Like I said, I'm sure that he didn't know his own type, since he spent all of his time dealing with it, as a pro, and that somehow, a bunch of bloody amateurs on an internet forum suddenly know better. Hell, I know my own type and I'm nowhere near as good as he was.... I trust that he knew his own type. The information he gives later on in life also makes sense, from this perspective. There are writings on how we grow to become more evenly-balanced as we grow older. I am 50/50 P/J and 50/50 S/N already, and I'm only 41. I actually get INTJ in testing. So I trust that he was then detailing how he had changed as he grew older. This seems a lot more reasonable of an answer than him not knowing his own type initially, and I don't think Jung was unreasonable or dumb enough to mistype himself for more than an afternoon, a couple of weeks at the most. It took me about two weeks for my initial mbti type, a day for my enneagram type, and a week to type my instinctual variant. I think Jung was much more serious, a better observer, and obviously put more time in than I did.
No offense, but I
don't think that's a strong argument. At all.
In fact, it doesn't deal with a bunch of arguments that were made before you ever posted in the thread (did you read them?).
Especially considering, as I noted before, when he was asked whether he knew what type he was, he responded, "Naturally, I have devoted a
great deal of attention to
that painful question, you know..." (emphasis added). Obviously, based on his response, it was
not an easy or painless of a question for him to figure out (as you imply that it was), as he spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to do so.
Also, do you know when this book was written? I have tracked down a number of publications of his with "Analytical Psychology" in the title, and have a number of possible dates, but the most seemingly relevant one is questionable, so I'm wondering if you could clarify specifically which one it is, when he wrote it, and when it was published.
And big deal that you're 50/50 P/J -- in most cases, that's a meaningless number anyway. The questions on tests that determine whether one is a P or a J are pretty ridiculous, when it really comes down to it -- as has been noted countless times on this forum.
I also want to add, and this is the first time I've ever discussed anything with you, so this really is not an observation about any discussion that has ever taken place between you and me, but what I have observed about how you argue with others, in general, but your entire method of argumentation in this thread really belies what Dario Nardi noted about Ti-doms in his research:
Dario Nardi in 'The Neuroscience of Personality' said:
Ti types:
Least interested in listening...
ITPs are likely to quickly stop listening as they assess the relevance of what others are saying.