Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me. He comes off as mean.
Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me--it just seems mean.
Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me. He comes off as mean.
Hi Jonathan: Interesting article about AI. Don’t have to deal with that in teaching anymore, but I have been attending zoom meetings about creative writing where AI use is discussed. I subscribed to Chat GPT and find its research helpful but its writing not so much. Being interested in the astonishing wide reach of the MBTI and having read the great 2018 book, The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers Briggs and the History of Personality Testing by non-psychologist Ph.D. in English, Merve Emre, I asked for a scene among Isabel Briggs Myers, her mother Katherine Briggs, and Carl Jung and the result, set in Jung’s studio in his lake house, was quite stilted and cliched.
Jung: (sipping tea thoughtfully) Your interest in my work on psychological types is quite touching. What inspired you to take it so far?
Katherine: When I first read Psychological Types, Dr. Jung, I felt as though you had given structure to something I had intuited for years. I had always observed different temperaments in people—especially children—and wondered if there was a pattern behind it.
Isabel: Mother shared your book with me during the war years. I was struck by how it could help people not just understand themselves but work better together—especially when thrown into chaotic situations, like wartime jobs.
Jung: That is the hope, is it not? That through self-understanding, people might achieve individuation, rather than being swept along by the collective unconscious.
Katherine: Precisely. But your theory was... well, elegant, yet complex. We wanted to make it more accessible, more practical for everyday decisions—education, work, even marriage.
Isabel: So I began designing a way to type people—questionnaires, at first crude, but they evolved. We refined the dimensions: Extraversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Thinking vs. Feeling... and later, Judging vs. Perceiving.
Jung: (raising an eyebrow) Judging and Perceiving—those are not mine, but interesting. A functional extension?
Isabel: Yes. It helps describe how people deal with the outside world—whether they prefer structure or spontaneity. We thought it brought more clarity to the type dynamics.
Jung: Hmm. You have constructed a bridge—one foot in theory, one in application. Tell me, though—do you not fear the danger of typology becoming a box rather than a doorway?
Katherine: That has always worried me. Labels can limit as much as they illuminate.
Isabel: That’s why we emphasize that type is a preference, not a prescription. It describes potential—not destiny. It's a tool, not a cage.
Jung: Good. Then you have understood. Typology is only the map; the soul is the territory. But I admire your efforts—especially as women, working in a field that too often resists your voice.
Katherine: We were drawn to this not for recognition, but because it might help people know themselves—and one another—with more compassion.
Isabel: And perhaps, in knowing ourselves, we take the first step toward healing the world.
Jung: (smiling softly) Then may your instrument serve the psyche well. Just remember—every type contains the seed of its opposite. The true self lies beyond the categories.
Katherine and Isabel: (in unison) We will remember.
Re: Harrison Ford. I’m not as fond of him as many others are—when he married the anorexic-looking Calista Flockheart, 22 years younger, I lost interest. It’s telling that in 1923, the person who plays his wife, Helen Mirren, is actually younger than Ford, but within an age range that would be real in real life. We’re so used to seeing older successful men with much younger women, it somehow looks strange to see a couple in a show actually being cast in an age-appropriate way. His artistic grouchiness in recent roles—e.g., Shrinking-- is not very funny to me--it just seems mean.