Since the publication of Psychological Types in the 1920's, few rigorous studies have been undertaken to test the hypotheses put forth by Carl Jung about types. Jung, like most psychoanalysts of his generation, failed to provide adequate data to support his claims, nor did he propose a robust method of testing their reality. Without such a method of testing, eventually these ideas fell out of favor in the scientific community.

With the popular rise of behaviorist psychology since around the 1940's, academic attention has moved away from cognitive dynamics and into trait-based models such as the Big Five. We believe this was a premature move and a mistake that has shifted the global discussion into a less comprehensive understanding of human cognition, and into a more shallow representation of human differences.

Given the lack of objectivity in Jung's typology at the time of his publication, even believers in it could not independently agree on typings under blind conditions. His typology fragmented and has remained so ever since. Therefore it was understandable, if unfortunate, for the scientific community to abandon a Jungian inquiry of psychological differences.

However, a new investigation is now emerging, using visual and audio analysis tools not available during Jung's time, which are confirming many of his original hypotheses about types. We are pushing that frontier forward, publishing our findings as we uncover more of this objective phenomenon that links up to Jung's original speculations with striking parity.

We are tracking the human expressive profile, and connecting visual signals together based on frequency of use. As we do so, we observe that certain visual signals organically self-organize into clusters, having a high factor analysis amongst each other. In addition to this, these visual clusters have predictive power in determining aspects of behavior and personality. We have given these clusters the following formal names:

However, the behavioral correlations we observe from these visual clusters also strongly correspond to certain renditions of Jungian typology, such as those described by Naomi Quenk. Therefore we ask the natural question:

We believe that the phenomenon we are tracking does overlap strongly onto certain renditions of Jungian typology, allowing for the possibility of independently verifying that Carl Jung's concept of types has a physical and measurable reality. If we extend this correlation to Jung, the connections are as follows:

When we place this into a type matrix, we get correlations as follows:

Each of these sixteen visual classifications demonstrates psychological traits that match to the corresponding Jungian psychologies, as can be shown in the 2022 Lecture Series. The correspondences are so structurally similar, that it is difficult to imagine this phenomenon being anything other than Jung's original idea.

We believe Jung was essentially correct in the spirit of his initial speculations, despite not providing evidence himself for what he saw. But we can say this only because the data confirms it, not because of Jung's particular authority. As with any scientific effort, our research does not accept all Jungian ideas a priori, and if there are things Jung said which do not match the data, then we prioritize the data instead.

Our research is just at the beginning, with Jung as a starting point, rather than an endpoint, to the full breadth of the phenomenon of types. If you are a scholar with an interest in researching Jungian typology in a formal setting, contact us at this link.