For such people it is technically very simple to note down the “other” voice in writing and to answer its statements from the standpoint of the ego.
It is exactly as if a dialogue were taking place between two human beings with equal rights, each of whom gives the other credit for a valid argument and considers it worthwhile to modify the conflicting standpoints by means of thorough comparison and discussion or else to distinguish them clearly from one another.
Since the way to agreement seldom stands open, in most cases a long conflict will have to be borne, demanding sacrifices from both sides.
Such a rapprochement could just as well take place between patient and analyst, the role of devil’s advocate easily falling to the latter.
The present day shows with appalling clarity how little able people are to let the other man’s argument count, although this capacity is a fundamental and indispensable condition for any human community.
Everyone who proposes to come to terms with himself must reckon with this basic problem.
For, to the degree that he does not admit the validity of the other person, he denies the “other” within himself the right to exist—and vice versa.
The capacity for inner dialogue is a touchstone for outer objectivity.
~ Carl Jung, CW 8, Para 187