The aspect of Jung’s typology that has been the most misinterpreted is that of extraversion and introversion. 1 Whereas modern personality theory correlates extraversion with effective functioning and wellbeing and introversion with psychopathology, Jung’s theory gives no primacy to either. The pathologizing of introversion by academic researchers has caused a backlash in the popular press, which, in turn, has led to the notion of ambiversion as the ideal state. However, the concept of ambiversion can cloak or even deny the tension of opposites that, according to Jung, is a singular source of energy in the psyche. For Jung, the main cause of pathology was neither introversion nor extraversion but one-sidedness in any aspect of type. According to Jung, extraversion and introversion provide balance to the human race, and thus they are value-neutral with no intrinsic positive or negative connotations. Moreover, personality development for Jung meant developing a preference for a mental function (differentiation), which, though not the end-stage of development, was the necessary channel through which development occurs. The development of extraversion or introversion is, therefore, a benchmark of the psyche’s growth. A lack of awareness of the primary attitude, whether introverted or extraverted, leaves the individual vulnerable to projection and introjection.