CHAPTER XVIII
A REPLY TO CRITICISMS OF THE RESULTS

To what extent do the conclusions so far reached agree
with those advanced by other investigators ? Of non-
statistical writers, Binet, Jung, McDougall, Kretschmer—
not to mention numerous less-known names—have
attempted detailed descriptions of the emotional character-
istics of the two main types; and it would not be difficult
to show that, so far as can be judged, these concrete verbal
pictures correspond pretty closely with the abstract
quantitative scheme that has been formulated above.1

1 Jung himself does not directly define introversion or extraversion in
terms of specific emotions. According to his original definition, " introver-
sion is a turning inward of the libido [general emotional energy] whereby
a negative relation of subject to object is expressed : interest does not move
towards the object, but recedes towards the subject" (Psychological Types,
1924, p. 567). The implied distinction, as Jung has noted, is virtually the
same as that previously drawn by Binet in contrasting his * objective ' with his
6 subjective' types; and Binet certainly emphasized the emotional differ-
ences between his types. In my earliest researches on temperamental char-
acteristics, before Jung had coined the more specific designations, I adopted
Binet's vaguer adjectives to indicate the two opposite emotional dispositions,
although I conceived the essential differences in terms of McDougall's
£ primary emotions' (Eugenics Review, 1912, IV, p. 189). Strictly, the words
4 objective' and 4 extra verted* would seem best adapted to express the final
attitude habitually adopted by the patient as a result both of inborn dis-
position and of post-natal experience rather than any quality of innate
temperament alone. Of the two contributory influences inborn disposition
is perhaps the more important: but it would be out of place here to discuss
the wide but somewhat inconclusive evidence for such a view.

Of other writers I may merely note that the majority—e.g. Groos,
Kretschmer, McDougall, James—like Jung himself, even when they do not
define their types in terms of the primitive emotions, nevertheless largely
describe them in those terms. Indeed, McDougall explicitly attributes the
temperamental differences between the extravert and the introvert to
f differences in respect of the rektive strength of the instinctive tendencies/
which in his opinion are identifiable with the fundamental emotions. Thus
" E (the typical extravert) is extremely sociable : I (the typical introvert)

410