C.A. Meier was president of the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich where he succeeded Jung himself.
In the book ‘Personality: The Individuation Process in the Light of C.G. Jung’s Typology,’ as well as in his book ‘Consciousness‘ Carl Alfred Meier offers the following typings to the reader. Meier’s typings are somewhat strange: He professes to follow Jung, but then digresses from him. And there only appears to be room for very extraordinary individuals in his treatment of typology. Never the less, here is what he thought:
|
E-TJ |
ENTJ |
ESTJ |
|
Sir James Jeans |
Charles Darwin |
|
|
I-TP |
INTP |
ISTP |
|
Immanuel Kant |
Schopenhauer |
Gauss |
|
E-FJ |
ESFJ |
ENFJ |
|
Henri Dunant |
||
|
I-FP |
INFP |
ISFP |
|
Francesco Patrizzi |
Robert Browning |
Paul Klee |
|
IN-J |
INTJ |
INFJ |
|
Adolf Hitler |
Boehme |
Hölderlin (later life, when he was mentally ill) |
|
EN-P |
ENTP |
ENFP |
|
Columbus |
William Booth |
|
|
IS-J |
ISTJ |
ISFJ |
|
Paracelsus |
Vincent van Gogh |
|
|
ES-P |
ESTP |
ESFP |
|
Gustav Theodor Fechner |
Georges de Cuvier |
***
|
Introverts |
Extroverts |
|
Plato |
Aristotle |
Gauss, ISTP? This must be a joke, he’s a clear INTJ if we’re talking about the same Gauss. :)
About Darwin, one thing to notice: very strong Si, and little feeling of any sort. Yes, INTP or ESTJ, I’d really like to see an article about why he is INTP.
Hölderlin is a pretty clear INFJ, and clearly Ni-dominant since birth. No room for INFP here.
Will some of the people typed in this book be typed on CT also? For instance, I’d like to know what type could Marco Polo and Columbus be.
We agree on the essence of your comment. C.A. Meier was hardly Jung’s brightest follower. For some reason, Jung could only tolerate weak and unassuming males in his circle.
“For some reason, Jung could only tolerate weak and unassuming males in his circle.”
If true, that says something about Jung. I also read on Jung’s page on your website about a book that Emma Jung wrote and he destroyed it. Is there an online source where I can find more about this incident, if it really existed?
The incident is described in various classical Jungian books. The quote is from Michael Fordham’s autobiography but similar stories are told in many other books. We are convinced that it is true.
Thanks. I will certainly read more about the incident, but for now I would like to ask: is it also mentioned the reason why he destroyed the book?
Just would like to know if he believed Emma was not up to the task of writing good books, or, au contraire, he believed Emma’s book to be better than what he wrote and therefore dangerous to his reputation. From the data I have now, I unfortunately tend to believe that the latter is true.
It is never said why in any of the books that we have seen it mentioned it. It is probably a little bit of both of the reasons you mention; Emma Jung was intelligent, but uncultured when he met her. As he grew in status, she began educating herself and studying ancient languages and compiled material on the grail legend for many years. But in Jung’s mind it would be reasonable to speculate that he did not see her as a real sophisticated thinker; that he may have been embarrassed about her. But on the other hand, as we have already hinted, Jung was also very sore about any of his followers potentially overshadowing him and he may have felt that if Emma actually published a good book on a mythological theme, it would detract from his status as a genius. It would not be _logical_ for the two reasons to exist side by side in Jung’s mind but psychologically such a combination nevertheless would make good sense. The deeper cause would be Jung’s uncertain self-image, which could be threatened by both Emma’s competence as well as her incompetence.
Will you put light on how you agree or disagree with these typings. Some look way off but some do make sense. I’d love to see some of these getting typed.