Jung on the Power of Affects

Sue Mehrtens is the author of this and all the other blog essays on this site. The opinions expressed in these essays are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of other Jungian Center faculty or Board members.  Honesty, as well as professional courtesy, require that you give proper attribution to the author if you post this essay elsewhere.

 

Jung on the Power of Affects

 

 

“Affects always have a disturbing influence on consciousness, as they place undue emphasis on feeling-toned thought-processes and thus obscure any others that may be present.”

Jung (1904)[1]

“Psychologically we would say: every affect tends to become an autonomous complex, to break away from the hierarchy of consciousness and, if possible, to drag the ego after it.”

Jung (1926)[2]

“… affects have an autonomous character, and therefore most people are under their power. But affects are delimitable contents of consciousness, parts of the personality. … a person roused by affect does not show a neutral character but a quite distinct one, entirely different from his ordinary character.”

Jung (1931)[3]

“… strong affects always leave behind very large complexes. This is due simply to the fact that on the one hand large complexes include numerous somatic innervations, while on the other hand strong affects constellate a great many associations because of their powerful and persistent stimulation of the body. Normally, affects can go on working indefinitely (in the form of stomach and heart troubles, insomnia, tremors, etc.).”

Jung (1907)[4]

“He is terrified of strong affects and others, and is hardly ever free from the dread of falling under hostile influences…. Anything strange and new arouses fear and mistrust, as though concealing unknown perils; heirlooms and suchlike are attached to his soul by invisible threads; any change is upsetting, if not positively dangerous, as it seems to denote a magical animation of the object.”

Jung (1920)[5]

“If we judge others only by affects, we show that our chief, and perhaps only, criterion is affect. This means that the same criterion is also applicable to our own psychology, which amounts to saying that our psychological judgment is neither objective nor independent but is enslaved to affect. This truth holds good for the majority of men, and on it rests the psychological possibility of murderous wars and the constant threat of their recurrence.”

Jung (1923)[6]

“As we have already explained at some length, affects have a dissociating (distracting) effect on consciousness, probably because they put a one-sided and excessive emphasis on a particular idea, so that too little attention is left over for investment in other conscious psychic activities. In this way all the more mechanical, more automatic processes are liberated and gradually attain to independence at the cost of consciousness.”

Jung (1903)[7]

“… it was the triumph of the Enlightenment that such things as nature-spirits did not exist at all. But it was merely that what one imagined such spirits to be that did not exist. They themselves exist all right, here in the human psyche, unperturbed by what the ignorant and the enlightened think. So much so that before our very eyes the “most industrious, efficient, and intelligent” nation in Europe could fall into a state of non compos mentis and put a poorly gifted house painter, who was never distinguished by any particular intelligence but only by the use of the right means of mass intoxication, quite literally on the altar of totalitarianism, otherwise reserved for a theocracy, and leave him there…. Nothing is so infectious as affect and nothing is so disarming as the promised fulfillment of one’s own selfish wishes….The greater the accumulation of masses, the lower the level of intelligence and morality. And if any further proof were needed of this truth, the descent of Germany into the underworld would be an example. We should not delude ourselves that we would not have succumbed too.”

Jung (1945)[8]

 

Given our current social/political scene,[9] I caution our Jungian Center students not to get caught up in the collective miasma created by the media. I have good reasons for this advice, based on Jung’s own warnings. This essay examines the power, and potential dangers, of what Jung called “affects.” We will begin by defining the term “affect,” and then consider some of the features of affects, and the power affects have (and how this shows up in outer life). In the last section we will draw on Jung’s words to examine how affects can impact our lives both personally and collectively.

 

Definitions of “Affect”

 

The dictionary defines the noun “affect” (emphasis on the first syllable) as a technical term in psychology: “the felt or affective component of a stimulus or motive to action.”[10] Our English word comes from the Latin verb afficere, “to act on,” reflecting how, when something happens in life (e.g. a fright), we are affected. In a rare example of clarity, Jung defined “affect:”[11]

“By the term affect I mean a state of feeling characterized by marked physical innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other. I use emotion as synonymous with affect. I distinguish … feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that the dividing line is fluid, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. For practical reasons, however, it is advisable to distinguish affect from feeling, since feeling can be a voluntary disposable function, whereas affect is usually not.”[12]

An affect stirs us up (“marked physical innervation”) as well as having an impact on our thinking (“disturbance of the ideational process”).

Jung regarded affects as a “distinguishing mark of the human psyche,”[13] “part of the personality”[14] in being “delimitable contents of consciousness.”[15] They are “as much instinctive processes as they are feeling processes.”[16] But Jung saw feeling as different from affects and different from Feeling as well. How so?

Affects “are clearly not functions… they are just events, because in an emotion, as the word denotes, you are moved…”.[17]  By distinguishing affects from functions Jung sought to make clear the difference between Feeling, as one of the psychological functions (along with Intuition [N], Sensation [S], and Thinking [T]), and feelings, i.e. the daily experiences we label “happiness,” “sadness,” “awe,” “confusion” etc. As noted in the quote above, we may feel something without it showing in our face or body, but affects produce physiological changes. Feelings also are “voluntary disposable”[18] aspects of being human; they don’t do “something to you,”[19] unlike an affect, which “interferes with you.”[20]

 

Some Features of Affects

 

By “interference” Jung likely was thinking of how affects can be “unruly,”[21] “violent,”[22] even explosive in their “disturbing influence.”[23] Affects are

“the thing that carries you away. You are thrown out of yourself; you are beside yourself as if an explosion had moved you out of yourself and put you beside yourself. There is a quite tangible physiological condition which can be observed at the same time.”[24]

which is not true of feelings. Also unlike feelings, affects can be “blindly compelling”[25] if or when “the libido gets dammed up and explodes in an outburst of affect.”[26] In such situations, we are “caught”[27] by an emotion, and our ego-control is lost.

Why so? Because “…the ‘affect’ occupies in the constitution of the psyche a very independent place, and may easily break through the self-control and self-intention of the individual.”[28] In such times, our conscious intentions can be bent or crossed,[29] making us feel as if we have been invaded by an alien or primitive force, quite beyond our control. This is because the affect is associated with a complex and, as a result, has become autonomous.[30]

In one of our classes at the Jungian Center we had an example of this a while ago when one of the students made a passing remark one evening that “hit” (constellated) a complex of another student. Then we witnessed a transformation: The student whose complex was hit suddenly stood up and began screaming, pointing and hurling insults at the student who made the remark. Whoa! This lasted several minutes until, fortunately, it was time to conclude the session. To say that all of us were surprised would be an understatement. I found it an excellent example of how an affect (embedded in a complex) can take over and become a “psychic automatism,” and Jung described it well:

“You can observe this when you are in a situation where you would most probably be angry. You know you are going to be angry, and then you feel the blood rushing up into your head, and then you are really angry, but not before. Before, you only know you were going to be angry, but when the blood rushes up into your head you are caught by your own anger, immediately the body is affected, and because you realize that you are getting excited, you are twice as angry as you ought to be. Then you are in a real emotion. But when you have feeling you have control. You are on top of the situation, …”[31]

What we experienced in that classroom was a person taken over by affect, with a loss of conscious ego control.

Jung understood that affects “are always symptomatic of inner disharmony”[32] and that “strong affects always leave behind very large complexes.”[33] This is in part because affects perseverate,[34] i.e. they have so much power and intensity that they don’t go away quickly:

“… the affect goes on vibrating for some time afterwards; the knees shake, the heart continues to pound, the face is flushed or pale, ‘one can hardly recover from the fright’.”[35]

and every time in the future that another word, or experience comes along “charged with new associations,”[36] this trigger

“evokes re-echoing waves of affect… strong affects constellate a great many associations because of their powerful and persistent stimulation of the body. Normally, affects can go on working indefinitely (in the form of stomach and heart troubles, insomnia, tremors, etc.).”[37]

Not without cause did Jung consider powerful affects to be akin to wild beasts,[38] and he often interpreted dreams full of “wild and dangerous animals”[39] as “striking illustrations of its [the affect’s] autonomous nature when split off from consciousness.”[40]

 

The Power of Affects

 

Which brings us to consider how affects are powerful. Lest we be tempted to consign the whole issue to people who are neurotic or psychotic, Jung reminds us that we all can succumb to the power of an affect if we are “depressed or irritated by unpleasant emotions.”[41] Jung recognized that there is a “broad and undefined zone separating the ‘healthy’ from the ‘morbid,”[42] and when psychologically healthy people are in this “zone,” the

“… powerful affects manifested by normal individuals take on a character that is excessive and odd in every respect. The affective states are often abnormally prolonged or abnormally intense; they exert an influence on other parts of the psyche or on physical functions which are not directly touched by normal affects. Strange, sudden alterations of psychic behavior may be produced in this way, …”[43]

and, as Jung repeatedly reminds us,[44] the ego is not in control in such states. This is especially true for those people who have not worked on themselves to become more conscious:

“… when consciousness has not attained any high degree of clarity, when in all its functions it is more dependent on the instincts than on the conscious will, more governed by affect than by rational judgment.”[45]

then people unfamiliar with their unconscious can fall prey to “outbursts of affect, irritation, bad moods and sexual excitement, as a result of which consciousness gets thoroughly disoriented.”[46]

Jung presents several warnings about the power of affects. If a person manifests outbursts of affect on a regular basis, i.e. if the “condition becomes chronic, a dissociation develops, described by Freud as repression, with all its well-known consequences.”[47] Jung urges us to “…be aware of the danger of wallowing in affects–remorse, melancholy, etc.–because they are seductive.”[48] Besides being seductive, affects can be likened to

“…a bad horse that cannot be mastered…. you are moved away, you are cast out, your decent ego is put aside and something else takes your place. We say, ‘He is beside himself,’ or ‘The devil is riding him,’ or ‘What has gotten into him today,’ because he is like a man who is possessed. The primitive does not say he got angry beyond measure; he says his spirit got into him and changed him completely. Something like that happens with emotions; you are simply possessed, you are no longer yourself, and your control is decreased practically to zero. That is a condition in which the inner side of a man takes hold of him, he cannot prevent it. He can clench his fists, he can keep quiet, but it has him nevertheless.”[49]

The power of an affect Jung sees as similar to a bomb going off: “You are thrown out of yourself; you are beside yourself as if an explosion had moved you out of yourself and put you beside yourself.”[50] In such situations, our ego is “greatly inferior to the affective complex in constellating power,”[51] and we often wind up behaving “more or less like a primitive,”[52] operating on a “low level where [we] have no control over [ourselves] and are at the mercy of [our] affects.”[53]

An example comes to mind from my circle of acquaintances. A friend grew up with a wicked-witch of a mother, the historical residue of which shows up in a strong arachnophobia. Every time my friend sees a spider, she freaks with fright. Jung offers a vivid description of what happens next:

” Fright is an affect, hence it is followed by bodily changes, by a complicated harmony of muscular tensions and excitations of the sympathetic nervous system. The perception has thus found the way to somatic innervation and thereby helped the complex associated with it to gain the upper hand. Through the fright, countless body sensations become altered, and in turn alter most of the sensations on which the normal ego is based. Consequently the normal ego loses its attention-tone (or its clarity, or its stimulating and inhibiting influence on other associations). It is compelled to give way to the other, stronger sensations…”[54]

and the logical, calm, collected, reasonable person that my friend usually is just disappears, overtaken by the power of the affect (fear). Even after others (her husband, me, other people in the vicinity) kill the spider, her heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, and composure take hours to get back to some semblance of normality. Jung recognized that “affects can go on working indefinitely (in the form of stomach and heart troubles, insomnia, tremors, etc.).”[55] And yes, my friend also has insomnia.

This is not a desirable place to be. What can be done?

 

The Importance of Affects on the Personal Level

 

In his Collected Works Jung provides multiple suggestions. One response is to make a conscious choice to shift one’s attitude and come to regard the affect as an opportunity: By the very fact that an affect shows up proves

“that I am sensing myself and am therefore in a position–if I am not blind–to apply my attention to myself and to follow up the play of opposites in my own psyche.”[56]

Jung’s use of “blind” calls to mind the old adage that “none are so blind as those that will not see.”[57] We have to want to become conscious, to get wise to why we manifest “psychogenic disturbances”[58] and “peculiar states”[59] at times in life.

Jung offers another approach also. Rather than use a blow-up or other disturbing moment of affect, we can use our moods. In this method, Jung suggests that a person

“… make the emotional state the basis or starting point of the procedure. He must make himself as conscious as possible of the mood he is in, sinking himself in it without reserve and noting down on paper all the fantasies and other associations that come up. Fantasy must be allowed the freest possible play, yet not in such a manner that it leaves the orbit of its object, namely the affect, by setting off a kind of ‘chain-reaction’ association process.”[60]

Jung did not follow Freud’s reliance on the association method, for it usually led away from the object (what you really want to discover).[61] Instead, he used a process of amplification–amplifying or enlarging the mood or fantasy via reflection–and returning to the object repeatedly.[62] Jung continues:

“Out of this preoccupation with the object there comes a more or less complete expression of the mood, which reproduces the content of the depression in some way, either concretely or symbolically. Since the depression was not manufactured by the conscious mind but is an unwelcome intrusion from the unconscious, the elaboration of the mood is, as it were, a picture of the contents and tendencies of the unconscious that were massed together in the depression. The whole procedure is a kind of enrichment and clarification of the affect, whereby the affect and its contents are brought nearer to consciousness, becoming at the same time more impressive and more understandable.”[63]

And more likely to have a healing impact, since this approach “can have a favorable and vitalizing influence…”.[64] Because the conscious mind assisted and cooperated with the unconscious, “the previously unrelated affect has become a more or less clear and articulate idea.”[65]

Repeatedly Jung urged his readers not to fall into the very common situation of concealment, “the act of holding something back.”[66] And what do we usually hold back? Emotions or affects. Now Jung is not encouraging us to “let it all hang out” as was popular in some circles years ago. He recognized that

“self-restraint is healthy and beneficial; it may even be a virtue…. but if self-restraint is only a personal matter,… it may become as injurious as the personal secret. Hence the well-known bad moods and irritability of the over-virtuous. The affect withheld is likewise something we conceal, something we can hide even from ourselves – an art in which men particularly excel, while women, with very few exceptions, are by nature averse to doing such injury to their affects. When an affect is withheld it is just as isolating and just as disturbing in its effects as the unconscious secret, and just as guilt-laden.”[67]

Why guilt? Why did Jung regard unconscious secrets as problematic? Because, Jung thought,

“… nature seems to bear us a grudge if we have the advantage of a secret over the rest of humanity, so she takes it amiss if we withhold our emotions from our fellow men.”[68]

We live amongst others and have an obligation to the collective to “… ‘control’ our affects and keep them in check,…”.[69]

 

The Importance of Affects on the Collective Level

 

By urging us to “control our affects and keep them in check,” Jung is essentially asking us to take up the task of becoming more conscious. Never has this challenge become more urgent, as our world these days is riven with discord, us/them thinking, and woeful projections, e.g. political leaders, who are themselves liars, cheats and divisive, casting aspersions on immigrants. As I noted at the beginning of this essay, the media (and especially social media and the Internet) are not making the task of becoming conscious any easier. Quite the reverse!

What might we do as individuals to help remedy our collective situation? Jung has several suggestions. First, we must recognize how we Americans are highly susceptible to group-think. Jung would agree with Alexis de Tocqueville, that astute French visitor to America in the 19th century, who noted that he knew “… of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”[70] Perhaps our tendency to group-think is due to our population being 75% Extraverts.[71] Jung does not discuss why we manifest this trait, but he certainly sees it as lamentable. Why? because a key part of individuation–the work Jung saw as the life task for all of us[72]–requires the ability and willingness to step out of the herd and think for ourselves.

Secondly, given our group orientation, we need to recognize just how skewed our judgment of others can be, partly because of our reliance on affects and outer behaviors. Jung warns us that

“If we judge others only by affects, we show that our chief, and perhaps only, criterion is affect. This means that the same criterion is also applicable to our own psychology, which amounts to saying that our psychological judgment is neither objective nor independent but is enslaved to affect. This truth holds good for the majority of men, and on it rests the psychological possibility of murderous wars and the constant threat of their recurrence.”[73]

Rather than looking within and setting about cleaning up our own unconsciousness (which includes wising up to our affects, their sources and impacts), we judge others and remain “enslaved to [our own] affect.”

A third remedy lies in recognizing the pernicious impact of technologies, from nuclear bombs to the ubiquitous cell phone (which appeared decades after Jung’s death, but from which he would recoil in horror, for both its physiological dangers and its psychological addictive tendency).[74] Jung blasted our modern technologies as “devilish engines of destruction!”[75] These devices

“… are invented by completely innocuous gentlemen, reasonable, respectable citizens who are everything we could wish. And when the whole thing blows up and an indescribable hell of destruction is let loose, nobody seems to be responsible. It simply happens, and yet it is all man-made. But since everybody is blindly convinced that he is nothing more than his own extremely unassuming and insignificant conscious self, which performs its duties decently and earns a moderate living, nobody is aware that this whole rationalistically organized conglomeration we call a state or a nation is driven on by a seemingly impersonal, invisible but terrifying power which nobody and nothing can check. This ghastly power is mostly explained as fear of the neighboring nation, which is supposed to be possessed by a malevolent fiend. Since nobody is capable of recognizing just where and how much he himself is possessed and unconscious, he simply projects his own condition upon his neighbor, and thus it becomes a sacred duty to have the biggest guns and the most poisonous gas. The worst of it is that he is quite right. All one’s neighbors are in the grip of some uncontrolled and uncontrollable fear, just like oneself.”[76]

The reference to “blow up” reminds me of the economic debacle of 2007-2008–the “Great Recession”–for which no one went to jail! As Jung says, none of us felt like we could do anything about it, nor did we feel in any way responsible. We don’t see ourselves as “the state” or “nation;” rather we regard our nation just as Jung describes: impersonal, invisible, with uncheckable power.  And our politicians play on our fears of “the other”–blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, migrants etc.–encouraging us by their modeling of it to project our shadow on to these groups. The result? Just what Jung identifies: military build-up and fearful weapons.

In the above passage Jung warns us about our “being in the grip of some uncontrolled and uncontrollable fear.” There is a lot of fear in our collective consciousness these days–fear of migrants, fear of mass shootings, fear of tainted water, air, food, fear of white supremacists (and white supremacists’ fear of blacks, Hispanics, migrants, Jews etc.). Jung was well aware of the dangers in such situations: “It is a well-known fact… that patients are far more dangerous when suffering from fear than when moved by rage or hatred.”[77] Ours is a most lamentable situation now, with political leaders fomenting fear and division, rather than trying to call forth the “better angels of our nature.”[78]

A fourth thing we must consider is emotional contagion. Jung was explicit about the dangers of emotional contagion:

“Emotions are most contagious, they are the real carriers of mental contagion. For instance, if you are in a crowd that is in an emotional condition, you cannot help yourself, you are in it too, you were caught by that emotion. …By sympathy your sympathetic system gets disturbed, and you will show very much the same signs after a while.”[79]

Mass movements and huge rallies (beloved by our current President) are precisely what we must avoid, if we are to maintain emotional equilibrium and avoid falling into “mass-mindedness,”[80] which Jung regarded as a major source of evil. Why so?

His personal history was part of the reason: Jung lived through World War II, when the country just across the river from Basel (Jung’s home town) succumbed to “mass intoxication.”[81] Jung recalled the horror:

“… it was the triumph of the Enlightenment that such things as nature-spirits did not exist at all. But it was merely that what one imagined such spirits to be that did not exist. They themselves exist all right, here in the human psyche, unperturbed by what the ignorant and the enlightened think. So much so that before our very eyes the ‘most industrious, efficient, and intelligent’ nation in Europe could fall into a state of non compos mentis and put a poorly gifted house painter, who was never distinguished by any particular intelligence but only by the use of the right means of mass intoxication, quite literally on the altar of totalitarianism, …The greater the accumulation of masses, the lower the level of intelligence and morality. And if any further proof were needed of this truth, the descent of Germany into the underworld would be an example. We should not delude ourselves that we would not have succumbed too.”[82]

Jung had high regard for his fellow Swiss, but not so high that he saw them as immune to emotional contagion.

Given that the United States has a population of over 300 million, we have a huge “accumulation of masses,” with only a few public spokespersons warning of how our airwaves, social media and other information venues are being polluted with “fake news” and talk of “alternate realities.” I suspect Jung would not be surprised at how America has gone astray–how we have put a “poorly gifted” real estate developer adept in the means of “mass intoxication” in the highest office of our land–since Jung was familiar with the United States, and recognized how susceptible to mass suggestion Extraverts are. [83]

Jung leaves us with several challenges: To recognize the power of affects, to stop projecting our own affects (biases, prejudices, fears) on to others, and to inoculate ourselves against emotional contagion.

Will we take up this challenge?

 

Bibliography

 

Bartlett, John (1968), Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 14th ed. Boston: Little Brown & Co.

Hall, James A. (1983), Jungian Dream Interpretation. Toronto: Inner City Books.

Healy, Nan Savage (2017), Toni Wolff & C.G. Jung: A Collaboration. Los Angeles: Tiberius Books.

Heid, Markham (2017), “We Need to Talk About Kids and Smartphones,” Time (November 6, 2017), 42-46.

Jung, C.G. (1970), “Psychiatric Studies,” Collected Works, 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1973), “Experimental Researches,” Collected Works, 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1960), “The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease,” Collected Works, 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1961), “Freud and Psychoanalysis,” Collected Works, 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1956) “Symbols of Transformation,” Collected Works, 5, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press

________ (1960), ”The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” CW 8. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1959), “Aion,” Collected Works, 9ii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1970), “Civilization in Transition,” CW 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1967), “Alchemical Studies,” CW 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1954), “The Practice of Psychotherapy,” CW 16, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

________ (1976), ”The Symbolic Life,” CW 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keirsey, David & Marilyn Bates (1984), Please Understand Me. Del Mar CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.

O’Connor, Peter (1985), Understanding Jung, Understanding Yourself. London: Metheun.

Pinker, Steven (2011), The Better Angels of Our Nature. New York: Viking Press.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1945), Democracy in America, 2 vols. New York: Vintage Books.

Turkle, Sherry (2015), Reclaiming Conversation. New York: Penguin Books.

Twenge, Jean (2017), iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. New York: Simon & Schuster.

[1] Collected Works 1 ¶423. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.

[2] CW 8 ¶628.

[3] CW 13 ¶58.

[4] CW 3 ¶87.

[5] CW 6 ¶627.

[6] Ibid. ¶886.

[7] CW 1 ¶339.

[8] CW 18 ¶1368.

[9] “Current,” i.e. in Fall of 2020.

[10] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, I, 35.

[11] The clarity of the definitions Jung provided in CW 6 ¶s672-844 may be the result of Toni Wolff writing this chapter X. Wolff’s biographer, Nan Savage Healy, discusses at length the reasons why we might regard these paragraphs as her contribution, which Jung never acknowledged; Healy (2017), 181-183.

[12] CW 6 ¶681.

[13] Ibid. ¶885.

[14] CW 13 ¶58.

[15] Ibid.

[16] CW 6 ¶765.

[17] CW 18 ¶42.

[18] CW 6 ¶681.

[19] CW 18 ¶46.  Feelings do something for us, we might say.

[20] Ibid.

[21] CW 6 ¶250.

[22] Ibid. ¶681.

[23] CW 1 ¶423.

[24] CW 18 ¶46.

[25] CW 6 ¶235.

[26] Ibid. ¶808.

[27] CW 18 ¶46.

[28] CW 2 ¶1352.

[29] Ibid.

[30] CW 8 ¶593.

[31] CW 18 ¶46.

[32] CW 6 ¶137.

[33] CW 3 ¶87.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] CW 10 ¶680.

[39] CW 16 ¶267.

[40] Ibid.

[41] CW 1 ¶357.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Cf. CW 8 ¶628, CW 18 ¶s 42 & 90, CW 3 ¶86 & note 92, and CW 2 ¶1352.

[45] CW 13 ¶12.

[46] Ibid. ¶108.

[47] Ibid.

[48] CW 10 ¶885.

[49] CW 18 ¶42.

[50] Ibid. ¶46.

[51] CW 3 ¶86.

[52] CW 9ii ¶15.

[53] CW 5 ¶644.

[54] CW 3 ¶86.

[55] Ibid. ¶87.

[56] CW 6 ¶137.

[57] This phrase by Mathew Henry’s Commentaries is cited in Bartlett (1968), p. 386b.

[58] CW 1 ¶349.

[59] Ibid.

[60] CW 8 ¶167.

[61] Hall (1983), 68-69.

[62] O’Connor (1985), 185-186.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] CW 16 ¶130.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] CW 10 ¶885. We really can’t control our affects, but we can relate to them.

[70] Tocqueville (1945), I, p. 273.

[71] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25. This high percentage may be due to people trying to fit in, leading many to go against their innate type preference.

[72] CW 6 ¶767.

[73] Ibid. ¶886.

[74] The physiological dangers associated with cell phones are due to the powerful electromagnetic radiation these devices give off, which the tech companies deny, but electrical engineers confirm; the psychological dangers refer to the addictive quality of these devices, which I witnessed first-hand when I taught at the local community college. I finally had to require my students to place their cell phones on my desk, but this strategy did not really work, as the students spent the entire class time looking longingly at their phones. For more on the psychologically-problematic nature of cell phones, cf. Turkle (2015), 37-38 & 126; Heid (2017), 42-46, and Twenge (2017), 289-297.

[75] CW 11 ¶85.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Abraham Lincoln, quoted in Pinker (2011), xxiii. Pinker took this quote for the title of his book.

[79] CW 18 ¶46.

[80] CW 10 ¶723.

[81] CW 18 ¶1368.

[82] Ibid.

[83] CW 6 ¶s 564, 566 & 577.