It seems that people on all of the forums still miss the J/P understanding. I noticed threads on each of them in the past week. The J/P dichotomy is repetetive and redundant since it was only used to distiinguish the extraversion of the S/N and T/F in all types. Myers asserts that Jung did not give enough notice to introverted types, therefore created her inverted theory to show that the extraverted function is being shown. I liked the creativity, but it's not functional and runs contrary to Jung. Based on his work was explicit in contrasting introverts and extraverts by saying, "The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected."
Myers also contradicts Jung on the auxiliary matter for introverts by giving the function greater recognition than Jung in creating the fourth dichotomy. Jung clearly notes that about the auxiliary and subsequent functions, "…..the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function."
Where does this leave us? Referencing back to Jung's statements, I think he would have disagreed with J/P if not the entire code. He could have (if found it useful to have a code) referenced to the actual functions and acknowledging that Ti-Ne represents INTP equally well, as does Ni-Te for INTJ and so on. Or he may have given Myers-Briggs her kudos, but found the J/P problematic and redundant Jung may have chosen a simpler code to reflec the varied types: