I don't regard him as particularly hard to understand, but he didn't exactly present his thoughts in an organized way--so, since I am terrible at reading closely, there may be details buried in his walls of text that I miss.
He claims that we have a dominant function and that others are repressed, especially the inferior, but that they balance the dominant in nature and in orientation. This is reflected in passages such as
If you can pull out some quotes of his that may detail some aspects that I've missed, I'm all ears..
Ha!
He is totally convoluted to read. Each time I reread I see new perspectives, incredibly Ni dense text though. He saw really cool things, but they dont pop to me, until I have seen them from my own perpsective, then I just stand in awe of his genius and ability to see and build meaning out of what he saw. Let me look over your quotes and see if I can dig up some extra stuff...
Still, even this is less rigid than placement of shadow functions, notions such as the tertiary temptation, the 'INFJ doorslam,' the 'ENFP Te bitchslap,' intertype relationships, all of Lenore, and other aspects of theories that have built upon his foundation. Most of these additions to the theory have been used less for 'good, solid explanations of human development' and more for 'winning arguments on the Internet' and 'justifying our views of the world,' in my estimation. In other words, they're misused...
So, as an example of how Jung was right and the strict typology we apply here is wrong, you can actually study the "te bitchslap".
In an enfp, the core ego likely has a whole lotta Ne-Fi; to protect that core, highly valued (and poorly defined, yet eagerly labeled
) ego, we lash out with whatever we have at hand-some "Te-like boundaries", some things that might be called "poorly executed Fe-like social plays", some stuff that might be described as "shoddy Ti used to add precision to observations". You can all thus stuff sort of rolled up in a blob and thrown at another person, thus a "Te-bitchslap".
Jung would abstract all of this, look for underlying meaning, and just call it emergence of a complex.
As an enfp, I do love to label, dissect and pick apart typeology topics catgorically (and shoddily), as jungian functions are simply easy handles to talk about generalized trends. The mistake is that as these convos/thoughts occur, they are read and misunderstood to be absolute and precise-which would be a ridiculous thing, given how generalizations are never, ever absolute or precise..people are extraordinarily complex and unique, thus while they may follow generalized patterns, patterns are not definitive.
Additionally, if you then say "Well I am an enfp, and since enfps sometimes go bonkers and Te bitchslap, it's okay that I do so" well that IS rationalization.
I'm withholding judgment on whether or not there is an FeTi/FiTe communication gap..
This is good, if you havent seen data or had personal experiences that convince you otherwise. You need to make up your own mind based on what you observe and believe.
The one thing that we ought to take away from typology is that we all see the world differently. We can deal with that either by blaming the cognitive functions of everyone around us, or we can learn to communicate with them or otherwise deal with them..
So I do have to counter this argument a bit...to use cognitive functions as a tool for analysis is not "rationalization" or "blame", but rather trying to establish a external logical framework for where communication can go wrong. Once you understand that it isnt any individual's fault, but rather innate cognitive, communicative differences, and worldview, you can develop tools.tactics/strategies to help people bridge those gaps more effectively-but first you have to understand where the differences are.
I often note, that simply by exploring the differences, asking questions, pointing out gaps, it can trigger value based defense mechanisms which blow up into things like "Why are you attacking or blaming my cognitive function?" I have seen this from users of every cognitive function. None of us like to have our worldview questioned-it pokes at our ego.
I personally get along with people across the spectrum of type--but then I've regarded myself as FeTi and FiTe at different points in time, so who knows where I fall? The only problem I have is with the pushy and disagreeable ones; and even then I know to just leave them alone..
I'd challenge you to spend some time rethinking the "pushy, disagreeable people". In the past, when I find I am driven totally bonkers or offended by another, it is almost always my own inability to accept thier worldview and perspective as valid over mine. As a (thread relevant) example, for a very long time I just understood a certain type of person was to be avoided as they would be mean to me and seek to provoke me, belittle me, or attack me. I didnt know why, but I just innately learned to avoid them. Once I understod mbti, they became labeled ESTPs. For years I just avoided estps.
Once I came the forum and learned about jungian functions I understood estps were just wired differently. I observed the (really awesome) estps on the forum, then I actively tried to learn ways to communicate and interact with estps around me, viewing thier actions through thier worldview, not mine. I made some really awesome, amazing, brilliantly clever friends, who I would never have tried to interact with, had I not learned that they think, communicate, act differently-thus I needed to see past my own innate limitations and innate judgements and accept them on thier terms.
Does this mean that you value DISC or that you don't value DISC? I'm curious either way.
At this point, I have administered about 40 MBTI step I and step IIs. I will not do anymore, as I feel the test is flawed and the results verge on unethical. The biggest error is the inability to deal with emergence of tert and inferior functions due to maturation or alternate development during life-thus you end up with an overly stereotyped set of 16 types which fail to capture the potential and diversity inherent in each type. If people then read thier "correct" type description, it conflicts with thier own self understanding and leads to more harm than good. Jungian typelogy may be partially correct, but MBTI is fatally flawed as a system.
DISC/Insights/"the color test" is much more commonly administered and more simple to understand. From what I have observed, it fits most FJs, TJs, and FPs to the satisfaction of those who take it, and is helpful. (It fits EXTPs and INFJs poorly however, making me think the model is incomplete).
DISC is very useful in that it allows for, and expects that people will change thier personality in a dynamic fashion over time. It also stresses very heavily that your communication style will depend upon your DISC pattern, and it teaches alternate communication strategies depending upon who you are
trying to communicate with (thus my interest).
Additionally I think the underlying disc thoery may be a very interesting way to look at manipulative behavior or both the Fe and the Fi variety. Check out the original writings (if you have lots of time)-"
emotions of normal people". The original disc thoery was very much about interaction styles between people-which could be studied from the perpsective of jungian cognitive functions in action...the chapter on induction is particularly interesting.
(sorry if this post is babbly, I was listening to a sales call at the same time, thus totally not focused..slacking at work)