Someone tipped me off to this thread, (edit after reading some more: okay, not this thread -- but I'm sure this was influenced by the other) and now that I've read the OP, I must say, BlueWing -- it's unimpressive. And I have my doubts about the esteem you hold your audience in... do you take them for children?
I wasn't going to bother with this because my hunches about you say that -- especially in a self-constructed framework like in yer post -- it's no use trying to convince you of anything besides your own points, but let's see...
I'm not going to assault the parts relating to the Jungian concepts, rather, I'm going to assault your self-prepared framework on which the argument rests. It saves time.
And my current stance towards MBTI and typology could be best summed up in a shrug.
No qualms here, except that us getting smarter is not relevant to "the current point" -- this process of honing our intellect has been going on for a few thousand years now at least (thinking of civilization), and what we're witnessing today as we live is a progressive result. In another thousand years the result will change.
This is the main premise of your post. I believe it has some issues, and let me demonstrate why. First off, your first statement, "It is clear that among us..." is an arbitrary one. It does not rely on rational reasoning to be convincing, instead it appeals to what could be described as a "common ground" shared by otherwise different human beings. Basically, you're asking your audience to just nod along as you continue with your post, banking on the chance that they would have certainly felt the same way as you do at some point in life where they, for some reason, thought some people are more like apelike and some others, probably the thinker included, are among the more intellectuals. Nothing new here -- it's how we keep a healthy ego, but it's not a way to make an argument that's not arbitrary. Moving on...
Your second statement, "Some of us..." is of more importance given that it forms the base of your following statement:
Combined with the second statement of the above paragraph, I think the main issue here is that, again, you're trying to be convincing in a manner that undermines your argument. Because you have made an assumption here without justifying it.
That assumption is that the evolved species you cite in your preceding paragraph is the so-called intellectual. This is not justifiable, and you're making it up to suit your argument. You can not prove to anyone that we evolved, or rather, that we're evolving, from simple brutes to simple intellectuals. I could just as easily say that the evolved species is simply the "modern human being" and that it as species includes both the modern action-man and the modern intellectual, (among other archetypes you're free to add) combined and fused in a manner which forms the modern society. And it would be as valid as the fine-print claim you're making, and perhaps even more, given that your claim is more one-sided, more or less denying action to intellect and intellect to action.
Now let me combine the two concepts. Let's assume that, indeed, some of us are more primitive and some of us are more intellectual, "evolved." It is an agreeable statement, I'll give you that, but I notice that you haven't mentioned one issue: How big is the resemblance? I ask you this, because when I see a mechanic or a blacksmith working, I still see the modern human being. And to dip my toe, when I see an acrobat -- I see his well-honed, tuned-by-repetition intuition guiding his movements, hand in hand with his sensate side. I see no ape. When I read a writer's work I get hints about his character, and witness the human themes within the script. In all cases I witness both passion and intellect, and the wonders of the evolved human being regardless of the focus. And I believe this is why you chose not to mention the size of the resemblance to our primitive ancestors: It's small, miniscule -- dominated by the modern contemporary, the evolved human being.
One thing before I move on to my counter-theses. In one of your follow up posts, you asked for reasoning. But I see that you yourself do not offer any that is not colored by your judgment. In such cases, your arguments, like I've mentioned before, become little more than arbitary, propulsed by an internal agenda that is your judgment. From a certain perspective it's not really practical to ask for "reasoning" -- in your post you have provided opinion, and you'll get opinion, not refutations, back -- there's nothing to refute.
Anyway, my counter-theses, then I'm out.
1) Adaptation to the environment made the primitive human beings evolve. We agree on this.
2) The primitive human beings did not evolve into intellectuals -- that would be a one sided path of evolution. The primitive human beings evolved, and continue to evolve, into the multifaceted modern human being, the result forming such (perceived) archetypes as the intellectual, the man of action.
3) The resemblance of the modern human being to the primitive human being does not deserve its own continuum for the sake of argument.
4) Typology is a pseudoscientific concept and to tie it to an established topic such as evolution would be self-serving and arbitrary.