DIFFERENCES IN TYPE between husband and wife may give rise to friction, but this can be diminished or eliminated when its origin is understood. Nothing in this chapter is intended to discourage anyone from marrying a person of largely opposite type, but such a marriage should be undertaken with full recognition that the other person is different and has a right to remain different, and with full willingness to concentrate on the virtues of the other’s type rather than the defects.
The role of type in courtship and marital choice is subject to some debate. Proverbially, birds of a feather flock together. It seems only reasonable that the greater mutual understanding between couples with more likeness than difference should lead, on the whole, to greater mutual attraction and esteem. Among 375 married couples whose Indicators were obtained in the 1940s, the most frequent situation was for the couple to be alike on three of their four preferences rather than on only two, as would be expected by chance.12
On the other hand, Jung said of extraverts and introverts, “Sad though it is, the two types are inclined to speak very badly of one another…often come into conflict. This does not, however, prevent most men from marrying women of the opposite type” (1971, p. 517). Plattner (1950), a Swiss marriage counselor, wrote that in most marriages, extraverts marry introverts, and two Jungian analysts, Gray and Wheelwright (1944), advanced a theory of “complementary mating.”
The apparent conflict of evidence here is itself informative. The observers just cited were testifying about the marriages they saw in their own practices. Their clients were in marital or psychological difficulty or both. Jung is reported to have commented, “Of course, we analysts have to deal a lot with marriages, particularly those that go wrong because the types are too different sometimes and they don’t understand each other at all.” If the marriages seen by analysts have gone wrong because the types are too different, then analysts and marriage counselors would be expected to encounter more oppositeness than occurs in successful marriages, which may confirm the thesis that having two or three preferences in common contributes to the success of a marriage and lessens the need for counseling.
Among our 375 couples, there was significantly more similarity than difference between husband and wife on each of the four preferences. The most frequent similarity was on SN, which suggests that seeing things the same way, whether by sensing or by intuition, does more to make a man and woman understandable to each other than a shared preference on EI or TF or JP.
The percent distribution of the couples was as follows:
Alike on all preferences |
9 |
Alike on three |
35 |
Alike on two |
33 |
Alike on one |
19 |
Alike on none |
4 |
Couples who were mainly alike outnumbered thosewho were mainly opposite by two to one. Among the couples who were alike on all preferences, most were feeling types and may have had harmony as a conscious goal in choosing a spouse. Among the couples who were different on all preferences, nearly all the husbands were thinkers.
The amount of likeness that two people actually find in a marriage may fall far short of what they expected. In this respect the extraverted male before marriage has a decided advantage over his introverted brother. He is more aware of what people are like, he circulates more, and he knows more women. He has a wider circle from which to choose and may have a somewhat clearer idea of what he is choosing. This wider and more informed choice may explain why 53 percent of the extravert husbands (but only 39 percent of the introverts) had at least three preferences in common with their wives.
The effect of a preference on marital choice seems to vary from type to type. The men who apparently cared most about likeness on EI were the FJ types with extraverted feeling. FJ types are supposed to be the most sympathetic and the most concerned with harmony. The FJ suitor may therefore be more sensitive to whether a partner shares the same preferences for amusements, use of leisure time, and amount of sociability. Such a person may consciously intend to marry someone with almost identical interests. In the study conducted in the 1940s, where the husband was FJ, he and his wife were alike on EI in 65 percent of the cases, compared with 51 percent for all other types combined.
The men most inclined to marry their opposites on EI were the introverts with thinking. They probably did so more from shyness than from any other reason. Perhaps for every thinking introvert male who knowingly selects a quiet, introvert female, there is another who unknowingly is selected by an outgoing extravert woman. Her sociability bridges over the awkwardness that usually bedevils his type at the start of a new friendship.
Regardless of who is the extravert and who is the introvert in a marriage, the differences in the sociability may cause problems. The extravert’s wish for active sociability runs counter to the introvert’s wish for privacy, especially when the introvert’s work is socially demanding. The day’s work may use up all the extraversion available; home represents a chance for the peace and quiet needed to regain a balance. If the extravert spouse wants to go out, to have people in, or at least to spend the time at home in conversation, frustration may develop. For the introvert, silence, some chance to think quietly, is essential and requires the partner’s cooperation. This need is hard to explain and impossible for the extravert to understand unless it is explained. Once partners understand each other’s needs for quiet or sociability, they can usually make constructive adjustments.
Likeness on TF should be hardest to achieve because there are more feeling women than thinking women in our culture, and more thinking men than feeling men, though these differences may be decreasing. In this 1940s sample, there were not enough feeling men for all the feeling women, nor enough thinking women for all the thinking men. At the very most, only 78 percent of the couples could be matched on TF.
Nevertheless, where the man was an extravert, 62 percent of the couples were alike on TF; where he was an introvert, 49 percent were alike. Where husband and wife were both extraverts, the similarity on TF rose to 66 percent, which is high considering that the maximum possible was only 78 percent.
It may be that extraverts find out sooner than the introverts about the effects of difference on TF. Extraverts are notably outspoken: If a thinker’s outspoken criticisms hurt the feelings of a feeling type, and the feeling type’s outspoken airing of those hurt feelings annoys the thinker, they can break up and try alternative relationships.
Likeness on JP seems to matter mainly to three extravert types: 65 percent of the ENTP and ENFP husbands (who live by spontaneity) married perceptive wives; 93 percent of the ESTJ husbands (who live by system, organization, and decisiveness) married judging wives. Of the rest of the couples, only 52 percent were alike on JP. There are practical advantages in having both judgment and perception represented in a marriage. Many decisions can comfortably be left to the partner who enjoys making them.
Likeness on SN is important to all types. The highest rate of likeness, 71 percent, occurred in couples where the wife preferred thinking to feeling. Evidently, a person who puts trust in logic prefers a spouse with a similar orientation.
On the whole, extravert men with their wider acquaintance achieve more similarity in their marriages than introverts do. Their percentage of likeness ranges from 58 percent to 66 percent on the four preferences. Except for a 62 percent on SN, the percentage of likeness for introvert men ranges only from 49 percent to 52 percent.
The conclusions that can be drawn from study of these 375 married couples are necessarily tentative. The subjects were mostly college graduates or parents of college students. They were volunteers, their ages ranging from 17 to 85. Most of the marriages took place between 1910 and 1950, and all the subjects but a few of the youngest took the Type Indicator after marriage.
From the study of this sample, several conclusions emerge. In these marriages, which were in no apparent difficulty, there is significantly more similarity than difference between husband and wife on each of the four preferences. This finding contrasts sharply with the observations of psychiatrists and marriage counselors that the marriages they see exhibit more type differences than similarities. Similarity would appear to contribute to the success of a marriage.
Preferences held in common simplify human relations. They furnish a shortcut to understanding people, because it is easier to understand likeness than to understand difference. When people understand and admire someone whose type is close to theirs, they are, in a way, appreciating their own best qualities, which is enjoyable and productive though perhaps not as educational as appreciating someone quite different.
Even with only a single preference in common, a marriage can be wonderfully good (as I can testify) if the man and woman take the necessary pains to understand, appreciate, and respect each other. They will not regard differences between them as signs of inferiority, but as interesting variations in human nature, which enrich their lives. As one young ISTJ husband said of his ENFP wife, “If she were just like me, it wouldn’t be any fun!”
Understanding, appreciation, and respect make a lifelong marriage possible and good. Similarity of type is not important, except as it leads to these three. Without them, people fall in love and out of love again; with them, a man and a woman will become increasingly valuable to each other and know that they are contributing to each other’s lives. They consciously value each other more and know they are valued in return. Each walks taller in the world than would be thinkable alone.
Of course there are problems along the way, for example, the partner’s faults. Those faults are probably only the reverse side of the partner’s most admirable traits. A feeling man may value very much his thinking wife’s strength, presence of mind in crisis, steadiness in the face of possible disaster. The thinker is not going to take small things very seriously, except to note what should be done or should have been done. A thinker may fall in love with a feeling type’s warm, quick response, which nourishes the thinker’s own half-starved feeling. The feeling partner is not going to stop to consider the logic of every remark and action. Even the best of qualities tend to have inconvenient side effects, which may annoy those who do not see the reason for them, but the side effects are trivial in comparison with the good qualities from which they spring. When I was a child we had a neighbor who complained a great deal about her husband’s faults. One day my mother asked her what she would really like to have changed in him. It took her some time to find an answer. Finally she said, “You know, there’s that deep scar on his cheek. It doesn’t bother me, but it bothers him.”
It is the appreciation of what is fine in each other that matters, and communication of that appreciation, not necessarily in sentimental words. Some people comfortably assume their appreciation of their partner is understood; they should occasionally make it explicit. If it is too hard to be articulate about the big things, they can speak out about the small ones. “I like the way you laugh.” “I looked across the room tonight and was so proud of you.” “That was the best suggestion anyone made at the meeting.” “You do think of the nicest things to do for people.” What one says will be remembered.
Hostility can sometimes flare up suddenly between two people who love each other and neither may know why. Such clashes hurt less if both understand about the shadow side, which is visible to the partner but not to the possessor (see pp. 84–85).
Jung says that the acts of a person’s shadow should not be taken as acts by the person. Obviously this is a difficult injunction to obey, but it is important in a marriage. If the behavior of a person’s shadow is taken at face value, the partner may not only feel wounded and resentful, but the resentment may activate the partner’s own shadow; to the serious detriment of the relationship, a bitter recrimination may ensue—not between the partners but between their shadows.
Such escalation is probably most serious in a marriage between two feeling types, where the eruption of the shadow is such an uncharacteristic violation of their harmony. The damage may be minimized, however, if they understand what is happening. When a person’s shadow erupts, the partner may be able to recognize it as something not intended, and follow Jung’s advice. The unconscious eruptions of the shadow cannot be prevented because a person does not know when they are going to happen; but if a person can catch an echo of what the shadow said or see the reflection of it in the partner’s face, the person can make amends. “That was my shadow. I’m sorry.”
There are several pitfalls to be avoided by a feeling type and a thinker married to each other. Feeling types should avoid being too talkative; one can easily talk too much to a thinker. Thinkers should not be too impersonal. They tend to think it obvious that by marrying a person they have demonstrated their esteem once and for all and that their useful everyday acts demonstrate their concern for that person’s well-being (it would probably be a little sentimental to refer to it as happiness); therefore, it seems to them superfluous to mention either fact.
For example, one very busy NTP is careful to call home every evening when she is out of town on business. She inquires exhaustively about how things are going, because some problem may have arisen which she can solve. Eventually her ENFP husband changes the subject. “Aren’t you going to say you love us?” It puzzles her that he needs to be told that she loves them. She wouldn’t be worrying about these things if she did not love them! That, of course, is a logical inference that her husband could draw, but he does not want an inference. He wants to hear it said.
Feeling types want nourishment for their feelings. Thinkers are less concerned with feelings than with cause and effect. In order to avoid mistakes, they look ahead from a proposed action to its probable effect; that is a profitable precaution. They also look back from an unsatisfactory state of affairs to its probable cause, so that they may discover what mistake was made and try to insure that it will not be made again. When the mistake is their own, they benefit because they can change their own behavior as they see fit. If, however, they try to change their feeling partner’s behavior by criticism, there is apt to be no benefit and a high cost. The feeling partner may react defensively, often at greater length than the thinker can tolerate with equanimity, and nothing is accomplished except frustration for the thinker and hurt for the feeling type.
If the thinking partner in a thinking-feeling marriage deeply wants some change in the feeling partner’s behavior (something that will really make a difference to the thinker), the thinker’s best approach is to avoid criticism altogether and simply express, as well as possible, the need and admiration for whatever it is the thinker desires. The feeling partner then has a valid incentive for making whatever effort is involved and doing it gladly. There is much nourishment for feeling in the thought that “My spouse likes me to do this!” but none at all in “doesn’t like it if I don’t.” The first is an accolade for excellence, the second a reproof for falling below the norm. This approach will probably work better than criticism in any marriage. It makes no demand; it simply appeals for something—much desired—which the partner has the power to give.
Many of the thinkers’ criticisms are not uttered with any expectation of producing change. They are just thrown out in moving from one thought to another. Even if thinkers are aware of their critical tendency and curb it discreetly in their working hours and social contacts, they (particularly TJs) will feel that at home they are entitled to blow off steam, forcibly, picturesquely, and with the TJ’s characteristic exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. Among the targets of their casual criticisms may be the feeling type’s friends, relatives, religion, politics, opinions on any subject, or merely something just told with an intent to amuse the thinker; and in this exaggerated form, the criticisms will not be true. The feeling partner will often be tempted to defend something or somebody against this undue severity. The temptation should be stoutly resisted.
For the sake of family peace, it is important for the feeling partner to learn the art of dealing with this “conversational criticism,” which does not point out something that really should be corrected, but merely expresses the thinker’s negative views (“I don’t see how you can stand a featherbrain like Jones!”). The feeling partner needs to grant the thinker the luxury of expressing negative views without reprisals.
The feeling partner should not argue in defense of Jones, but will not wish to seem to concur. A relaxed laugh at the thinker’s comment acknowledges the right of thinking to hold any opinion it pleases; a cheerfully casual comment such as “Jones has good points, too” reserves the same right to the feeling partner’s own feeling, and the tone of voice dismisses the subject.
Someday the thinking partner may criticize so bluntly that it seems to take the very ground from under the feeling partner’s feet. There are at least two possibilities other than that the feeling partner’s world has come to an end. One is that the remark is a failure in communication; the thinking partner did not mean it the way it sounded, and does not feel the way the feeling partner would have to feel to say a thing like that. The other and more likely possibility is that it was not the thinker who said it. It was only the thinker’s shadow.
In any marriage, a type difference may at times produce an outright conflict between opposite points of view. When this happens, the partners have a choice. One or both can assume that it is wrong of the other to be different—and be righteously indignant, which diminishes the partner. They can assume that it is wrong of themselves to be different—and be depressed, which is self-diminishing. Or they can acknowledge that each is justifiably and interestingly different from the other—and be amused. Their amusement may be warm or detached, wry or tender, according to their types, but it will help in working out the situation and keeping intact each partner’s dignity and the precious fabric of their marriage.