Editorial

WHEN IT IS TIME for The Journal to go to press the Editor has to decide on the sequence in which the original papers are to appear. His hope is that they will somehow balance by virtue of content and interest, as well as length and other extrinsic factors. But, when all is said and done, his decision, more often than not, results in a mixed bag from which the reader will take his choice. Occasionally, as is the case in the present number, there appear obviously related subjects or groupings, the significance of which may call for comment.

When a new edition of Psychological types (Coll. wks, 6) had appeared in 1971, the year in which the Fifth International Congress took place, I took the opportunity to do a survey on types and to comment on it. ( J. Anal. Psychol.,  17, 2, July 1972↗). I arrived at the conclusion that the time had come to re-assess the work and vision which had given rise to the typology as well as its practical uses. It is gratifying to note that such work has been tackled: Willeford's thorough review and evaluation is qualitative, while the work of Bradway and Detloff presents a follow-up to the previous and primarily quantitative findings. ‘The primacy of feeling’ has had to be divided into two parts on grounds of length, but Willeford's challenge to the ‘openness and symmetry of the conceptual arrangement’ of Psychological types is clearly stated from the outset. This challenge is also made implicitly, but no less cogently, by Bradway and Detloff. They allow three of their participating analysts to state that if the inferior function did not happen to be the opposite of the primary function, this would be just too bad for the symmetrical arrangement postulated by theory. The authors add that Jung would have approved of experience of reality taking precedence over theory. Even more important appears the suggestion also made by Bradway and Detloff that the function types could, under certain circumstances, with advantage be reduced to two, i.e. judgi