[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introversion, Extraversion, the MBTI and the IIEE/EEII stacks.

[Turi]

He's not clear, because there is a lot of ambiguity, that has to be "deduced" (which is ultimately all that first post is based on, in the end). And what you're advocating is just another interpretation. If you're not forcing one view, why do you insist on that one (which is attributed to those two people, that's no distraction; sorry but it's another pair of theorist' idea) as being so much more "Jungian"? What's the point, then?

I'm merely presenting the facts, ensuring people are at least aware that the Myers model isn't true to Jung.
Then, they can do whatever they want.

 

[Eric B]

But most people are aware that Myers isn't 100% Jung. The main MBTI site History Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs | CPP says "The Myers-Briggs® assessment has its roots in Carl Jung’s theory of psychological type." That doesn't say "the MBTI IS Jung's theory". "Roots" means something else built up from it, meaning the root concepts of I/E and SNTF are from Jung; and that's ALL it means. I have never gotten any sense that MBTI is purported to be Jung's exact whole theory (of which typology was only one passing part).

 

[Norexan]

Not all Introverts are Shy , not all Extraverts are Obnoxious and there is Ambivert people like me.

How they see each other:
I -> E Obnoxious , people who doesn't respect someone's place or property, talkative, clingy <- what all Extraverts become in stress -> points on OBJECT
E -> I Shy , people who are generally quiet, boring , withdraw, coward <- what all Introverts become in stress -> points on SUBJECT

But in reality this is EXTREME version of Extraversion (too high or too low) when they constantly behave like this.


So in Extraversion scale there are FIVE stage:

I loop Shy i.g [Fi-Ni]
I > E Introvert
I ~= E Ambivert
E > I Extravert
E loop Obnoxious i.g. [Se-Te]

 

[Turi]

But most people are aware that Myers isn't 100% Jung.

You'd hope so, Eric - but it's not the case - see literally everybody, yourself included, that conflates the dichotomy with cognitive function theory.

 

[Eric B]

That doesn't mean we think the conceptions are identical. We believe they are different ways of pointing to the same things. I think your view of things is too black and white; "either/or".

 

[Turi]

That doesn't mean we think the conceptions are identical. We believe they are different ways of pointing to the same things. I think your view of things is too black and white; "either/or".

Which parts too "black and white", specifically?
I ask because I've literally noted, multiple times, that I'm not tied to any particular function, and oppose the restrictions that are forced by both a Jungian perspective (IIEE/EEII by all accounts), the Myers stack (IEEE/EIII) and the Grant stack (IEIE/EIEI).

I don't believe in strict adherence to any.
Which part of my "view of things" is "either/or"?

I'm the guy that's comfortable with multiple models here, and respects a holistic approach to typology - the guy opposing strict black-and-white systems.
This is evidenced all throughout this conversation, that you've been a part of.

 

[Eric B]

The black and white thinking I was referring to, was not your view of your own beliefs, but your view of everyone else's; that because we believe Jung and Myers' concepts fit together(one picks up on the "foundation" laid by the other) , that we see no difference in them, and think Myers is 100% congruent with Jung, and that we all need to be "set straight" on that.

 

[Turi]

The black and white thinking I was referring to, was not your view of your own beliefs, but your view of everyone else's; that because we believe Jung and Myers' concepts fit together(one picks up on the "foundation" laid by the other) , that we see no difference in them, and think Myers is 100% congruent with Jung, and that we all need to be "set straight" on that.

Eric, there's not much black-and-white here - it's not some opinion I pulled out of a little either/or hat - go and look at any personality forum you can find, this one, PerC, check the MBTI section of Reddit and all the types sub-reddits, jump on the various Facebook groups and you will see my position is well-founded.

Practically everybody conflates the two - not many people even understand that testing as something via dichotomy, doesn't have anything to do with "functions".
They don't realize they're slapped on after the fact - they think for instance, that INFJ in dichotomy actually means they're an "Ni" dominant - this part of course, is untrue.

If by black and white thinking you mean that I've taken a position after hours of research, tracking patterns, collecting data and gauging responses as well as embarking on my own inquiries into peoples beliefs - then sure, "black and white" thinking.

You can actually test this yourself - go and ask, anywhere, if INFJs are "Ni" doms - and watch the responses, most people will say yes, a couple of the more informed people will express similar sentiments as I have. Associating Ni to INFJ via dichotomy, and any other examples of that - prove my point, that the two are being conflated (without any evidence to support it).

 

[Eric B]

Again, we believe it's different ways of pointing to the same things.
Black and white is "well, if you think that, you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other (and this, mind you, based on what's really another interpretation of Jung, founded upon assumptions of its own); and you all are just wrong, and I allow any stacking order, but again, everyone is just wrong".

This is just a difference in seeing things that I have started to describe. Ne says "yes" to anything, and as long as Ti says "yes" (it makes sense according to a self-determined sense of what's "true"), then it feels all of these concepts can co-exist.

With NiTe, i'm seeing if Ni says "no!", then you're just against it, and then Te appeals to external authority, like "true to Jung", or "hours of research, collecting data", etc. to back it up with its own "no!" You say you allow any stack, but there's still this "no!"; that you have to oppose what everyone else takes for granted (and Ni has been described as looking for "what's left out" of patterns "taken for granted"). The point is, these are all being filtered through our type perspective, and we have to be aware that we are not seeing "absolute truth".

It's like there's this whole little "anti-Grant Revolution" on these boards now, where one person started vehemently going against functions altogether a few years ago (in favor of dichotomies only), and now a few others seemed to be swayed by the fervor and get on board with this, but in different ways (like you accept functions, but insist Jung arranged them differently; but agree there's absolutely no reconciliation with dichotomies), but all making the same appeals to "empirical research", or being" true" to Jung or whoever else.

But there are many different minds involved in mainstream MBTI-based typology, and if Myers was so wrong, more people would have picked up on it. There is no conspiracy, or total cloud of ignorance, where the majority would all choose to stick with something totally false (yes, we might point out something like that in politics; but this is not as crucial to living as that, so it wouldn't be worth it).
But in any case, the Grant stack has the right to exist, but to say it's too "restricted", then you might as well be like the majority people who reject all of typology, insisting each and every person is their own "type" that cannot be categorized in any way.

 

[Dashy CVII]

I think that in MBTI, functions tend to fail in definition by simplistically having attributions like Ni = J intuition / Decisive intuition, "a preconceived expectation of an answer or impression" (NJ), "learn by error" etc. not the real "Introverted Intuition," which is about the brand of intuition, what an intuition is about. This is precisely why even ENxJs relate to it as their primary function. It's not the real Introverted Intuition: abstract perception detached from the external circumstance/object. I think because "Ni" in MBTI was designed to pigeonhole the meaning of Intuition into the stereotypical interpretation of the word intuition, if we back away into the interpretation of reflective abstract perception (Ni,) we tend to find way more dominant Ni types who truly have perception as their primary way of processing. The standard N > F/T > S types.

In the same vein, many INTPs relate much more to "Ne" than Ti, that is because it doesn't have to do with Extraversion. "Ne" in MBTI is defined more as Intuiting + Perceiving, an all-encompassing definition that really doesn't get at the real Extraverted orientation of Intuition (Ne.) We can see many people who are Js fit into the real Ne or Ti, because they're not bound to a pigeonholing of a whole way of life, an orientation to what an intuition is about. Ne and Ni are opposite focuses on intuition and what it could be about, and not "Open vs Decisive Intuition" which has nothing to do with what an intuition is about.

Anyway, I appreciate the open-mindedness. I think this is why most N types are Ps by the stereotypical MBTI definition. There's an open-ended sense of speculation and theorizing to Intuition, mostly due to the perception being anti-concrete, interpretative and impressionistic, and we conflate this theoretical mindset with "TiNe" or "NeTi." NeTi orientation is just one of the four subsets of Intuitives.

This is why overall, I don't use MBTI dichotomy theory but typically resort to it as a second thought, where the redefined dichotomies of J/P match the functions--where P is represented as what behavior someone with Extraverted Perception tends toward: "in-the-moment" investment in Perceiving the outside, either (Se) concretes in the object/situation or (Ne) abstractions in the object/situation, because this is what real Ne is--something that I find in many mistypes, but a function which I never had much of. Of course, I wrote my personal experience of what Ne-Si vs Ni-Se types are here and in my sig.

 

[GavinElster]

"if the general attitude of the consciousness is in the introverted attitude for instance, then the preferred functions are also in the introverted attitude"

Your mistake is assuming "the conscious functions" form a "block" of both dominant AND auxiliary (as "preferred", which is not used in this passage). If you're taking "the whole psychic process" that way, then the stack would be IIII or EEEE.
Obviously, he's talking about the conscious portion of the psyche (centered on the ego). What's unconscious is suppressed and falls into the unconscious attitude.

Here is my best understanding.

- Yes, Jung was ultimately vague on this issue in the following sense: he did not really think in Psychological Types of the idea of the attitude of a function as separate from the attitude of consciousness or that of the unconscious. He did think of Si, Te, and so on in the sense that he thought sensation in an introvert with dominant sensation looked a very particular way with special peculiarities as compared with a dominant sensation type who is an extravert.....but this is far from deciding all the questions about the idea of a function-attitude (as opposed to his relatively more separate treatment of function/attitude)

- The sense in which I think he DID strongly seem to lean to something *like* a NiTi FeSe is this: while in principle, Jung said there's one function alone which can be called conscious, he soon comes to apparently 'contradict' this

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition

by suggesting there's a grouping of the conscious dom-aux against the unconscious two.
Here by conscious functions, I take him to mean "practical intellect" aka sensation+thinking with thinking dominant resulting in stronger repression of feeling than intuition.

Now, I think he's not really contradicting himself so much as saying for practical purposes, we can say there are two conscious functions.

I think this attitude shows up elsewhere as well: in Ch. X, Jung seems to type Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type, despite his typing of him as a dominant intuitive of the introverted variety in Ch. III:

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

However, when understood from this practical attitude of regarding the top two as conscious, it becomes clear why Jung might refer to someone with auxiliary thinking who is also an introvert as an introverted thinking type. In Ch. III, Jung did mention Nietzsche's 'Ti' by mentioning his introverted intellectual side (evidenced in his aphoristic writings), by which in his language he's referring to introverted thinking..... but he never made the apparent 'mistake' of calling Nietzsche an introverted thinking type, a word we might assume is reserved only for a Ti-dom.

I think Marie-Louise von Franz often did the same thing -- talked of a 'thinking type' even when thinking seemed to be auxiliary, loosely, but I think this is because she felt often as a practical matter, you can only tell in a good many cases which is dom and which is aux based on the inferior, i.e. on theoretical/inprinciple grounds, not directly based on examining which seems to be greater.

In fact, I'd say a huge number of theorists do something like this -- while Beebe thinks of NiTe, not NiTi as dom-aux, it's pretty clear he thinks someone with dom-intuition/aux thinking will be pretty strong in those two even if in true principle they've only got one function-attitude associated to the ego complex.

So my best interpretation is this: If you interpret Jung as saying there's such a thing as a Ni-dom or Ti-dom, i.e. if you understand by that just having dominant intuition or thinking coupled with an introverted attitude, it's consistent with that to say he thought generally people would be NiTi, not NiTe. And to have this, you'd still need to add in the huge caveat that you're NiTi probably as a matter of practice, because in principle you can only be a Ni-type with auxiliary thinking and Se-inferior (again interpreting Ni, Se as he does).

That really doesn't mean what he MEANS by "being NiTi" is the same as what we might mean in our more functions-stacking-y language.



Now, this is just on figuring out what he thought. As for what I think is reasonable to do, I think there are good reasons to take seriously some of our modern ideas about NeTi and NiTe and so on. I prefer 8-function models like socionics that, instead of saying "you have Ti, not Te," instead suggest the role each of those plays in your psyche.

I can understand where Beebe for instance is coming from, if he's thinking 'well, if the dom is the only one that is conscious, according to Jung, it's a reasonable enough spinoff of Jung, even if not his own idea, to say the dom is associated to the ego complex, and the auxiliary onward to other complexes, since the ego-complex is what consciousness revolves around"



As for whether people understand that Jung differs significantly from a lot of modern practice, frankly I've been unimpressed and think it's well worth clarifying.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah; I had seen the "practical intellect" quote, which is likely referring to the dom. and aux. but I think I had pointed out, that passage isn't talking about the attitudes, (in terms of both functions falling into the dominant). It was acknowledged that the aux. is partially conscious/unconscious, but when addressing the need for the other rationality of function beside the dominant, then that one can still be mentioned as among the "conscious".
The way he puts the function and attitude together in the ch. III context could possibly be more analogous to us using dichotomy combinations; so that INTP is still "IN", or technically an "introverted intuitive". You could specify it (especially in speech) as "introverted AND intuitive", or "introverted COMMA intuitive". Even though the function itself is really extraverted (and I myself can testify of this from experience), it's still serving an introverted ego agenda, and thus may overall look introverted from that.

 

[GavinElster]

Well yes, exactly about the dichotomies -- but basically my point is if you think Jung thought Nietzsche had Ni, you can also safely say he thought he had Ti. The strictest possible interpretation of Jung is he ultimately thinks Nietzsche is a dom intuitive with aux thinking and with conscious attitude introverted -- we don't say any "Ni" or "Ti" i.e. no function-attitude talk independent of just talking of function and conscious attitude -- Ni IS the peculiar appearance of intuition in an intuitive who is an introvert.


The significance of the practical intellect quote is it gets one to think what Jung exactly is saying: he JUST had finished telling us only one function alone is conscious/has absolute sovereignty, so from this perspective, if you think of Ti as the thinking of a conscious-thinking conscious-introvert, you'd be baffled why Jung would allude to Nietzsche being an introverted thinking type in Ch. X.....after all, III established him as a dominant intuitive and an introvert.
However, clearly there's some subtlety here, as Jung loosely refers to the conscious functions in the plural, clearly referring to the dom-aux pair (yes, here he doesn't mention attitude, but the point is if we assume a function-attitude refers to the pairing of conscious function with conscious attitude and/or unconscious function with unconscious attitude in Jung's dictionary, that he considers TWO functions potentially conscious, in a certain use of language, is relevant to sorting out the NiTi vs NiTe issue).


It seems the only reasonable interpretation that makes Jung not blatantly contradicting himself is that he (like most of us, really) frequently thinks in-practice the dom-intuitive with aux thinking will have developed thinking and more or less look like a thinking type. Thus, such a person could for all intents and purposes be said to have conscious intuitive-thinking, though not in strictest principle. In this sense, you can say, using Jung's dichotomous understanding of Ni, the same dichotomous understanding gives Ti-aux.


I think this is by far the most direct reading of Jung. It leaves aside what I think is unfinished theoretical considerations on his part and really just gets at what he is saying, together with the degree of vagueness and degree of determination inherent to his writing on this subject.

I.e. it says in the only sense he ever thinks of the auxiliary having an attitude in the case of someone with a developed auxiliary, he'd say same-attitude (it's clear in his discussion of introverted thinking types that he thinks of all 3 non-dominant function as in the opposite attitude at least in the case of them all being undeveloped. However, I think there are many senses in which one could define 'the attitude of the auxiliary', and given he wrote of only one function as truly being conscious, I'd say a lot is open to interpretation.
If you define the attitude of the auxiliary, for instance, as the attitude inhering in a Parent complex, then you could even say Jung's NiTi is consistent with your NiTe. After all, you don't HAVE to think of the T as associated to the ego-complex to remain consistent with Jung -- clearly in a sense, he saw it as not-conscious, as only one function is conscious.

 

[Eric B]

I think it's best to leave interpretation of his types as "attitude/Dominant with aux." (IN-T, IT-N, etc.), and realize that others after him have come and refined his theory, including determining a more practical and distinct opposite attitude of the auxiliary. So then yes, in that respect you could say "Jung's NiTi is consistent with our NiTe", but realizing that "Ti" or "Te" as a non-dominant function in his view is not as much of a discrete unit as the dominant ego function.

 

[GavinElster]

I think it's best to leave interpretation of his types as "attitude/Dominant with aux." (IN-T, IT-N, etc.),

Well, let's put it this way:

- Jung's method was basically dichotomies. Once you knew introvert, thinking, intuitive, rational-irrational that was it -- you didn't need to ask about the position of Ti or Te or Fi beyond that to find the type. Indeed, this is how he determines type in the Freeman interview for himself -- just picking out individual things like introvert, intuitive, thinking.

- However, it's clear he did pioneer the idea of function-attitudes, if not developing it out fully, so on the issue of what he thought about function-attitudes, I'd say quite simply that he appeared to think a conscious function in a conscious attitude had a marked peculiarity in how it worked. He spoke both of things like sensation in the introverted attitude and the introverted sensation type -- the former refers to something like a function-attitude, and the latter to the function-attitude type.


The only issue is WHAT FUNCTIONS WERE CONSCIOUS -- that would determine whether you had something like introverted sensation in his view (if you have sensation dominant and are an introvert, again a dichotomies method). And it seems for the dominant, there's no mistake -- it's conscious. On the issue of whether anything ELSE is conscious, I think he's pretty problematic -- it's clear in principle he thinks there's just one conscious function. But shortly after, he speaks of two conscious functions -- dom and aux, and he further corroborates he thinks this way by alluding to Nietzsche being a pronounced example of an introverted thinking type.

This suggests that Jung did see someone who is an introvert, intuitive, thinking, say irrational, as often having conscious thinking and thus conscious introverted thinking -- after all, he seemed to think the stuff he said in his passage on auxiliaries was the normal case, and once you're on board with the idea that to him, introverted thinking really is just conscious introversion and conscious thinking, saying the aux is conscious seals the deal.

as a non-dominant function in his view is not as much of a discrete unit as the dominant ego function.

Well there are 2 ways to interpret you here -- if you're saying the aux can't stand alone independent of dom, yes of course in that sense it's not a discrete unit.

But if you're saying Ti-aux is not *as Ti > Te* (that is, pronouncedly Ti rather than Te) as Ni-dom is Ni>Ne, that's probably not in the cards -- the quote on Nietzsche and Cuvier seems to strongly suggest an aux-Ti could be EVEN MORE pronouncedly Ti.

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

I think the most accurate reading is that it all hangs on this issue of whether Jung thought the aux is conscious, as that seems to determine in dichotomies-fashion the closest version of a function-attitude typing for the aux. That is, if you have conscious thinking aux and conscious introversion, you'd have Ti-aux.

The issue is earlier, Jung said a whole bunch of stuff on how the dom is the only conscious function and how the aux is relatively unconscious. Yet later he talks of conscious functionS dom-aux AND gives how Nietzsche is this apparently uber-Ti-type.

So really the problem is I think Jung probably was loose here -- not loose that he thought you could have a conscious auxiliary, but about WHY/in what sense that can be made consistent with his earlier remarks.

That's why I'm happy to accept revisions/consider the aux's attitude an ongoing project, not determined cleanly by Jung.

 

[Eric B]

But if you're saying Ti-aux is not *as Ti > Te* (that is, pronouncedly Ti rather than Te) as Ni-dom is Ni>Ne, that's probably not in the cards -- the quote on Nietzsche and Cuvier seems to strongly suggest an aux-Ti could be EVEN MORE pronouncedly Ti.

But what he's describing there is "speaks with facts" vs "appeals to the subjective factor". That's i/e in general, moreso than specifically Te vs Ti, and so seems to point more to a comparison between "ET" and "IT' types.

It's like what I earlier said, about the dominant attitude coloring everything else, because it's part of the ego's agenda. So I'll appeal to the "subjective factor" when coming up with ideas; but the iNtuition itself is still extraverted, not introverted because it's still connected with external objects, and not some imagery coming up strictly from within. It's just serving the "subjective" agenda of feeding logical determination of things that occur from within. And this way of looking at it, he perhaps had not refined, and so, this apparent ambiguity in the language.
(I'm going to have to find that Chapter III sometimes, because I want to see that whole passage in its full context, and how he uses those function-attitude terms the rest of the time there).

 

[GavinElster]

But what he's describing there is "speaks with facts" vs "appeals to the subjective factor". That's i/e in general, moreso than specifically Te vs Ti, and so seems to point more to a comparison between "ET" and "IT' types.

An introverted thinking type IS an IT type to Jung, though-- that is, conscious introversion+conscious thinking. The quote begins with saying Kant is the normal example of an introverted thinking type, and Darwin that of an extraverted thinking type. The statement about the facts and subjective factor is Jung's SUPPORT for saying Kant is an introverted thinking type and Darwin an extraverted thinking type.

His statement that Nietzsche/Cuvier constitutes a sharper contrast thus is talking of an introverted thinking type vs extraverted thinking type contrast. It's clear Jung thought Kant is a dom introverted thinking type, and my point is this quote suggests strongly he refers in some cases to an aux thinker with introversion ALSO as an introverted thinking type. And it seems likely this is related to his seeing dom-aux as (in some loose sense) 'the conscious functions' ---- despite the strict in principle view being only-dom-is-conscious.


The real key here is if Jung is using the Cuvier/Nietzsche contrast as analogous to (in the sense of being a more extreme version of) the Darwin/Kant contrast, having stated the latter is CLEARLY an instance of Jung's version of Te vs Ti (which is pretty dichotomous in flavor), it seems very clear he's suggesting Cuvier/Nietzsche is also Te vs Ti.

 

[Eric B]

I think that something, somewhere, is probably being misunderstood.

If the most conscious function is the dominant, then how can "an aux-Ti could be EVEN MORE pronouncedly Ti" ("the antithesis becomes even sharper")?
There are possible answers in the full Beebe model, but in a strict Gray/Wheelwright XXYY interpretation, why would NiTi be more pronouncedly Ti than TiNi (even if just in comparison to a Te type)?

To begin with, here's the actual quote from Chapter III (p.146):

He must surely be reckoned an intuitive with leanings toward introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive-artistic manner of production, of which the Birth of Tragedy is very characteristic, while his masterpiece Thus Spake Zarathustra is even more so. His aphoristic [A tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion] writings express his introverted intellectual side. These, in spite of a strong admixture of feeling, display a pronounced critical intellectualism in the manner of the intellectuals of the eighteenth century. His lack of rational moderation and conciseness argues for the intuitive type in general. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that in his early work, he unwittingly sets the facts of his personal psychology int he foreground. This is quite in accord with the intuitive attitude, which perceives the outer primarily through the medium of the inner, sometimes at the expense of reality.

I notice how he says "leanings toward introversion", then he focuses on the functions rather than attitudes, except for the "intellect" (thinking), which he mentions again more specifically.

In the full Beebe model, we would say he might seem more pronouncedly Ti, because for one, if he's actually an extravert, 1) he will be more "expressive", and easier to readily get a sense of his personality than an introvert. 2) Ti, as aux. is the "Good Parent", which he uses to "parent" others, with his logical conclusions.

It seems INTP's seem to struggle with their type more than ENTP's, because perhaps the auxiliary being easier for us to recognize, since for the INTP, it's extraverted, and for the ENTP, it's Thinking. Dominant introversion of any function is often hard to "notice" in oneself, because it's so "second nature", and dominant inNuition of either attitude might similarly be hard to notice, because it's neither concrete, nor rational.

Another evidence from the quote is the "strong admixture of feeling". Aux. Ti is accompanied by have tertiary Fe, which will often be rather visible, when it develops.

So I'm not sure what he means by "leanings toward introversion", and if that's not connected to the claim the Nietzsche's auxiliary is apparently more "pronounced". It looks to me, keeping in mind the separate variability of i/e, S/N and T/F, that maybe his concept of what a "i" or "e" type is (what makes whichever "attitude" be designated as "dominant"), is a bit fluid, at least at this point. ]
This would further be why it took others to come and solidify his concepts more.

 

[GavinElster]

If the most conscious function is the dominant, then how can "an aux-Ti could be EVEN MORE pronouncedly Ti" ("the antithesis becomes even sharper")?

That has a very easy answer if you think Jung is going by dichotomies. If for him, being Ti is just a matter of having conscious-thinking+conscious introversion, being MORE Ti > Te is just a matter of being more introverted.

So I'd say Jung just sees Nietzsche as more introverted than Kant. Notice the support for this view: for support that Kant is an introverted thinking type and Darwin an extraverted thinking type, he simply states nothing specific to their thinking functions, and instead simply emphasizes how one is extraverted (speaks to the facts) and the other speaks to the subjective factor (introverted).
So the next line probably isn't saying much more than that Nietzsche is uber-introverted, and his thinking displays the peculiarities of introversion.

Note a subtlety: Jung is NOT SAYING that Nietzsche's thinking is more introverted than Nietzsche's intuition!!!!! I think that might be where you're confused, i.e. you'd expect the most conscious function to be the most introverted. However, we're comparing Kant's Ti vs Nietzsche's Ti level.
Basically, if Kant were overall less introverted than Nietzsche, his thinking could end up being less introverted than Nietzsche's DESPITE his thinking being dominant, because his overall conscious attitude is less introverted as well.

My original point was merely that (on this conscious functionS in the plural view that Jung espouses somewhat confusingly) someone's aux can probably have very clear differentiation in the i/e direction, to the point where one introvert's aux could be more clearly introverted than another introvert's dom. If your claim is merely that between the two, it's most consistent with Jung's theory for the aux to have AT MOST (i.e. less than or equal to) the differentiation in terms of i/e attitude when compared with the dom, there I can agree.


(Here I submit some apology, as the way I wrote this, it might not have been clear I was comparing one person's aux with a potentially different person's dom --- my point was to convey how the aux can be unambiguously differentiated in the i/e direction, not to convey that it can be more so than the SAME person's dom.)

So I'm not sure what he means by "leanings toward introversion"

I think in true dichotomies spirit this is his funny way of saying he's more introverted than extraverted, i.e. it's just a bit flowery a way of saying Nietzsche is an introvert.

 

[Eric B]

So it's switching back and forth between dichotomies, and function-attitudes as units, and the attitude of the function is a sliding scale as well?

"Jung is NOT SAYING that Nietzsche's thinking is more introverted than Nietzsche's intuition!!!!! I think that might be where you're confused, i.e. you'd expect the most conscious function to be the most introverted."

But he's not saying his Thinking is not more introverted than his iNtition, either. So then his most conscious function might not be the most introverted, but if he's really speaking of dichotomies, then we can surmise an introvert with a non-introverted dominant function, somehow, since the attitude is really not wedded so much to the function after all.

If anything like this might be the case, then it does to show, once again, that his theory was formative and fluid, and this is why modern theorists had to square this stuff away more.