Psychological Types HTML version

Psychological Types
C.G. Jung (1921)
Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
(Return to index)
Psychological Types
C. G. Jung (1921)
Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)
In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern
must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I
shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due
to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's
adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are
distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call
The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their
particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at
bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as
though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The
extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he
affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to
the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance
must always be paramount.
The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence,
even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once
attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy
natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at
least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even
when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.
Naturally, at first, one is inclined to regard such differences as mere individual idiosyncrasies.
But anyone with the opportunity of gaining a fundamental knowledge of many men will soon
discover that such a far-reaching contrast does not merely concern the individual case, but is a