This system measures in my opinion cognition in the brain which doesn't necessarily imply direct personality traits in individuals, it can only predict correlations in people. Innovators will more likely be Si/Ne, fashion designers and athletes will be Se-leads very often etc. But theres people who don't fit those stereotypes at all.
Auburn's introductory VR video says that "Jung had a very 'right' understanding of the psyche, but since he didn't provide a tangible way of measuring the functions — then what resulted was a debate and division among practitioners," and he says his own "Cognitive Type theory" is "based on Jung's work directly," and that's why, rather than the MBTI four-letter labels, his cognitive types "are named after the psychic functions they use."
Buut... anytime I've looked into Auburn's stuff, I've always been struck by the contradiction between his claims that his typological perspective is very much
Jungian and the large differences between what he says about the functions and the types and what Jung wrote.
Jung spent more of
Psychological Types talking about extraversion and introversion than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. He viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and Chapter X — the only part of
PT where he gets into the functions in any detail — is organized accordingly. The first half of the chapter is devoted to "The Extraverted Type" and the second half to "The Introverted Type" — and the eight "function-types" consist of four varieties of the "extraverted type" and four varieties of the "introverted type." So it's clear that, as Jung saw it, you couldn't be, say, a Te-dom without
also being an extravert.
And, assuming you're correct in asserting that Auburn's "system" is measuring something "in the brain" that "doesn't necessarily imply direct personality traits in individuals," then whatever brain-things Auburn's measuring must not have much to do with Jung's brain-things (as Jung viewed them) because, in addition to describing lots of psychodynamic under-the-hood stuff, Jung also extensively described the "personality traits" that he associated with extraverts and introverts, and with his eight function-types.
If Morrissey — who's famous for his painful, awkward shyness and his reclusiveness — was a Jungian Te-dom, then Morrissey would be a Jungian extravert. And, contrary to your implication that Morrissey might well be an extravert (or a Te-dom) in some kind of deep, hidden-away-in-the-brain way that wasn't reflected in his "personality traits" to any substantial degree, here's some of what Jung had to say about extraverts:
Jung said:
[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.
Jung said:
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...
The actual subject, the extravert as a subjective entity, is, so far as possible, shrouded in darkness. He hides it from himself under veils of unconsciousness. The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...
The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.
As [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION] has noted, Morrissey also bears little resemblance to Jung's descriptions of Te and Te-doms — which, like his descriptions of extraverts, include lots of associated "personality traits." And if CT's strange "TeNi" Morrissey typing looked more like the exception that proves the rule, that would be one thing, but CT typings have been routinely causing forumites (here and at other forums) to roll their eyes for over a year and a half now.
Auburn's certainly welcome to devise a typology based on visual readings that doesn't necessarily connect up with somebody's "personality traits" to any significant degree — but in that case I don't think he should be claiming that his system is fundamentally
Jungian, or using Jung's function terms to label his types.
. But it's Fe user trying to hide their smile that actually looks like Fi snarl. I actually haven't seen anyone besides myself that's like that though. o.o So it's kind of rare and I haven't seen it confuse things.
