AS MY Jungian analyst friends have pointed out - and yes indeed, I do have a few - the statement in my article on Jung contains what may be an incorrect statement. In the published text the claim is made that "most" Jungian analysts have "no formal medical, psychological, or scientific training". The correct statement would be that "many" have "little or no" formal training in the areas cited. My apologies to Jungian analysts of all stripes and especially my friends.
RICHARD NOLL Clinical psychologist and historian of science, Harvard University.