Also its just because of the nature of this topic that im putting so much weight on jungs quotes. If i were to mix some views that i got from mixing jung to neuropsychology and cognitive psychology of today, it wouldnt be jungian view anymore, but my own view. This topic afterall is about jungian view.
When it comes to beebe changing jungian terms in order to get his own point of view to work is wrong in so many levels. For example jungians have treated many people over the years using these concepts of jung and things built on jungs concepts, this kinda means that the basic structure is working, now then there comes this one guy claiming that almost 100 years of validation of these concepts are wrong, just so that he could fit some of those in his subjective view. Now there is another thing about this, he has built his idea of typology on jungs work, but now changes the basis of jungs work(to which he based his work on), it takes away the whole structure of his work also, since he structured his view of typology on jungs work. Thats like climbing to a tree, finding a strong branch to set on and cut down the tree that the branch is on, the attempt to still stay on the branch is doomed to fail.
But i do know that beebe has some good points about typology, its just the 8 function model and trying to fit archetypes to functions. Also im pretty sure that you dont have complete understanding about beebes work, so this is more against your views on his work rather than his work. I remember reading some of his articles about his typology and some of the stuff goes quite much against jungs views and basics of typology. Also for example i see marie von franz much more trusted person when it comes to analytical psychology than beebe and her view of this shadow manifesting from inferior(and undifferentiated functions) is much more plausible explanation than beebes opposite attitude equals shadow, which sounds quite ridiculous if you have any understanding on jungs typology.