But the substance of your posts — including this latest one, in spades — make it clear you haven't even read Psychological Types with any care, and very much misunderstand Jung's function model for a typical person.
And educating you is not my job, but you could start with this two-part post.
Jung's model didn't involve three auxiliary functions, as your post says. Are you kidding me? Jung believed that, in the typical case, the dominant function would have one substantially "differentiated" auxiliary function, with the same attitude (the "conscious attitude") as the dominant function. He said that the auxiliary function was "invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence." And he said that, for one of his types, in the typical case, a mirror-image pair of functions would be found in the unconscious — the inferior function (e.g., Te for an Fi-dom) and a tertiary function that had the same attitude as the inferior function and served, in effect, as the inferior function's "auxiliary."
And what do you mean by a "pure type"? Jung noted that his Chapter X portraits were artificially "pure" in terms of leaving out the characteristics that would distinguish, e.g., an Fi-dom with an N-aux from an Fi-dom with an S-aux. But he said that the characteristics that he included in his portraits were the "common and therefore typical features" of his types. And you can read more about that in this post.
In any case, if you're basically using a two-function model — "The model I use myself is the first 2 functions only" — that ignores the impact of the (mostly unconscious) tertiary and inferior functions, and where the attitude of the auxiliary is opposite to the attitude of the dominant, you're a long, long way from Jung.
And there's nothing wrong with being a long way from Jung. But there's something wrong with holding up a very non-Jungian model and claiming it's Jungian.
this two-part post (also linked above).