<p>In the sprit of <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/8364/is-there-anything-in-freudian-psychoanalytic-theory-that-is-scientifically-sound">Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?</a> I want to ask the same question about the works of Carl Jung, because I know even less about them. Wikipedia has <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Legacy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a short paragraph about his legacy</a>, which is mostly about how cited he was (and that does not, alas, entail much how correct his ideas ultimately were), which mentions MBTI as a concrete offshoot of Jung's ideas. I know MBTI was mostly superseded as personality theory. In an <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201603/are-scores-the-mbti-totally-meaningless" rel="nofollow noreferrer">blog discussing the latter matter</a>, John A. Johnson (prof of psychology at Penn State) says of the wider Jungian works</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Jung's scientifically dubious ideas about archetypes, alchemy, synchronicity, the collective unconscious, the paranormal, and so forth are irrelevant to his theory of psychological types. Jung's theory of types gave us the concepts of introversion and extraversion, which modern, scientific personality psychologists are perfectly happy to use today.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Does this mostly summarize Jung's legacy? I know there have been entire books on his works like <em>The Handbook of Jungian Psychology</em>, but I don't want to read all that to come to a conclusion. Also it seems that book has a single review in the <em>Journal of Analytical Psychology</em>, which looks like an in-house thing; nevertheless the review (by psychoanalyst Joseph Reppen) says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although psychology is one of the most popular American majors, Freud,
  Jung, and depth psychology are rarely present or are marginalized in introductory
  psychology texts. As one colleague remarked to me, if Freud gets a page, Jung
  gets a paragraph. And that paragraph probably includes a short comment about
  extrovert-introvert–case closed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Which kinda mirrors what Johnson wrote, but with a bitter tone. The rest of the review is book-oriented, but Reppen seems to me to fail to make a clear case what else is important, legacy-wise in Jung's work.  So, are there other reasonably concise takes on Jung's scientific legacy? And do they agree or disagree with Johnson's take on that?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-04T01:40:46.177Z
I found one non-closed question here that seems narrower to me: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13027/is-there-a-reasonable-scientific-backing-for-carl-jungs-type-theories as it's mostly about MBTI.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-10T14:10:30.063Z
I do not know any document that addresses Jung's scientific topics, but some topics in which he was not mistaken and which were influences could be: Libido not exclusively sexual, sexuality as a means of expression in front of others and fundamental component of psychic energy (motivation). Interconnection between intellect and emotions (very marked interconnection, beyond what they would consider psychoanalysis, although important differences describe his method as analytical psychology)....
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-10T14:10:45.923Z
... Process of individualization, exclusively human process based on the consciousness of the psyche and developed in relation to collective psychology.
hexadecimal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-28T08:50:04.623Z
@Fizz I read through the question you linked to (and answered); to me it seems like closing this question as a dupe of the other makes sense?
Steven Jeuris
<history-of-psychology>
Scientific legacy of Carl Jung (and of analytical psychology)?
got trolled too much this week
# Scientific legacy of Carl Jung (and of analytical psychology)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-04)

In the sprit of [Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/8364/is-there-anything-in-freudian-psychoanalytic-theory-that-is-scientifically-sound) I want to ask the same question about the works of Carl Jung, because I know even less about them. Wikipedia has [a short paragraph about his legacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Legacy), which is mostly about how cited he was (and that does not, alas, entail much how correct his ideas ultimately were), which mentions MBTI as a concrete offshoot of Jung's ideas. I know MBTI was mostly superseded as personality theory. In an [blog discussing the latter matter](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201603/are-scores-the-mbti-totally-meaningless), John A. Johnson (prof of psychology at Penn State) says of the wider Jungian works

> Jung's scientifically dubious ideas about archetypes, alchemy, synchronicity, the collective unconscious, the paranormal, and so forth are irrelevant to his theory of psychological types. Jung's theory of types gave us the concepts of introversion and extraversion, which modern, scientific personality psychologists are perfectly happy to use today.

Does this mostly summarize Jung's legacy? I know there have been entire books on his works like *The Handbook of Jungian Psychology*, but I don't want to read all that to come to a conclusion. Also it seems that book has a single review in the *Journal of Analytical Psychology*, which looks like an in-house thing; nevertheless the review (by psychoanalyst Joseph Reppen) says:

> Although psychology is one of the most popular American majors, Freud,
> Jung, and depth psychology are rarely present or are marginalized in introductory
> psychology texts. As one colleague remarked to me, if Freud gets a page, Jung
> gets a paragraph. And that paragraph probably includes a short comment about
> extrovert-introvert–case closed.

Which kinda mirrors what Johnson wrote, but with a bitter tone. The rest of the review is book-oriented, but Reppen seems to me to fail to make a clear case what else is important, legacy-wise in Jung's work. So, are there other reasonably concise takes on Jung's scientific legacy? And do they agree or disagree with Johnson's take on that?

**Tags:** history-of-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I found one non-closed question here that seems narrower to me: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13027/is-there-a-reasonable-scientific-backing-for-carl-jungs-type-theories as it's mostly about MBTI.  
> **username_1**: I do not know any document that addresses Jung's scientific topics, but some topics in which he was not mistaken and which were influences could be: Libido not exclusively sexual, sexuality as a means of expression in front of others and fundamental component of psychic energy (motivation). Interconnection between intellect and emotions (very marked interconnection, beyond what they would consider psychoanalysis, although important differences describe his method as analytical psychology)....  
> **username_1**: ... Process of individualization, exclusively human process based on the consciousness of the psyche and developed in relation to collective psychology.  
> **username_2**: @Fizz I read through the question you linked to (and answered); to me it seems like closing this question as a dupe of the other makes sense?  

---

## 0 answers

