I'm saying that, based on the premise that he actually told Stephen Abrams on Dec. 18th, 1959 at his house in Kusnacht, Switzerland, that he was an introverted intuitive, then I think he was an INFJ over an INTJ, because I definitely sense the presence of heavy Ti-usage in him, and heavy Ti-usage is far more likely to develop in an INFJ than it was in an INTJ (more on this later).
So, he would have been 84 years old when he said that.
In P.T. it doesn't sound like he thinks he's a dominant irrational at all, and he was in his 40's then. With individuation (not necessarily in Jungian terms), and advancing age, it is not unlikely he felt like an introverted intuitive. But having it come so late in life, one has to question its validity, I think.
What you'd like to call "abstruse" here, I would call nuance, subtlety, and accuracy. Similarly, I'd call your attempt to call this line of thinking "abstruse" a misunderstanding derived from lack of adequate knowledge.
I have enough knowledge to know that the more variables you add in the mix, the more questionable your conclusions are likely to be.
Because if we are genetically predisposed to be a certain type, and he was supposed to be an INFJ, and he did in fact develop a healthy dominant Ni (which is suspect using your theory because it sounds like his life was pretty hard from the get-go....not just later. I mean his mother had already lost 3 children, so she was pretty 'checked-out' [referring to your article] when he was born. Why would he have developed a healthy Ni to begin with?), why would he not just introvert his aux Fe into Fi?
Yes, I know you argue tertiary temptation, but I do not share your zeal for that hypothesis. I think it more likely that at a young age, his Feeling would have just become introverted. And I think we all agree: He isn't very F.
No, that's the entire point of tertiary temptation.
It's the escape hatch for MBTI that allows it to posit just 16 types.
The point is that, if you develop two functions of the same attitudinal orientation (i.e., both introverted, or both extroverted) first, the second one is not actually your auxiliary, it is your tertiary. If you were to be developing healthily, you would instead be developing a function of opposite attitudinal orientation to these two functions, based on the two functions you are developing actually being your dominant and your tertiary.
You might remember (or not) that I do not even necessarily agree with the tert being in the same orientation of the dominant. And if it is, I definitely think it's very fluid, and likely to flip places with it's other side. So, again, tert temp just doesn't hold water with me. It's all too hypothetical.
As you can see in my original post, I think there's a lot of reasons to think he was an Ni-user, including his pronounced mysticism, spirituality, and supposed clairvoyant visions of the future. Actually, along this line of thought, you never responded to what I wrote earlier in this post (largely to you):
Sorry, unless you quote me directly, I might not see it...But, yeah, I agree he has some Ni. But not dominant amounts of it. And, yeah, (i don't know where it went) but I agree with you about him saying he 'knows god exists,' or whatever, does sound very Ni.....but people get intense about God, so that doesn't stand for much, does it.
He could also have some disorders. His childhood sounds sorta sketchy. Who knows what neuroses he could have had that would have made him switch function attitudes around.
I think you were gone when I started 16 threads, one for each type, to look at the cognitive processes results of people allegedly of each type. The results were really interesting, but, as an Ni-dom, I still stand back, and don't choose whether I believe strongly in the camp that people do normally develop their first two shadow functions, or whether they really only use their four normal functions for the most part, and that people just learn to do similar things that their first two shadow functions are usually known for, but they're actually just utilizing their first two normal functions to do so ([MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] used to be a believer in the former, but recently said that he's switched over to the latter -- I remain a little more neutral on the matter).
Wherever the truth may lie: I think the second shadow function is undoubtedly much more difficult to develop than the first (which is not to say it cannot and does not happen), so, in the same line of reasoning as that which I said at the beginning of this post -- that I don't think you'll normally see heavy Ti usage in an INTJ -- I don't think you'll normally see heavy Ni usage in an INTP.
I missed your experiment. Bummer. But I've thought a lot about this myself. And I've watched the thread regarding people posting their function preferences, albeit with the crappy tests, and I know it was not uncommon for the aux and tert to be utilized in both attitudes.
I emphatically disagree with the bolded, and have argued my stance previously on this forum, mainly in the function thread I started (i think it was in that thread) last year.
The Dominant is just that: Dominant. It is the first line function people use from birth, theoretically. It is therefore going to be more 'set in stone,' if you will, than any other function; a person is not going to easily switch in that.
I DO believe the tertiary shadow is more likely to develop before the aux shadow for the same reason, because the aux is more dominant and is not going to switch easily,
in normal development, though the original attitude and 'shadow' of the tertiary function are going to be up for grabs depending on the person's environment (see below for more about environment).
In abnormal development, which likely occurred given Jung's childhood, I believe you have a revert of the aux because the person is introverting so much that it supersedes the normally opposite attitude of the aux, bending it to the will of the Dominant introversion.
So, I believe a person will actually use their tert function in both attitudes much more easily than changing their dom/aux pair, in normal development.
Which brings me to the other part of your statement. I really only like to look at the first two functions to type someone. The others are so dependent on a person developing 'normally' anyway. That is where typology gets interesting, and why I not only do not buy into the function layouts proposed by modern-day 'experts' but why I don't believe much in tertiary temptation, etc. After 16 years of age, who knows what functions in what attitudes will be developed? I think it really depends on a person's environment at that point, and contributes to there being so much variation in the set types.
I think there should be a poll added: What is Jung's primary function? And see what others think...
I think you are right that he uses Ni, just not as much as Ti. I don't discuss Ne much because I don't understand it very well.
To Uumlau: I hear and understand your excessive condescension and pedantry, but I fail to see why Jung COULD not be proficient with both attitudes of his aux function. I am referring to you quoting me in a previous post about Ne and Ni.
