To Robert H. Loeb
Dear Mr. Loeb, 26 August 1941
I’m very late indeed in answering your letter but I’ve been so busy in the last year that many letters have remained unanswered.
Now I have my vacations and I can do something about it.
I’m glad to know that you have found something that alleviates your distressing symptoms.
Your idea about the image of the medicine-man being the everlasting model for the impressive doctor is quite correct.
Also your comparison of Freud and myself.
Freud is essentially concretistic, like Newton, and I’m chiefly impressed by the relativity of psychological phenomena.
Concerning the type-problem with Freud and Adler, I admit it is an intricate one.
What I meant to say was that Freud’s theoretical point of view is extraverted, whereas Adler’s point of view is quite introverted.
Now if you read my article about the artist (“On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetical Art” in Contributions to Analytical Psychology, 1928), you will find that I discriminate between the ordinary ego-consciousness of the man and his creative personality.
Very often there is a striking difference.
Personally a creative man can be an introvert, but in his work he is an extravert and vice versa.
Now I knew both Freud and Adler personally.
I met Freud when he was already a man in his 50’s.
His general way of living was a genuinely introverted style, whereas Adler, whom I met as a young man, being of my age, gave me the impression of a neurotic introvert, in which case there is always a doubt as to the definite type.
As you know, Freud himself was neurotic his life-long.
I myself analyzed him for a certain very disagreeable symptom which in consequence of the treatment was cured.
That gave me the idea that Freud as· well as Adler underwent a change in their personal type.
First of all Freud, as a creative personality, had a definite extraverted point of view.
In his personal psychology on the other hand, he underwent a tremendous change in his life.
Originally he [Freud] was a feeling type and he began later on to develop his thinking, which was neverquite good in his case.
He compensated his original introversion by an identification with his creative personality, but he always felt insecure in that identification, so much so that he never dared to show himself at the congresses of medical men.
He was too much afraid of being insulted.
Adler, I suppose, was personally never a real introvert, therefore as soon as he had a certain success he began to develop an extraverted behaviour.
But in his creative work he had the outlook of an introvert.
The power complex which both of them had showed in Freud’s personal attitude, where it belonged.
In Adler’s case it became his theory, where it did not belong.
This meant an injury to his creative aspect.
As a matter of fact Freud was the far greater mind than Adler.
Freud is a real view, Adler a sidelight, though of considerable importance.
The diagnosis of a type is extremely difficult when it is a matter of a neurosis.
As a rule in such a case you see both, introversion as well as extraversion.
But the one belongs to the ego-personality, and the other belongs to the shadow- or secondary personality.
As is often the case, these two personalities can succeed each other in life.
Either you begin your life with the shadow (putting the wrong foot forward) and later on you continue with your real personality, or vice versa.
I hope I have answered your question.
Times are very hard and the atmosphere of Europe is oppressive.
It is difficult to understand that there are still Americans who do not realize what the world situation really is.
Hoping you are in relatively good health,
C.G. Jung ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. I, Pages 301-302
Carl Jung across the web:
Blog: http: http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/
Facebook: Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/56536297291/
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Carl-Jung-326016020781946/
Great Sites to visit: