Especially when you have no way of seeing who someone is underneath, and then reject their own analysis of who that is even though they are the only ones who could know. Beyond stupid."Sure it is one way of typing, looking at what we do rather than to what we are, but I prefer to type according to the way of thinking rather than its objective. " "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."He clearly said he is weak in feeling. The man who created the entire system all of this based on. The arrogance it takes to type him as INFJ astounds me and in my eyes causes anyone who says it to lose literally any shred of credibility in this subject they may have more than anything else they could possibly do. When did people start knowing not only people better than they know themselves, but also know the creator of this system's system better than he knew it? And BOTH at the same time! Amazing. And it's all based because you've doublethinked too much and deluded yourself into thinking that you can somehow type based on "recognition" of "Ni" and "Ti" and such, even though Jung himself never meant this to be done this way. You are just wrong in every conceivable way.Reading through his work you realise very clearly that he freely uses the same terms for different meanings with no explanation at all. His own definition of Ti which seeks clarity and creates definitions etc. isn't so high in his own works. He is not a clarifier but has an extremely complex and nuanced way of thinking. His ideas are considered insightful and even mystical but not very scientific so much that his students had to struggle to decode his work. By contrast Keirsey is an INTP and agree/disgree with his work but its extremely well defined and clear, very unlike Jung's. His own definition of Ni fits him well which ironically he didn't want to be associated with.Jung typed himself INTP, and I'm going to assume he, being Jung, was able to type himself correctly. INTP.