Robert H. Loeb (8-26-1941)

(18831953), of New Rochelle, New York.In a letter of 1921, Dr. William Alanson White (the superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, D.C.) introduced L. to Jung: “Mr. L was formerly a New York business man who became so deeply interested in analytical psychology that he gave up his business and has devoted himself almost exclusively to the study in this department of science for some months past.”He was in analysis with Jung until 1923

Dear Mr. Loeb,

(a)

Concerning the type-problem with Freud and Adler, I admit it is an intricate one. What I meant to say was that Freud's theoretical point of view is extraverted, whereas Adler's point of view is quite introverted. Now if you read my article about the artist (“On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetical Art” in Contributions to Analytical Psychology, 1928), you will find that I discriminate between the ordinary ego-consciousness of the man and his creative personality. Very often there is a striking difference. Personally a creative man can be an introvert, but in his work he is an extravert and vice versa. Now I knew both Freud and Adler personally. I met Freud when he was already a man in his 50's. His general way of living was a genuinely introverted style, whereas Adler, whom I met as a young man, being of my age, gave me the impression of a neurotic introvert, in which case there is always a doubt as to the definite type. As you know, Freud himself was neurotic his life long. I myself analyzed him for a certain very disagreeable symptom which in consequence of the treatment was cured. That gave me the idea that Freud as well as Adler underwent a change in their personal type

JL1 ¶ 0
(b)

First of all Freud, as a creative personality, had a definite extraverted point of view. In his personal psychology on the other hand, he underwent a tremendous change in his life. Originally he was a feeling type and he began later on to develop his thinking, which was never quite good in his case. He compensated his original introversion by an identification with his creative personality, but he always felt insecure in that identification, so much so that he never dared to show himself at the congresses of medical men. He was too much afraid of being insulted. Adler, I suppose, was personally never a real introvert, therefore as soon as he had a certain success he began to develop an extraverted behaviour. But in his creative work he had the outlook of an introvert. The power complex which both of them had showed in Freud's personal attitude, where it belonged. In Adler's case it became his theory, where it did not belong. This meant an injury to his creative aspect. As a matter of fact Freud was the far greater mind than Adler. Freud is a real view, Adler a sidelight, though of considerable importance

JL1 ¶ 0
(c)

The diagnosis of a type is extremely difficult when it is a matter of a neurosis. As a rule in such a case you see both, introversion as well as extraversion. But the one belongs to the ego-personality, and the other belongs to the shadow-or secondary personality. As is often the case, these two personalities can succeed each other in life. Either you begin your life with the shadow (putting the wrong foot forward) and later on you continue with your real personality, or vice versa

JL1 ¶ 0