Carl Jung formulates the following typological requirement as a key principle in his theory of psychological types by saying that “every theory of the psychic processes must submit to be valued in its turn … as the expression of an existing and recognized type of human psychology.” ¹ Herewith Jung expresses the direct relation between a specific psychological theory and the typological composition of its author.  Expressed concretely, Jung’s theory of psychological types carries the imprint of his typological composition.  The said key principle binds us to view Jung’s theory of psychological types as an expression of his authentic typological class.  Non-compliance of this key principle serves as a single point of failure and renders all test results invalid. 

It is a futile exercise to seek enlightenment on the question of Jung’s own typology from any of those who were around him or from his biographers.  Some individuals got Jung’s typological attitude right ― others got it wrong.  The differences in opinion simply reflect how conscious or unconscious those individuals were about typological facts and theory.  Classification is not arbitrary and definitely not a voting system.² 

Jung is the one who wrote Psychological Types.  He is the one who put forward the principle and requirement that each theory has to be investigated from the typological viewpoint of the author.  It follows that we can expect Jung to set the example of presenting his type in his written work and in no unclear terms.  Without Jung’s self-classification his theory would have been incomplete, due to its content.  Without knowledge of Jung’s self-classification we would have been in the dark as how to investigate and test the applicability of his theory.  Jung’s psychological type is innate to his theory.  

In his Foreword to the first Swiss edition of his book, Psychological Types, Jung describes the decision-making capacity by which he arrived at his typological conceptualization, as follows: “Es ist gedanklich allmählich entstanden.” (1921), translated as “It is a gradual intellectual structure.” (1923), and “It grew gradually in my thoughts [intellectually].” (1971). Jung states unequivocally: “Intellectual or intellect refers to the individual’s faculty of directed thinking.”³ He equates the psychological meaning of the term “intellectual” with conscious or directed “thinking”.  Jung is consistent in his use of the term “intellectual”.  It refers exclusively to the thinking function.  Jung, without doubt, classifies himself as the intellectual type. 

Jung confirms his self-classification as a thinker in numerous ways in Psychological Types.  For example, he relates the mental activity of objective classification directly with thinking.  Jung is very clear on this point when he states: “The very notion of classification is intellectual.”⁴ To put it differently, Jung is saying that the formation of psychological classes or types into well-defined concepts expresses the mental activity and products of directed thinking.  The thinking function is the only psychological function able to differentiate objective facts into classes. 

Every investigator of Psychological Types is bound by the principle that “every theory of the psychic processes must submit to be valued in its turn … as the expression of an existing and recognized type of human psychology.”⁵ 

Jung classified himself in Psychological Types as a thinker.

References

1. Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. CW 6, p. 628 (1923) | par. 857 (1971)

2. Ibid. par. 987 (1971)

3. Ibid. par. 832 (1971) 

4. Ibid. par. 728 (1971)

5. Ibid. par. 857 (1971) | p. 628 (1923)