There is little doubt that Jung was both an introvert and a strong intuitive. After all, he spent much of his time mining the interiors of his own psyche—interpreting dreams, deciphering archetypes, and discerning the typological functions. As I’ve written elsewhere, I find it curious that several different personality types have attempted to claim Jung as their own: INFP, INTJ, INFJ, INTP, and the like. It seems that when one of the great minds strikes a chord of resonance within us, we assume that he or she is of a similar personality type to our own. Perhaps this is why Jung is so popular across the personality spectrum, as his writings reveal a level of truth and neutrality that transcends our typological differences.
We should also recognize that Jung was of superior intelligence, which undoubtedly contributed to the nuance, complexity, and depth of this work. In my experience, such geniuses are more difficult to type because of their ability to think at different levels and to don different intellectual hats.
Since there is already near consensus that Jung was an intuitive introvert, we are left with the task of deciphering his thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving preferences. We could also take a different route, looking at Jung holistically to determine the degree of fit with each of the various types. Though I think either route is valid, I will focus primarily on the latter method merely because it feels more appropriate in this instance.
[picapp align="center" wrap="false" link="term=carl+jung&iid=7205572" src="c/e/c/8/Carl_Gustav_Jung_4efe.jpg?adImageId=8235269&imageId=7205572" width="234" height="279" /]
Was Jung an INFP?
Of the four types, INFP seems the least likely type for Jung. While capable of seeing the big picture and valuing holism to a certain extent, Jung was far too analytical, systematic, and attentive to detail to qualify as an INFP.
Was Jung an INTP?
The fact that INFP is Jung’s least likely type doesn’t bode well for the INTP. Though Jung was seemingly very even-handed and adaptable in his writing, his work seems more consistent with that of a judger than perceiver. Since INTPs are often right-brained thinkers, they are frequently attracted to monistic (a TP quality) and holistic (an NP quality) explanations. They tend to be more interested in synthesis (the unified whole) than analysis (the parts), finding connections between disparate elements and uniting them under a single theoretical umbrella.
Jung was both deeply analytical and pluralistic in his thinking. Although a student of Eastern religions, he seemed to retain a more marked degree of delineation between what was human and what was divine than is typical of monistic perspectives, such as Buddhism. Jung also articulated a pluralistic psychology comprised of numerous psychological archetypes and symbols, a sort of inner Platonic realm. He saw these symbols as deeply meaningful and integral to human spirituality. INTPs, in contrast, are more apt to emphasize the unity of mind and body, as commonly described in Buddhist metaphysics. Another argument against deeming Jung an INTP is his body type. Jung sported a rather large and imposing physical frame, distinct from the characteristically ectomorphic (i.e., elongated, narrow, lighter-weight) body type commonly found among INTPs.
We have now arrived at the final and most difficult point in our discussion, attempting to discern whether Jung was a thinker or feeler. While less-seasoned students of personality typing may be apt to quickly label him a thinker, things are not that simple. Though Jung displayed great powers of analysis, both the thinking and judging functions may affect the degree to which one is analytical; FP types are the least analytical, while TJ types are the most analytical. Sex may also play a role, with males, on average, displaying a more pronounced analytical and “systemizing” bent than females (see Baron-Cohen’s The Essential Difference). So clearly we cannot rule out the notion that Jung may have preferred feeling merely based on his powers of argument and analysis.
Though difficult to prove unequivocally, It is my assertion that Jung was actually an INFJ rather than an INTJ. The most compelling reason for this, in my view, is Jung’s ineluctable attraction to religion and spirituality. While he was no stranger to scientific thought, Jung consistently reiterated his belief that attempts at pure objectivity, hyperrationality, and scientism had left humanity in a rather disenchanted and dismal state. So rather than endorsing the scientific salvation narrative, Jung turned to religion and psychology. He felt that the overarching problem in his psychiatric clientele was a lack of purpose and meaning in life. For the vast majority of individuals, Jung believed that a religious solution was essential for restoring their psychological health and vitality.
While it would be unfair to suggest that INTJs are not religious or interested in spiritual matters, for Jung, these were matters of ultimate importance. If Jung had been a strong thinking type, it seems likely that his penetrating intellect would have led him to study mathematics, the sciences, or philosophy. Instead, he opted to devote the majority of his efforts toward humanistic and religious topics, those which are most commonly embraced by feeling types. Even a cursory exploration of career demographics suggest that religious vocations are of marked and frequent interest to INFJs, while falling lower on the priority list for INTJs. It is also worth noting Jung’s regular use of “art therapy,” both personally as well as with his clients, which is certainly consistent with an INFJ designation.
In conclusion, I think that INFJs have the greatest right to claim Jung as one of their own. Though his feeling preference was likely much less pronounced than his intuition, his work represents a wonderful embodiment of a profoundly gifted and widely influential INFJ.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://personalityjunkie.com.
Here’s Part 3 of an interview Jung did with John Freeman when he was 84. At around 8:40 the following exchange takes place:
JF: Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?
Jung: (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.
JR: And reached a conclusion?
Jung: Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.
Thank you so much for sharing that video, which I have never seen before. Jung definitely seemed to convey that he was an INT. Thus, I may have to change my typological diagnosis to INTJ:)
I noticed a typo after I posted. Feel free to change JR to JF (in my 2nd post) and then delete this reply to your reply.
This is my first visit to your site and I’ve just read this page. I’d also thought Jung was certainly an IN, with INTJ and INFJ the most likely, and agree with you that his mystical side has an NF feel.
On the other side, Jung notes, in the introduction to Psychological Types, that, in his pre-1920 work on types, he “identified the thinking type with the introvert and the feeling type with the extravert” — which seems to me to be a mistake that an INTJ would be prone to and an INFJ would not.
Maybe more significantly, see this page and this page.
Thanks for posting. You make good point. Jung could certainly could have been an INTJ with a well developed tertiary (Fi). Trying to type Jung can be very dicey, which is why all IN types seems to want to claim him as their own.
p.p.s. And, apparently I had a total Se fail, cuz I thought the poll was about Jung’s type. *doh*
p.s. Oh, and, for the record, I’m an INTJ.
A.J.,
Excellent article.
I’ve happened upon your site numerous times in the past, and each time I do, I enjoy the material presented.
I actually voted before I read your article, as I already had my belief about Jung’s type, and wanted to cast my vote before possibly being persuaded to some other belief by your write-up, but, as I got to the end, I found you concluded on the same type for Jung as I had.
Along with the points you have already made, a few other anecdotal points I have found relevant are:
1) INFJs are the strongest thinkers among the NFs, due to tertiary Ti (which, imo, is “stronger” than tertiary Te), and this would best explain Jung’s highly analytical nature, while still respecting his apparent Fness.
2) INFJs have such a high tendency towards the religious, spiritual, and symbolic, it would just seem appropriate that the importance Jung placed on such matters would be highly reflective of an INFJ’s temperament.
3) Freud is said to have opined to Jung that Freud felt he was generally unpopular and disliked by those around him, while he felt Jung was, by contrast, very popular and well regarded by those who knew him. Now, this is certainly open for interpretation, and what I’m about to say is by no means the only possibility, but I think this likely points to Jung having well developed Fe, which, while not not discounting the possibility of INFP, does more strongly suggest he was an INFJ.
I have another piece of anecdotal evidence regarding his writing style, but until I’ve read more of his works and had the opportunity to better reflect on the matter, I’ll refrain from offering my thoughts on that one.
Anyway, great article, and I look forward to further exploring your website.
Best,
Zarathustra
Zarathusa, Thank you for your compliments and comments. These are all excellent points and I appreciate you willingness to share them on this site. I’m still not 100% confident that Jung was an INFJ, but the evidence does seem to lean in that direction.
Yeah, I’m not quite positive either.
Right now, I’d have to say, I’m somewhere between INFJ and INFP.
His writing is often less-than-enjoyable for me to read, due to what I would deem odd and inconsistent word choice, which, I have found, often tends to be the case when I read the thoughts of intelligent INFPs on a typology forum I frequent.
I also think Elaine made an interesting argument as to his possibly being an INFP, but, like some of the arguments I provided in my comment, the evidence could also point to INFJ…
I actually remembered one additional anecdote I read recently, in a summary of Jung’s ‘The Red Book’ on Amazon.
Apparently, in the years leading up to World War I, Jung was having recurring nightmares and visions of impending disaster and chaos. He thought he was going insane, and so decided to record his suspected descent into madness on paper (which, I believe, forms the basis of much of ‘The Red Book’) but then WWI broke out, and Jung came to believe that he had actually been intuiting the impending war.
That sounds a lot like an Ni vision foretelling the future, if you ask me…
I’ll continue to keep my eyes and ears open, and let you know of any other interesting evidence I may come across (for whichever type).
Elaine,
Thank you so much for your kind compliments and astute insights. You’ve made a strong case for Jung as an INFP, only making matters more difficult for those trying to type him. Though I have not read the Undiscovered Self, I can resonate with your insights regarding the “abhorrence of structure” as an important delineator between Js and Ps. Perceivers, as you know, seek complete autonomy, whereas judging types can tolerate, even appreciate, some element of structure. I’d have to ask a Jungian scholar, familiar with his whole line of works, to know exactly where he might fall on this continuum. Regardless, it’s good to hear another person casting Jung as an F rather than a T, although even this is not clear cut. -A.J.
Dear A.J. – First allow me to congratulate you on an elegant and thoroughly in depth analysis of the Introverted types. Your detailed page analyzing the INFJ type was one of the most insightful and accurate I have read in a long time. I found it very interesting that you mentioned the clamoring for rights among the IN types to claim Jung as their own. Particularly amusing is the fact that as an INFJ myself I actually entered the camp of “I don’t think he’s an INFJ.” How laughably typical of a true INFJ. I recently finished reading Jung’s “The Undiscovered Self” and I have to say that a great number of his points put words to concepts I’ve always intuitively known and hadn’t yet verbalized. That said, I spent a great deal of time scribbling notes in the margins concerning my intuition that he’s actually an INFP. Here’s why: evident throughout the book is his total disdain for any type of organization whatsoever that may inadvertently or purposefully discount the importance of the individual in any group dynamic. Now this is certainly consistent with Introvert mentality – both INFJ and INFP – valuing the individual and his sovereignty. However, there is an abhorrence of structure and organization that is far more reminiscent of an INFP than INFJ. In fact, many points within that writing speak to the INFP’s almost temper tantrum-esque tendency to denounce systemization of any kind in favor of near anarchy. Again, this is all speculative and we may well never know which type Jung was exactly, though I too feel fairly confident that he was not a Thinking type as his energies, as you propose, would not have been spent on understanding human behavior but rather on physical behavior of systems and things (not people). All in all, I thoroughly have enjoyed your website and applaud your book writing efforts.