Quote Originally Posted by BerberElla View Post
there is still a basic core to each one that translates author to author no?

Kind of. There are some really big differences though. Some have a very flexible and relativist concept of types, while others have a very defined, determinist concept of types. Some have theories about type that are more arche-typical, while others have theories that are more composite. Some model their types more on interpretations of empiricism, while others rely more on theoretical reasoning. And in general, people use varrying amounts of deduction, induction, or abduction their theories. All of these things create very different depictions of how the system works, and what the types are like. It especially creates debate over how one determines type.

I would say that there is also a general amount of inconsistency in regards to what single functions mean. Different people give rather different impressions of Introversiona and Extraversion for instance, which I imagine is party a result of interpretation of Jung's writings, and then interpretations of peoples' interpretations of Jung's work.

*I apologize if all of that was esoteric and/or jargony*