"An essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process" which "determines...the quality of subjective experience" = value system..
The term essential bias does not have the same meaning as the term value. In this context, the definition of the term value you were referring to is described in statement 11 of the dictionary.com entry.
"Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself." (
Value | Definition of Value at Dictionary.com:)
In other words, a value is a moral principle which guides a person's worldview, which is how you seem to be using the word.
Bias by definition is a certain disposition, or a tendency towards one way of thinking or acting over another. In some contexts biases include values or moral principles, but in many others they do not. It is a mistake to assume that when the term value is used, a reference is made to a moral principle.
A more careful reading of Jung's descriptions of individual types show that he was not referring to moral principles that guide the person's worldview. The 'essential bias' conditioning the person's subjective experience was an unconscious, cognitive bias towards thinking and emoting in a certain fashion rather than towards selecting this or that 'value' or a moral principle.
We observe this in the fact that Jung's type descriptions focus more on unconscious cognitive tendencies that people have rather than values they consciously adhere to. Consider the description of the Extroverted Sensing type for example.
Psychological Types said:
The bondage to the object is carried to the extreme limit. In consequence, the unconscious is forced out of its compensatory role into open opposition...The pathological contents have a markedly unreal character, with a frequent moral or religious streak. A pettifogging captiousness follows, or a grotesquely punctilious morality combined with primitive, "magical" superstitions that fall back on abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions which have been driven into harsh opposition to the conscious attitude.
Here Jung is clearly describing how a person inevitably behaves because of some cognitive imbalance in his mind rather than how he chooses to behave on principle or what the values of his worldview are.
Now, consider a similar description of the Extroverted Intuitive type.
Psychological Types said:
He exempts himself from the restrictions of reason only to fall victim to neurotic compulsions in the form of over-subtle ratiocinations, hairsplitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation aroused by the object.
Again, the message is clear: the focus of the discussion is on a person's cognitive tendencies rather than values or consciously selected decisions. Almost nowhere in type descriptions of in other parts of the book does he pay any heed to values as defined above. Jung was interested in understanding how the human mind works, especially the unconscious. The endeavor of describing how people 'work' is relatively new and hasn't been popularized until Briggs and Keirsey. Before the exposition regarding type descriptions, Jung wrote extensively on the type problem in poetry, biography and philosophy. This shows his focus on cognitive tendencies people have in intellectual endeavors, rather than their value-choices or what they do in general. This is the prominent distinction between Jung and modern folk typology theorists , Jung focused on understanding the tendencies of the mind, they focused on understanding people's conscious choices.
One may protest 'what good is understanding the mind if it does not lead us to understand people, after all it is the human mind we are dealing with!'. Jung merely observed some basic cognitive tendencies people have and tried to focus on them. Doing that is one thing, but seeing how those tendencies fit into the bigger, complex picture of human behavior is something we aren't yet ready to do. That is the business of psychology as such a study would require an empirical investigation to discover how factors external to these tendencies Jung discovered impact the person's mind. Nowhere in his writing did Jung say that his type descriptions actually describe real people. In fact, one of the quotes you cited demonstrate his belief that type description is one thing and a description of a person is another.
Portable Jung said:
One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature..
What this means is that no person is introverted as a type by definition incorporates only its own element. Introversion incorporates no extroversion and Fe incorporates no Fi. To paraphrase another one of Jung's claims, no man is either extroverted or introverted completely, as such a man would be in a lunatic asylum.
Psychological Types said:
Here in the bolded part he's saying that Fe users don't use Fi. Their feeling is always objectively defined, "even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object."t.
You missed the distinction between type description and person description because you were expecting Jung to do the same kind of work as Keirsey and other heroes of folk typology. You were expecting him to be talking about people when he was describing a type and thought that when he was talking about Fe, he was talking about some person who has personality qualities associated with Fe.
But wait a minute, Jung describes real human behavior in his type expositions, and even uses pronouns such as 'he, she, it'. This was a literary convenience and the use was more figurative than literal. His point was to describe the nature of the type by forcing the reader to imagine how a person dominated by this cognitive tendency would behave. That is why his characters are exaggerated to the extreme.
In other words, open the psychological types to page 354 and look at the section title more carefully and the context it is placed in. It reads as 'Extraverted Feeling type', not Extraverted Feeling person. This was stated in the context of a book the 330 opening pages of which were concerned with analysis of cognitive habits and tendencies rather than human behavior. As a result we get the following truism: Extraverted Feeling by definition does not use Fi, as it is not Fi. The same could be said about any other type or function.
Again, he never explicitly says either way whether we use the shadow functions, but he seems to imply that if we do, it's awfully difficult and unusual..
No, read the quote again.
"Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."
Simultaneously is the key word. Your interpretation would have been tenable if he left that word out and said that its almost impossible for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions, period. As the quote stands, one may infer that it is difficult, if not impossible to develop them all at the same time, but it may be possible to develop them non-simultaneously, or one at a time. That is why we often notice elderly people excelling at learning behaviors that are associated with their inferior function. Earlier in their lives they could not develop their inferior functions simultaneously as their dominant, but eventually they got around to doing so.
.
He's describing individual functions when he says "one cannot be...",..
Aha, thank you! Here you stated that he is describing 'individual functions', not people. There is a huge difference.
so from this we can derive that one cannot be, for instance, an introverted Thinker unless all of his Thinking happens in an introverted fashion--ergo, Ti users do not use Te....",..
No, from this we can derive that a type that is a Ti or something that is simply a Ti function cannot at the same time be a Te function. This notion is trivial, if not simplistic: its heuristic value is analogous to an insight about logic positing that two non-overlapping entities cannot share an identity and its analogous to a proposition about anatomy that if something is a toe, it cannot also be a tooth.
Here he describes how Thinking and Feeling, when oriented in the same direction, are wholly contradictory attitudes, necessitating that their orientations be opposite each other.....",..
Yes, there is an antithesis between functions of Thinking and Feeling.
Fi cannot work correctly with Ti in its way because these two functions represent worldviews which are too diametrically opposed to inhabit the same individual......",..
As a general rule, one function dominates and the other becomes subservient. This does not mean, however, that the subservient function has no influence at all, its merely much less efficacious than the dominant.
So from this I derive that Fi+Te and Ti+Fe cannot inhabit the same person because one (Fi+Te) represents a worldview......",..
No, these are merely cognitive tendencies that represent no worldview. A person's world depends on more than mere cognitive habits, as much of it is a result of his non-typological personality features and life experiences. His type may cause him to be inclined to accept a certain worldview, but type alone won't compell him to do so.
that derives ethics from a subjective internal standard uninfluenced by external objects, and logic from an objective external standard according to what can be empirically verified...and the other (Ti+Fe) does the exact opposite.......",..
At best, one could claim that these cognitive processes tempt a person to reason in such a manner. However, there is no reason to conclude that both of them cannot inhabit the same person. There is no reason to reject the thesis that both inhabit the same person, but one is by far more pronounced than the other.
If you're going to claim that in a mind-state where Ti-Fe dominates, the Te-Fi process does not exist at all because it contradicts the Ti-Fe process, you should also claim that where Intuition dominates, there is no sensing. As a result, you'd arrive at an absurdity that some minds do not rely on senses at all and no part of their cognitive notions has derived from the senses. Similarly, you'd have to concede that where a Feeling type dominates, there is no Thinking at all because it is the opposite process. If you aren't prepared to do that, you can't claim that there is no Te-Fi process in a Ti-Fe dominated mind on that basis.
The very definitions of logic and ethics upon which their whole worldviews are built are completely inverted.
Thinking alone has nothing to do with logic, nor does feeling have anything to do with ethics. At best the former temperament may lead a person to develop an interest in logic and the latter in morality, however, whether the person actually does develop such interests depends on more than just type.
Fi considers morality such a personal and inward process that any suggestion that "true" morality could be dependent upon objective context (Fe) is seen as absurd and nonsensical..
No, Fi alone does not do any of that, nor does Fe. An Fi dominated person may be by his nature strongly inclined to favor the former approach over the latter, however, in appropriate circumstances he may choose the latter. Fe, Fi and other types are mere cognitive tendencies, not immutable personality features. The latter interpretation has never even occurred in Jung, its chiefly a folk typological invention, primarily Keirseyan and Neo-Keirseyan. To this day, it trashes forums, typology blogs and conventional type profile descriptions.
Conversely, Ti is so fundamentally aware of its own idea of "natural logic" that the idea that logic might be subject to any sort of indefinite external variables is seen in a similar light--Ti users simply "know" a priori what is innately logical or not logical and no external empirical standard can change or influence that...
Really? Even a Ti user who has been abandoned on an unvisted Island at the age of two who as a result never even learned to speak?
On a more practical basis, if we could all tap into the shadow functions so easily and routinely, I doubt that we would have so much friction between Fi and Ti types--look at these Ti vs. Fi threads. ...
Has it ever crossed your mind that this is a result of more than just type? This forum is an offshoot of INTPc which almost by definition is the arena for young, truculent pseudo-intellectuals to match witts. MBTIc was created as a result of the great 'NF' purge or a systematic attempt to expell people who appear to be maudlin.
As a result, two cultures have formed, one of people who support the INTPc values and the other of those who insist that its crucial to ensure that this forum does not adapt the old INTPc regime. Yes, these attitudes were influenced by type, but not only type. As a result, what you perceive to be a Ti-Fi conflict, which without a doubt exists, has been greatly intensified by the history of our community. No doubt that there is a natural antithesis between Thinking and Feeling, but this is no reason to conclude that in a mind where Thinking dominates, Feeling does not exist at all.
You've drawn such a conclusion on the basis of your heedless interpretation of the following Jungian statement. "Experience shows that it is practically impossible, owing to adverse circumstances in general, for anyone to develop all of his psychological functions simultaneously."
You've mistaken the proposition of 'difficult to develop simultaneously' for 'difficult to develop altogether'.
You're quite correct to note that one reason why our forum members tend to misunderstand one another frequently and often develop hostile relations is because they can't tap into their inferior functions. Since it is extremely difficult to develop many functions simultaneously and young people tend to focus on developing their primary functions, it is almost impossible for them to attain proficiency with the inferior.
This is a reflection of the Jungian insight that its difficult for people to develop functions simultaneously rather than affirmation for your unfounded view that its not possible to develop all functions period.
The very bases from which we derive our conceptions of logic and morality are profoundly averse to each other at the most fundamental level--we are literally speaking different languages and neither side will ever fully understand the other.
Circumstances may force us to behave contrary to our type and thus exhibit behaviors associated with other types rather than ours. However, on this forum, we tend not to see this as people here tend to act leisurely.
Furthemore, as a person ages, he becomes more in tune with types or functions that he is less naturally in tune with.