Psychological types - C. G. Jung

Starting from the end:

• Every signal from the external world can be analysed per se or in relation to the observer. Am besten explained with a metaphor: when drinking orange juice from a glass, the juice carries by necessity some kind of information about the glass - better, not the juice per se, but the juice in the glass, acquired via the glass. If for example there already was apple juice in the glass, that would mix up with the juice, which would carry part of the apple flavour. If there were nothing, we would be able to extract the information that the glass was clean. When we acquire information from outside, that information is elaborated in our brain, which is a forever dirty glass, always carrying remnants of what has been elaborated before or was there since our birth. So in analysing information we can focus on the signal from outside or on the additional information it carries about us. The extrovert focuses on the taste of the orange juice, the introvert focuses on the retrogusto given by the mix of orange juice and the apple juice left in the glass;
• Signal can be analysed rationally or irrationally. A signal is analysed rationally when we analyse it consciously, irrationally when the signal is still perceived, but unconsciounsly analysed. Example: I can cook and stand in front of the pan and smell the proumino of the vegetables slowly roasting; or I can leave the food slow cooking and answer to a message on the phone - the profumino is still perceived, but I am not consciounsly focusing on it. If the food were to burn, the unconscious signal would make its way to consciousness and I would throw away the phone per togliere la padella dal fuoco. So the signal still was perceived, but in the background;
• Rational signals can be analysed in two mutually exclusive functions. The signals are either analysed by thought, i.e. binding them into concepts and abstractions, more in general giving them structure and building relations, or by feeling, i.e. assigning them a mood, un sentimento, a moral value. I think the various Facebook reaction icons under a post are a good example, although a reduction, of what feeling is. Thought is just figuring things out;
• Irrational signals can be analysed in two mutually exclusive functions. The signals are either analysed by sensation, i.e. the raw sensory input, or by intuition. Intuition is what is active when one has a hunch of something withouth really being sure why;
• Perception has a hierarchical structure. Either the rational or the irrational component prende la precedenza, and then we pick one of the two ways; the remaining one is repressed and goes uncoscious. Then the remaining component is analysed in one of the two ways, and the remaining one is repressed - but not as much as the one repressed earlier. Example follows;
• Repressed functions have the opposite version of conscious ones. Also here see example.

The psychological type of a human being can then be constructed like a frozen yoghurt, picking one of the alternatives at each step:

• First we pick introvert or extrovert perception (say extrovert);
• Then we decide if the rational or irrational component should be prominent (say irrational);
• Then we decide which of the irrational components should be prominent (say intuition);
• Then we decide which of the rational components should be prominent (say thought).

The resulting perception has the following hierarchial structure, from more to less conscious:

1. Extrovert intuition;
2. Extrovert thought;
3. Introvert feeling;
4. Introvert sensation.

In principle every signal can have its own hierarchy; in practice human beings tend to pick one they like and use that one to go through life. This define a psychological type, which is however not necessarily fixed.

This is in short the theory of psychological types, the work is then to understand what each possible hierarchical element exactly means (introvert sensation?) and what does it mean for the analysis of the signal to be repressed or active. Then one has to understand how the four ingredients mix together to form a character, from a medical point of view one can then study which kind of psychological problems are most frequent and how to best treat or prevent them.

La classificazione ha un suo fascino, it is however impossible for me to say whether it really makes sense. What I think would be an obvious pitfall is avoided, namely things not being on a spectum, by which I mean that everything listed is on a spectum indeed: one can be more or less extraverted or introverted, or maybe somewhere in between, the hierarchy is there but the space between the different steps is not fixed, so that a flat hierarchy is in fact possible. It is debatable wheter additional factors would be needed. Also, all good classifications of real things are by necessity false.

I started from the end and I think I also should end here - there is a lot in the book to be dwelled upon, and it’s hard to write something without writing everything.