Introverted Thinking and Thinking Perceiving

• Extraverted Thinking—ET and TJ one-sidedness
• Extraverted Feeling—EF and FJ one-sidedness
• Extraverted Sensing—ES and SP one-sidedness
• Extraverted Intuition—EN and NP one-sidedness
• Introverted Thinking—IT and TP one-sidedness
• Introverted Feeling—IF and FP one-sidedness
• Introverted Sensing—IS and SJ one-sidedness
• Introverted Intuition—IN and NJ one-sidedness

📝 The structure of this reference article resembles a pyramid, beginning with concise and straightforward information and progressively delving into more intricate and detailed content to accommodate various levels of depth required by different readers.

Introverted Thinking—The Definitive Official Definition by Myers & Briggs Foundation

Introverted Thinking:
(Ti) ISTP/INTP: Seeks internal consistency and logic of ideas. Trusts internal framework, which may be difficult to explain to others. Experience a depth of concentration that is objective and analytical. Keyword: Analyzing.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation

Psychological Types BY CARL JUNG: Adapted Simplified Translation

It is now clear that the bulk of Carl Jung’s work was not about type but one-sidedness. Carl Jung simply saw the type as a lens, a language and a liver to help free man from excessive one-sidedness.

His main purpose and the bulk of his work in typology was to help free man from excessive one-sidedness. One-sidedness is a form of aberration.

“We are born at a given moment, in a given place, and like vintage years of wine, we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born.” ― C.G. Jung

Introverted Thinking—IT(S) AND IT(N)

• The Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness], always at the decisive points, is orientated by inner ideas. External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although this type would often like to make it so appear.

• In the presence of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new ideas rather than the knowledge of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories, but in the presence of facts, it exhibits a reserved demeanour.

• Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. What is of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the inner intellectual idea. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with a logical reconstruction of measurable fact (Te) [ET and TJ one-sidedness], but with forming a dim image into a luminous intellectual idea.

• Its desire is to reach reality and to see how external facts fit into the framework of this idea. This thinking creates an idea that, though not present in the external facts, is the most abstract, theoretical expression of the external facts.
  
  ‐ Its task is accomplished when the idea it has formed seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
  
  ‐ But no more than Extraverted Thinking [ET and TJ one-sidedness] can wrest [wrest, ARCHAIC: distort the meaning or interpretation of (something) to suit one’s own interests or views.] a sound inductive idea from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts.

• The Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] shows a dangerous tendency to force facts into the shape of the idea, or even ignore them altogether. The Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] restrict themselves to a critique of knowledge in general.

• For the idea derives its convincing power from the underlying archetype, which as such, seeks to have universal validity and everlasting truth. Theories are created for their own sake.

• The Introverted Thinking’s judgment [IT and TP one-sidedness] appears cold, inflexible, arbitrary, and inconsiderate because it relates far less to the object than to the subject. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which reveals an ulterior aim.

• When the Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] communicates their logical ideas into the world, they never introduce them like a mother concerned for her children. Those simply dump them there and get extremely annoyed if these ideas fail to thrive on their own account.

• In the pursuit of their ideas, the Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence.

• Because the Introverted Thinking [IT and TP one-sidedness] thinks out a problem to its logical limit, the Ti type complicates it and constantly gets entangled in its own doubts.

• However clear to themselves the inner structure of their thoughts may be, they are not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. It is difficult to persuade themselves to admit that what is clear to them may not be equally clear to everyone else.

• The Introverted Thinking’s style [IT and TP one-sidedness] is contained by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc; all of which come from its exacting precision.

• Inferior Fe over-compensates as forms of too little or too much emotivity and touchiness; and they begin to confuse their subjective idea with their own person.
  
  ‐ They break out with bitter and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus their isolation gradually increases.
  

“Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism.” — Carl Jung

Unveiling Introverted Thinking (IT and TP one-Sidedness) with Unparalleled Depth and Precision

Let me offer a cautionary note about the following, Carl Jung’s work primarily addresses one-sidedness rather than specific functions or personality types.

Short summary of Introverted Thinking as described by J.H. van der Hoop

The thinking-oriented introvert relies on systematized experiences as their guide, emphasizing the inner aspect, focusing on the necessity for objective order, laws, and fundamental principles that generally organize their experiences. These individuals value the abstraction of constant aspects of conscious experience, arranging the opinions they inherit from others into their own systems. They critically analyse thought-material and adhere to their own convictions, aiming to follow their own guidance.

Their strength lies in comparing systems and principles, feeling comfortable among abstractions and nuances of meaning. They are skilled in introspection, enabling them to examine mental facts with depth. Yet, they might face difficulty in expressing and applying their thoughts, appearing somewhat reserved, uncertain, and unable to feel entirely at home in the world. They manifest an obstinate decisiveness that can verge on dogmatism and pedantry, not possessing the cool logicality of the extraverted thinker but adopting a more fanatical stance.

Introverted thinkers can be challenging to convince when they believe they’re right. They are more skeptical about truths, allowing for differing views even if they don’t align with their opinions or established authorities. This skepticism can create a sense of aloofness regarding established systems of truth, while they also find it puzzling that others might not share their perspectives.

This type constantly prepares for life, focusing on pure ideals and principles to order their existence. They prefer having a systematic view of situations and tend to foresee potential difficulties, seeking to take precautions in advance. They are more prevalent among men and might excel in philosophical or scientific fields. However, their meticulousness could occasionally lead to fussiness and complications, wasting energy on imagined dangers.

Introverted thinkers prefer a small circle for more spontaneity and may seem surly or calculated socially. They are careful with their words and often exhibit a studied, mask-like demeanor, choosing their words deliberately. Despite being aware of this, they find it hard to adopt a different attitude.

Although they are highly motivated internally and are less dependent on external stimuli, this independence might lead to struggles in dealing with inner difficulties, potentially hindering their productivity. This introspective thinker looks to their perceptions and reason for guiding the instinctual life. However, their theorizing or idealistic nature can distance them from practical solutions to life’s problems.

Intuition and feeling play roles to varying degrees, but their impact might be subdued or tested thoroughly before being incorporated into their system. These individuals struggle with expressing their feelings and understanding current modes of expression, often displaying a strict conventionality or childlike disregard for norms.

In love, introverted thinkers can feel awkward and uncertain, attempting to rationalize their emotions or over-preparing for expressing their feelings, which might hinder spontaneity.

“Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside… dreams, who looks inside… awakes.” — Carl Jung

Below are several significant characteristics of the introverted thinking type, extracted from an AI analysis, drawn directly from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung’s “Psychological Types” (1921):

1. Introverted Thinking (Ti): Introverted thinking is described as a thinking process that is primarily oriented by the subjective factor. It relies on inner thoughts, feelings, and ideas to make judgments and decisions.
2. Subjective Orientation: Introverted thinking is characterized by its strong orientation toward subjective factors. It places great importance on the individual’s inner world, including personal feelings, directions, and inner images.
3. Creation of Theories and Ideas: This type of thinking focuses on creating theories, forming ideas, and making sense of the world based on inner insights rather than objective facts. It is concerned with the development and presentation of subjective ideas.
4. Value of Subjective Ideas: The text emphasizes that introverted thinking places a high value on the subjective ideas it generates. These ideas often hold great importance to the individual and are believed to have universal validity and truth.
5. Difficulty in Practical Application: Introverted thinking may have difficulty applying its ideas in practical situations. The text mentions that it tends to struggle with connecting its theoretical constructs to the real world.
6. Negative Attitude Towards the Object: People with introverted thinking may have a somewhat negative attitude towards external objects or the objective world. They may prioritize their inner world and ideas over external realities.
7. Complex and Precise Thinking: Introverted thinking is described as producing thoughts that are complex, precise, and often laden with nuances, qualifications, and doubts. This complexity can make it challenging for others to understand their thought processes.
8. Aversion to Social Conventions: This type may exhibit an aversion to social conventions and may be perceived as uninterested in social norms or behaviors. They may appear unconventional or at odds with societal expectations.
9. Personal Relationships: Their relationships with others can be complicated. They may be difficult to get to know, and their behavior can be influenced by their subjective convictions and emotions.
10. Increased Isolation: As this type intensifies, they may become increasingly isolated from the external world, leading to an overreliance on their inner world.
11. Struggle Against the Unconscious: The text mentions that introverted thinking struggles against unconscious influences, and the more isolated they become, the more deeply they engage in this internal conflict.
12. Connection to Mythology and Irrelevancy: The text suggests that as introverted thinking becomes less connected to objective experience, it may become mythological and irrelevant in the present context.

CARL JUNG’S DESCRIPTION OF THE InTRoVERTED Thinking TYPE SUMMARISED IN 1400 WORDS

Here is an AI summary of a verbatim excerpt taken from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung’s work “Psychological Types” (1921):

Exploring Introverted Thinking: A Deep Dive into Cognitive Functions

Introduction

Understanding cognitive functions is essential for comprehending how an individual perceives and interacts with the world. In this exploration, we delve into the intricacies of introverted thinking (Ti), a cognitive function in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality framework. Introverted thinking is marked by an internal, subjective approach to information processing. To gain a profound understanding of this function, we will contrast it with extraverted thinking, and unveil its characteristics, its strengths, and potential pitfalls.

Comparing Extraverted and Introverted Thinking

When discussing extraverted thinking, we briefly described introverted thinking as its counterpart. To appreciate introverted thinking more deeply, it’s essential to recognize how it differs from extraverted thinking.

Extraverted Thinking primarily focuses on the objective world, guided by concrete and observable data. It seeks to understand, organize, and manipulate these external facts to form logical conclusions. It is often efficient in decision-making, as it relies on empirical evidence and observable patterns. Extraverted thinkers prioritize external results and facts, and new theories or ideas stem from these objective observations.

Introverted Thinking, on the other hand, is primarily oriented by the subjective factor. This subjective factor is a deeply ingrained sense of direction, which determines judgment. It’s often represented by a subjective feeling or a mental image that serves as a standard. This thinking can incorporate both concrete and abstract elements, but it is ultimately driven by subjective data, rather than external facts. Introverted thinking doesn’t lead back to objective reality from concrete experiences; it always returns to the subjective realm. While it can explore the world of facts, its main focus is to develop new ideas and theories. The aim is not just to perceive new facts but to formulate questions, open up perspectives, and gain insight. When confronted with facts, it maintains a reserved stance; they serve as evidence or examples for a theory, not as the goal themselves.

Characteristics of Introverted Thinking

Introverted thinking embodies several key characteristics:

1. Subjective Orientation: Introverted thinking is guided by an internal, subjective compass. The thinker’s judgment arises from a deeply personal sense of direction or a mental image that serves as a standard.
2. Creation of Theories: This thinking style excels in formulating questions, theories, and new perspectives. Its primary focus is on the development of subjective ideas that may or may not align with external facts.
3. Focus on Subjective Content: External facts are not its primary aim or origin. Instead, it gravitates towards the development and presentation of the subjective idea, an archaic image that stands before the inner vision.
4. Indirect Value of Facts: While facts are collected for evidence or as examples for a theory, they are not valued for their own sake. Their chief value lies in illustrating new views and supporting the subjective idea.
5. Creation of Suitable Ideas: Introverted thinking’s creative power extends to creating an idea that, even if not present in external facts, becomes the most suitable, abstract expression of those facts.
6. Subjective Validity: Its goal is to align external facts with the subjective idea. This creates a subjective force of conviction in the thinker, which is more convincing when not overly influenced by objective data.

Introverted Thinking in Practice

In practical terms, introverted thinking operates as follows:

1. Theoretical Emphasis: It emphasizes theories, ideas, and the internal world of the thinker. It values the creation of new perspectives and insights over the accumulation of concrete facts.
2. Indirect Approach: This thinking style often seems indirect in its relationship with external facts. It’s more concerned with the theoretical framework and the shaping of the subjective idea than with mirroring concrete reality.
3. Mythological Character: As introverted thinking delves deeper into the subjective realm, it may acquire a mythological character. The ideas it generates can appear unconventional, whimsical, or archaic to those unfamiliar with mythological motives.
4. Subtle Impact: Its impact on reality is subtle, as it aims to make the subjective idea merge seamlessly with external facts, proving its validity in the process.
5. Psychic Richness: As introverted thinking withdraws from the objective world, it enters the realm of the unconscious. This transition leads to a wealth of archaic and irrational factors, enhancing the thinker’s inner world.
6. Symbolic Thinking: In this phase, introverted thinking transcends the concrete and becomes symbolic and mystical. It may even form images that lack connection to external reality, serving as symbols of the unknowable.
7. Emotional Impact: With an increasing internal focus, the thinking style may become more emotionally charged and susceptible to subjective influences, further removing it from objective reasoning.
8. Isolation and Misunderstanding: The introverted thinking type often appears isolated and misunderstood by others. Their complex ideas may not align with common knowledge, leading to social and professional isolation.

Introverted Thinking Type – A Deep Dive

Now, let’s take a closer look at the characteristics of individuals with a dominant introverted thinking function:

1. Deep Thinkers: These individuals prioritize the development of profound, internally generated ideas. They are highly introspective and analytical, constantly exploring the depths of their minds.
2. Detached Objectivity: They maintain a sense of detachment and objectivity when analyzing ideas and concepts. Their judgments are based on personal subjective standards, not external influences.
3. Introversion and Subjectivity: Introverted thinkers are introverts, with a tendency to withdraw from external influences. They are subjective in their approach and often distrust external facts in favor of their internal compass.
4. Reserved Demeanor: When dealing with objective facts, they exhibit a reserved demeanor. While they appreciate factual examples, they recognize their secondary role in the pursuit of theoretical ideas.
5. Theory Creation: Their primary focus is on creating theories and questions that shape new perspectives and provide insight. They seek to make the subjective idea align with the external facts.
6. Ineffectual in Practical Matters: They may struggle with practical application and the translation of their internal ideas into practical reality. This can lead to difficulties in implementing their theories.
7. Isolation and Misunderstanding: Their complexity and the obscurity of their ideas often result in social isolation and misunderstandings, especially in professional settings. They may find it challenging to communicate their profound insights to others effectively.

Conclusion

Introverted thinking is a cognitive function characterized by its intense focus on subjective ideas and the development of theories. While it can create profound and innovative insights, it often faces challenges in practical applications and can lead to isolation and misunderstanding. Understanding introverted thinking is essential for comprehending the diversity of cognitive functions and personality types in individuals.

CARL JUNG’S ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF THE Introverted Thinking TYPE

Here is the original, verbatim excerpt taken from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung’s work “Psychological Types” (1921). This text can be used for direct, unaltered quotation of Carl Gustav Jung’s work:

Thinking

When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment.

Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear.

It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour.

As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea.

Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom.

In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as ‘originality’, or in more pronounced cases’ as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts.

Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth.

Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?

This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being ‘merely’ symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]

Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves.

Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says ‘Est, ergo est’ (‘It is ; therefore it is’) ; while the latter says ‘Cogito, ergo cogito’ (‘ I think ; therefore I think’). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact.

For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness.

The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible — though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity — unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life.

If this should be the intuitive function, the ‘other side’ will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body.

A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.

Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the ‘other side’ succeeds — still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion — a psychoasthenia, in fact.

The Introverted Thinking Type (IT and TP one-sidedness)

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity.

In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing.

This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority.

Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]

disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real.

That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children’s welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude.

If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone’s appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence.

His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas.

He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple.

However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness.

His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart.

Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one’s judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy.

To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.

With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand.

This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance.

And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time.

But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against ‘magical’ influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.

Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types

Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data. But the predominance of one or other factor, conditioned by a psychic disposition often existing from early youth, deflects the reasoning function. For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible. A rational type has always a typical reasonal variation. Thus, the introverted rational types unquestionably have a reasoning judgment, only it is a judgment whose leading note is subjective. The laws of logic are not necessarily deflected, since its one-sidedness lies in the premise. The premise is the predominance of the subjective factor existing beneath every conclusion and colouring every judgment. Its superior value as compared with the objective factor is self-evident from the beginning. As already stated, it is not just a question of value bestowed, but of a natural disposition existing before all rational valuation. Hence, to the introvert rational judgment necessarily appears to have many nuances which differentiate it from that of the extravert. Thus, to the introvert, to mention the most general instance, that chain of reasoning which leads to the subjective factor appears rather more reasonable than that which leads to the object. This difference, which in the individual case is practically insignificant, indeed almost unnoticeable, effects unbridgeable oppositions in the gross; these are the more irritating, the less we are aware of the minimal standpoint displacement produced by the psychological premise in the individual case. A [p. 497] capital error regularly creeps in here, for one labours to prove a fallacy in the conclusion, instead of realizing the difference of the psychological premise. Such a realization is a difficult matter for every rational type, since it undermines the apparent, absolute validity of his own principle, and delivers him over to its antithesis, which certainly amounts to a catastrophe.

Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling. In so far as he is a convinced participator in the general style, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible, is opposed to his principle. Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin. Little wonder, therefore, that it is precisely our epoch, and particularly those movements which are somewhat ahead of the time, that reveal the subjective factor in every kind of exaggerated, crude and grotesque form of expression. I refer to the art of the present day.

The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and [p. 498] protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert. Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judgment of ‘egoist’ would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by its general efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.