The fact is, however, the relationships founded exclusively on the being-in-love state can never last. Being in love is a matter for the gods, not for human beings, and when human beings try to claim the prerogative of the gods and live in a state of “in-loveness” (as differentiated from truly loving each other), there is a movement from the unconscious to break it up. A relationship of being in love simply does not last when put to the test of the reality of a true, human relationship; it can endure only in a fantasy world where the relationship is not tested in the everyday stress of real life. When they live together in everyday human conditions, “John and Mary” soon become real to each other as actual, imperfect human beings. The more real they are to each other as people, the less possible it is for the magical, fascinating images from the unconscious to remain projected on them. Soon the state of being in love fades away, and, worse yet, the same anima and animus who once fell in love with each other may now begin to quarrel.   ….

The fact that the state of being in love cannot endure the stress of everyday life is not what we want to hear, at least not in present-day America, which depicts the state of being in love as the goal of the relationship between the sexes, and constantly dangles it in front of our eyes with advertisements on television. Human beings are not very keen on substituting reality for the allurement of fantasies. We prefer to go on looking for the perfect man or woman, that is, the man or woman who will fit our ideal image and guarantee that we are happy and fulfilled, even though it leads to disappointment after disappointment, and adds more and more bitterness to our cup of life.

It should now be clear that to the extent that a relationship is founded on projection, the element of human love is lacking. To be in love with someone we do not know as a person, but are attracted to because they reflect back to us the image of the god or goddess in our souls, is, in a sense to be in love with oneself, not with the other person. In spite of the seeming beauty of the love fantasies we may have in this state of being in love we can, in fact, be in a thoroughly selfish state of mind. Real love begins only when one person comes to know another for who he or she really is as a human being, and begins to like and care for that human being.

No human being can match the gods and goddesses in all their shimmer and glory and, at first, seeing the person whom we love for who she or he is, rather than in terms of projections, may seem uninteresting and disappointing, for human beings are, on the whole, rather an ordinary lot. Because of this, many people prefer to go from one person to another, always looking for the ultimate relationship, always leaving the relationship when the projections wear off and the in-loveness ends. It is obvious that with such shallow roots no real, permanent love can develop. To be capable of real love means becoming mature, with realistic expectations of the other person. It means accepting responsibility for our own happiness or unhappiness, and neither expecting the other person to make us happy nor blaming that person for our bad moods and frustrations. Naturally this makes real relationship a difficult matter, at which one must work, but fortunately the rewards are there too, for only in this way does our capacity for love mature.

-John Sanford, “The Invisible Partners”

I don’t mean your real parents, meaning your biological parents — but who are the people who psychologically nurtured you? Who mirrored you, mentored you, developed you, encouraged you?

Most people can get wrapped around the axle pretty quickly about their families of origin. There’s usually a lot of emotional baggage around that topic. So it’s fascinating to tease out the differences between the ideal and the real. I explore this notion of “psychological parents” in my Youtube below. It runs 8:43 altogether. (It’s long cuz I like to give you lots to chew on!)

The image is a little dark — I apologize. I’m still getting the hang of this stuff. You might want to watch it full-screen in order to see more detail. Enjoy!

Please share your thoughts…?

In a nutshell, two IN_Js aren’t on their best when making a rendezvous.

This video is dedicated to all the people who proudly proclaim they “have no ‘S.’” With any luck, this will provide them with some real-life insights into what it’s like to have inferior extraverted Sensation, and demonic introverted Sensation — it’s not something to be proud of!

I am most impressed in this presentation with Robin’s courageous self-disclosure about being a “Mastermind” type, and confessing the efforts he made as a younger INTJ to cover up his shortcomings. It’s a wonderful exposure of how INTJs are *not* infallible, but are instead sadly as human as the rest of us.

Watch and weep with me.

A traditional Native American sweat lodge

Having listened raptly to the first-hand account by Shawna Bowen, whose interview is online (http://bit.ly/3HiTJS), what fascinated me was how there had apparently been some incidents in the past, followed by overt warnings from Native American elders which were apparently ignored. In Jungian terms, it sounds as if the Universe had been trying to communicate with Ray, and the message wasn’t getting through.

Apparently on Twitter, James Ray had recently tweeted, “If you’re not uncomfortable you’re going after the wrong intention. Get on the edge. Create or disintegrate. Grow or die. It’s a law.” It may have been that Ray’s ego got “hooked” into creating this experience in order to stimulate self-development, and inadvertently encouraged people to follow through contrary to their own best interests. Perhaps, in one sense, for many people it wasn’t much different from drinking the Kool-Aid or any other cult or cult-like experience, which typically end badly.

Jung wrote, “Masses are always breeding grounds of psychic epidemics.”

He elaborates on this perspective with, “The change of character brought about by the uprush of collective forces is amazing. A gentle and reasonable being can be transformed into a maniac or a savage beast. One is always inclined to lay the blame on external circumstances, but nothing could explode in us if it had not been there. As a matter of fact, we are constantly living on the edge of a volcano, and there is, so far as we know, no way of protecting ourselves from a possible outburst that will destroy everybody within reach. It is certainly a good thing to preach reason and common sense, but what if you have a lunatic asylum for an audience or a crowd in a collective frenzy? There is not much difference between them because the madman and the mob are both moved by impersonal, overwhelming forces.”
-C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938). In CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. Para.25

So it seems the place to be wary of is when we are falling into “groupthink” and going along with a program in ways we wouldn’t normally do on our own. The Abu Ghraib incident also seems to be a product of “groupthink,” as were the shocking Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. (Google these latter to learn more.)

At what point do we forfeit our conscience and “buy into” a group mentality against our own better judgment? What part of us is susceptible to that? What psychological functions are “running the show” at those times? What overrides our so-called common sense?

It appears that the message for James Ray personally may be around ego. It seems the Universe sent him several messages and he chose to ignore them, if I understood the interview I heard rightly. And that’s merely an observation — not me sitting in judgment of him. (Sitting in judgment is far too easy — not to mention shadowy.)

I prefer to let this disaster lead me to taking my own inventory, “Where am I ignoring the Universe’s message? In my drive to succeed or prevail or win, is the Universe working with me, or is there a message I need to heed — whether from intuition or direct experience? What part of me is susceptible to groupthink, or perhaps might be inadvertently perpetrating unintended evil?”

This catastrophe is an invitation for us all to search our conscience and question our own integrity, and notice what’s in service of others and what’s in service of our own vanity.

It’s unfortunate that the stimulus to take this important inventory was so tragic. And yet, isn’t that usually the case? It often takes something this dire to truly capture our attention.

He writes:

> Check out this BBC interview with Jung, particularly the portion
> beginning at about 8:30 in the first link and carrying on into the
> second link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWF5bKjE1c&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihJzEIxcTxc&feature=related
>
> Straight from the horse’s mouth, he seems to be claiming to be dominant
> T, inferior F, auxiliary N, and almost certainly an introvert.

And here is my reply:

Jonathan, thank you for locating that interview — due to my recent discovery about Jung’s type code, I was about to go hunting for the recording where he spoke on camera about his type preferences. You’ve saved me a great deal of effort.

As regards your interpretation of what Jung said, allow me to offer a counterpoint…

Notice that Jung says to the interviewer he was “characterized by Thinking,” followed by his admission, “I had a great deal of intuition too.” In my experience, most INTJs are “characterized by Thinking” and less renowned for their intuition. Experienced typologists know that it’s common for introverts to be better known for their extraverted auxiliary process than their introverted dominant process. This would easily explain why Jung is “characterized” that way, even when it does not truly represent him. He goes on to say, “I had a great difficulty with Feeling”; and then emphasizes, “my relationship to reality was not particularly brilliant; I was often at variance with the reality of things” — which seems like an indication of his inferior extraverted sensing function and the struggles he had with it over his lifetime.

At no time does the horse, er, Jung speak the terms “introvert,” nor “dominant,” “auxiliary,” “tertiary,” “inferior” — one can only infer them by the order in which he conveys these processes. Yet if one continues such logic, and considers the order in which he speaks of Feeling and Sensation, it becomes impossible to construct a valid type code, since none of them has an order of preferences that correspond to the sequence Jung used:

Thinking
iNtuition
Feeling
Sensation

So something would have to shift in order to derive a commonly-known four-letter type code.

The temptation is to rearrange Feeling and Sensation - and yet I suggest it is more accurate to rearrange Thinking and iNtuition. As mentioned above, people with a preference for introversion are typically “characterized” (per Jung’s term) by their auxiliary process.

It was to Stephen Abrams he actually declared himself to be an “introverted intuitive,” which unequivocally means that his dominant process would have been iNtuition in the introverted attitude. I therefore submit that he did not misrepresent himself on the BBC interview - it is merely the interpretation most people have given it (understandably misled by the particular sequence he employed) that leads one to suppose he had a preference for Thinking as a superior function. However, the facts of the interview are that he did not outright say that.

I invite you to view the YouTube clips again with this particular interpretation in mind so as to verify for yourself the validity of my assertions.

As it happens, my husband Robin has INTJ preferences and is also a type professional. So I invited him to read the email postings by this person and render his opinion.  He likewise noted behaviors that appeared contrary to an INTJ pattern.  We recorded our conversation on the video below so we might share those insights with you.

Before we go any further, I must stress that analyzing email via an internet forum is a dreadful way to assess anybody’s best-fit type! In no way am I recommending, advising, or endorsing that.

However, it is legitimate and reasonable to observe and point out behaviors and wonder whether certain type codes are likely to manifest said behaviors. Rather than “telling,” this is a practice of asking strategic questions based on knowledge of the various models of personality, coupled with lengthy experience. Questions of this nature are designed to elicit further information, and encourage an objective evaluation.

The following presentation highlights some key areas that we, as type practitioners, naturally pay attention to when we compare and contrast between INTJ and ENFP type patterns.

This is merely part of what would necessarily be a deeper and longer discussion comparing these two types; however, this brief conversation was born of a particular thread on an internet message board devoted to type, so it does not pretend to be comprehensive.

Enjoy!

Last night a message come through my email notifying me that someone had just posted a response online to a thread I once commented on.

Big deal. Happens all the time. I almost didn’t chase it down.

But I did. In between processing some files I had a little time to kill.

The thread originated when somebody asked about C.G. Jung’s type. Yeah, that ole thread. It started out like this (the quotations are verbatim):

“Does anyone know what Jung’s personality type would be according to the Myer-Briggs Personality typology? In one online source I found, the author states that Jung’s type is the INTP, while another proposes that he is an INTJ. Anyone have any thoughts on this?”

Followed, of course, by all the same old stale replies that always follow such a query:

“I thought he was INFJ.”

            
“I would propose that if we dare lay the Myers-Briggs schema on Jung (who never identified the J/P types), that he would be a “P”.” (Etc.)

            

“I remember,Myer has written Jung’s type.I surely remember he was INTP.”

and even,

“Scientologists would say he’s an “SP”!”

All of these comments were old news, guaranteed to generate either yawns of boredom or moans of annoyance at the lack of sophistication.

And then… I came upon the new message.

I read it cursorily at first, expecting the same old drivel.

“It is more interesting and relevant to ask how Jung identified himself on his own typology.
I have direct evidence on this point. I had a long talk with Jung at his home in Kusnacht on the morning of December 18th, 1959. I was aged 21, a Fellow of the Bollingen Foundation, and had been corresponding with Jung since 1957.
I said, innocently, and in passing, “I must be what you call a thinking type.” He immediately broke in and said. “No you are an introverted intuitive type” and then he added, “just like me”. This meant, of course, that I could read Jung knowing that his prejudice coincided with mine.”

The message was signed, “Stephen Abrams (London).”

My jaw dropped. I read it again. And again, just to make sure I hadn’t taken leave of my senses.

Yep, that’s what it said alright.

I rapidly followed up and contacted the author of the message and enjoyed a brief exchange with him. To my surprise, we share the same birthday, July 15th, albeit in a different year, of course. His birth year is 1938 (I shan’t tell you mine, but it’s significantly later).

I was tickled that we had the same birthdate, and asked him if it would be all right if I called it “synchronicity.” To which he kindly replied,

“My correspondence with Jung, between 1957 to 1960 was about synchronicity. Most of his letters to me are published more or less complete in Vol. 2 of the Jung Letters.”

Wow, in those two sentences he both established tremendous credibility AND in a heartbeat altered the sequence of my extensive reading list!

As you can imagine, I feel pretty excited about this discovery. It vindicates Dr. John Beebe’s position, and authenticates Angelo Spoto’s premise as written in his book, Jung’s Typology in Perspective.

Arguments about Jung’s type have raged for years. It is commonly known that Jung at one time professed to be a Thinking type, so the INTPs naturally laid claim to him. Dr. Beebe’s hypothesis is that Jung discovered his true pattern over time, and that excavation is demonstrated via his written works — the development shows up there. (I guess if you’re a brilliant Jungian like Dr. John Beebe is, you might be able to discern such a thing.)

Certainly it’s highly evident that Jung was a curious combination of “mystical” and “empiricist.” That alone seemed like decent evidence of INTJ preferences to me, especially seeing as how I got married to someone with that particular type pattern — at Stonehenge no less! And yet there are those who say one of Jung’s contemporaries, J.H. van der Hoop, claimed that Jung’s preferences were for ISTP. Hm, that would indicate a compromise of sorts — with that pattern, Jung would have access to both introverted Thinking AND introverted intuiting.

It seemed destined to remain a mystery, lost forever in the mists of time. But no, through the miracle of the internet and a brief act of synchronicity, it appears there is someone credible who can tell us — can confidently serve as reliable witness, in fact — that by his own admission, Jung’s true disposition was for INTJ.

At least I think it’s INTJ! I forgot to ask for clarity around Thinking versus Feeling.

…Is there really any doubt about that?

PS: When I wrote Dr. Beebe about it, his reply was “Eureka!”
PPS: Angelo writes, “Great piece of good fortune, and yes, synchronicity. Thanks for letting me in on your “Eureka” moment.”

A link to the New York Times article is here:
New York Times article

If you are lucky enough to live in or near New York, the Rubin Museum has a special exhibit about it:
“The Red Book” Exhibit

and is hosting several related events associated with the release: Related Events

If you would like to pre-order a copy for yourself, it’s available at Amazon using this link: Buy “The Red Book”

Please join us in our excitement and enthusiasm about this forthcoming release!

-Vicky Jo

First of all, remember that you have extraverted, not extroverted thinking, despite the efforts of spell-checkers and dictionaries to conform Jung’s notion of extraversion to parallel introversion, ignoring the Latin root of the word. I prefer Jung’s spelling, because the “extra” reminds me of “Extra, extra, read all about it,” the egregious tendency of extraverted thinking to spread its own point of view as widely as possible.”

It reminds me of Peter Geyer saying that Jung used the spelling of “extravert” to indicate that with extraverts you get a little something “extra.”

I confess, that association appeals to me: “Extra, extra, read all about it!”

Here’s what I posted in reply:

We all use all 8 of the processes — we ALL have the full range of human experience. While you may have a *preference* for iNtuiting, your life doesn’t work effectively when you neglect sensing for very long. And vice-versa that someone with a *preference* for Sensing will discover their life doesn’t work effectively when they neglect iNtuiting for very long.

AND (take note!) as we develop and mature, we are drawn more and more to use our less-preferred functions. INtuiting gives way to Sensing coming much more into the fore; and Sensing gives way to iNuiting coming much more into the fore.

Using those labels as if we are static beings who don’t shift, change, and develop — and INCREASE our CONSCIOUSNESS — misses the whole point of type entirely.

Stop thinking of them as labels — start thinking of them as muscles that you exercise or don’t — and that will get you closer to the intended meaning of type.

-Vicky Jo