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

[Turi]

'sup.

The aim of this thread, is to assist people in understanding introversion and extraversion from my perspective (not that anyone gives a shit lol).

Introversion and Extraversion.

Of introversion and extraversion, Jung stressed that every individual possesses both mechanisms, and the only way to distinguish one from another, is the observation of the attitude that prevails most of the time:

One mechanism will naturally predominate, and if this condition becomes in any way chronic a type will be produced; that is, an habitual attitude in which one mechanism predominates permanently, although the other can never be completely suppressed since it is an integral part of the psychic economy. Hence there can never be a pure type in the sense that it possesses only one mechanism with the complete atrophy of the other. A typical attitude always means merely the relative predominance of one mechanism.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (pp. 5-6). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


This is to say, nobody is completely introverted or completely extraverted, they still possess the opposing mechanism - and a type is only produced when one attitude is predominant.

I also interpret Jung as suggesting here, that most people, most of the time, are somewhere in between the two extremities of introversion and extraversion.
Introversion and extraversion should then be seen as a push-pull dynamic, not unlike the pumping action of pistons in an engine, this idea is evidenced in the following:

The one sees everything in terms of his own situation, the other in terms of the objective event. These contrary attitudes are in themselves no more than correlative mechanisms: a diastolic going out and seizing of the object, and a systolic concentration and detachment of energy from the object seized. Every human being possesses both mechanisms as an expression of his natural life-rhythm, a rhythm which Goethe, surely not by chance, described physiologically in terms of the heart’s activity.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 5). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


Of the introverted attitude, Jung says:

But in general one could say that the introverted standpoint is one which sets the ego and the subjective psychological process above the object and the objective process, or at any rate seeks to hold its ground against the object. This attitude, therefore, gives the subject a higher value than the object, and the object accordingly has a lower value. It is of secondary importance; indeed, sometimes the object represents no more than an outward token of a subjective content, the embodiment of an idea, the idea being the essential thing. If it is the embodiment of a feeling, then again the feeling is the main thing and not the object in its own right.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 5). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


It is clear, here, that the heart of an introverted preference, is a placement of oneself as a higher priority than the object - the object being, anything in the outer world, a person, a thing, an idea, a feeling, etc - and these objects in the outer world sometimes representing nothing more than a projection of the introverted types own subjective content.

A preference for introversion, then, can be viewed as Jung noted as an “inward turning of libido” - in other words, a ‘me first’ mentality - not in a stereotypically selfish nature, but in an 'oriented towards ones self' way - the introverted attitude places a higher value on itself than the outer world.

Of the extraverted attitude, Jung says:

The extraverted standpoint, on the contrary, subordinates the subject to the object, so that the object has the higher value. In this case the subject is of secondary importance, the subjective process appearing at times as no more than a disturbing or superfluous appendage of objective events.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 5). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


..and so, the extraverted attitude is one that places a higher value on objects in the outer world, than it does on the subject, or person, themselves.

This then, is essentially an “outward turning of libido”, as noted by Jung - it is an attitude of giving oneself to the outer world, an outer-world-first mentality, not in an “I am worthless” kind of way, but in an 'oriented towards the outer world' kind of way.


Although we all possess both introvert and extravert mechanisms, we can never actually be precisely in the middle - there will always be a preference, regardless of how slight, one way or another, of the, Jung says:

Fantasy it was and ever is which fashions the bridge between the irreconcilable claims of subject and object, introversion and extraversion. In fantasy alone both mechanisms are united.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 47). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


Something important to note, is that introversion and extraversion are not actually traits of character - introversion is not merely being ‘shy’ or ‘reserved’, likewise, extraversion is not being ‘hearty’ or ‘gregarious’ - and so, any and all stereotypes pertaining to introversion and extraversion have no place in Jungian typology (imo) when typing others - Jung notes the following:

But as I have pointed out more than once, introversion and extraversion are not traits of character at all but mechanisms, which can, as it were, be switched on or off at will. Only from their habitual predominance do the corresponding characters develop.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (pp. 266). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


You can see in the above, introversion and extraversion are not merely ‘traits’ but are indeed mechanisms - ones that we can switch on or off at will - what is important - the only determining factor - is which mechanism is more predominant, introversion or extraversion?

Jung also notes that introversion and extraversion are not entirely dependent on any in-born disposition, but are indeed influenced by ones environment, as follows:

The predilection one way or the other no doubt depends on the in-born disposition, but this is not always the decisive factor. I have frequently found environmental influences to be just as important. In one case in my experience, it even happened that a man with markedly extravert behaviour, while living in close proximity to an introvert, changed his attitude and became quite introverted when he later came into contact with a pronounced extraverted personality. I have repeatedly observed how quickly personal influences can alter the duration of the secondary function even in a well-defined type, and how the previous condition re-establishes itself as soon as the alien influence is removed.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (pp. 267). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


Jung outlines that there is no such thing as an ‘introvert’ or an ‘extravert’, in the following:

I would like to stress that each of the two general attitudes, introversion and extraversion, manifests itself in a special way in an individual through the predominance of one of the four basic functions. Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types, such as thinking types, sensation types, etc.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (pp. 476-477). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


Thus, it should be clear that there is no such thing as an ‘introvert’ or ‘extravert’ rather, there is introverted Thinking types, or extraverted Sensation types, so on and so forth - the attitude manifests itself through the function, it does not manifest as an isolated ‘thing’ in itself, so to speak - thus, if the general attitude of the consciousness is in the introverted attitude for instance, then the preferred functions are also in the introverted attitude - take an ISTJ for example - due to a general preference for introversion - they become an:

• Introverted Thinking type; and an
• Introverted Sensation type.

As Extraversion is the unconscious attitude - they have less preferred and less differentiated:

• Intuition in the Extraverted attitude.
• Feeling in the Extraverted attitude.

IIEE/EEII - not IEIE/EIEI.
To support the above, I feel the need to include the following quotes from Jung, as without additional support - this is all that will be targeted, defeating the purpose of the post which is merely to draw attention to 'true' introversion and extraversion from a Jungian perspective, and so:

Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience. Not only that, it determines the kind of compensation the unconscious will produce.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 487). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The above draws attention to the preferred attitude, introversion or extraversion, pertaining to an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process - not just the 'style of behaviour' but also the quality of the subjective experience - in other words, how we communicate with others (see: MBTI P/J) is still in the preferred attitude, and our subjective experience is also in the preferred attitude (see: MBTI P/J again).

Here is a little information on this 'stack':

The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious, intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

What Jung is saying above - is that the conscious functions form a 'block' in the same pattern as the conscious, likewise with the unconscious functions forming a 'block' in the same pattern as the unconscious - so, this supports the IIEE stack for the ISTJ example above - in fact, as luck would have it - I've used the exact same type in the example - conscious 'block' in the introverted attitude - Thinking and Sensation in the same attitude - and the unconscious 'NF' block in the extraverted attitude - with Feeling at the bottom.

I suggest ISTJ as a 'Thinking' type by the way, due to this 'stack' then, having Thinking preferred more than Sensation, so the rational function is more dominant than the irrational function - ergo, J>P, logically.

..and of course, the coup de grace:

One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 487). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Underlined emphasis is mine. The picture Jung paints is clear. IIEE for introverted types, EEII for extraverted types.


Expanding possibilities regarding type.
Despite 'introverted' types pulling away from 'the object' and preferring to orient themselves towards their own experience/perspectives etc - there are no restrictions or limitations being placed on how loud or gregarious these types may be, nor are there any regarding how forceful or aggressive these types may be etc - and so, it would not be anti-Jung to suggest the idea of somebody with a stereotypical and perhaps accurate via dichotomy 'E' preference, actually being a best-fit for Jungs introverted attitude.

Likewise, 'extraverted' types leaning towards 'the object' and preferring to orient themselves towards the objective outer world, doesn't prevent them from being stereotypically 'introverted' to the point that an 'I' preference re: dichotomy isn't the best fit - and, it shouldn't require too large a stretch of the imagination, to envision this as somebody that is so oriented towards the outer world, so interested in external happenings, so stimulated by others ideas/opinions/objects in their surroundings, that due to placing themselves of a lower value than all of this, they keep their own subjective opinions and thoughts to themselves, deciding they are not 'worthy' of the outer-world.
Ergo, a 'dichotomy introvert' with a true Extraverted preference from a Jungian perspective.

The reason for this is, introversion and extraversion in MBTI-land, are absolutely nothing like Jungs introverted or extraverted types.
It is absolutely possible to be a Jungian introverted type, yet be an MBTI 'E' and vica versa - this leads into the next section:


The effects of all of the above on the MBTI.
A critical misunderstanding of introversion and extraversion on Myers and Briggs behalf, formulates the ‘type dynamics’ aspects of their personality theory - they believe the introverted type requires the extraversion of another function, in order to communicate with the world, and similarly that extraverted types 'require' the introversion of some other function to access their inner world (ergo, P/J) - this idea is incorrect, as outlined above - but, Myers says:

The basic principle that the auxiliary provides needed extraversion for the introverts and needed introversion for the extraverts is vitally important. The extraverts’ auxiliary gives them access to their own inner life and to the world of ideas; the introverts’ auxiliary gives them a means to adapt to the world of action and to deal with it effectively.

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 510-512). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

We can see here a complete failure to understand what exactly introversion and extraversion are, a failure to realize they are both mechanisms that run throughout single functions - the push-pull dynamics of I/E do not relate to those of differing functions but rather the general attitude of consciousness, and Jung lays out loud and clear, that the divide between introversion and extraversion within the same function can be blurry:

So far as the practical thinking of the business man, the technician, or the scientific investigator is concerned, its outer-directedness is obvious enough. But in the case of the philosopher it remains open to doubt when his thinking is directed to ideas. We then have to inquire whether these ideas are simply abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would represent higher collective concepts comprising a sum of objective facts, or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter case, they fall into the category of objective data, and accordingly this thinking should be called extraverted.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 318). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

In the above quote, we can see that Jung is demonstrating the difference between idea-related Thinking in the introverted type to pertain to their own objective experience, and Thinking in the extraverted type to pertain to the intellectual atmosphere of the times ie the objective outer world - what is important to take note of here, is that both are Thinking and both are related to ideas - and the line between the two is simply the preferred orientation of those ideas - no such requirement for an auxiliary introverted function to enable the extraverted type to access their own 'world of ideas', then.


In Gifts Differing, Myers states:

Since the EI preference (extraversion or introversion) is completely independent of the SN and TF preferences, extraverts and introverts may have any of the four combinations of perception and judgment.

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 332-333). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Clearly not Jungs theory - I/E is definitely not independent of the SN and TF preferences, as I've demonstrated, and so the entire MBTI J/P theory comes crumbling to the ground insofar as it’s supposedly a reflection of Jungs theory.
Perhaps it’s valid, in it’s own way - if so, it is absolutely not utilizing Jungs theories in any way, shape or form.

Contrary to this belief Myers and Briggs held, Jung states the following - note, no suggestion of a magic function-switch - that, despite what people tend to think - absolutely was a part of Myers and Briggs understanding:

A tense attitude is in general characteristic of the introvert, while a relaxed, easy attitude distinguishes the extravert. Exceptions, however, are frequent, even in one and the same individual.

Give an introvert a thoroughly congenial, harmonious milieu, and he relaxes into complete extraversion, so that one begins to wonder whether one may not be dealing with an extravert. But put an extravert in a dark and silent room, where all his repressed complexes can gnaw at him, and he will get into such a state of tension that he will jump at the slightest stimulus.

The changing situations of life can have the same effect of momentarily reversing the type, but the basic attitude is not as a rule permanently altered. In spite of occasional extraversion the introvert remains what he was before, and the extravert likewise.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 268). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


To further drill home the fact that the MBTI is built upon such an incredibly flawed understanding of introversion and extraversion, note the following:

A good way to visualize the difference is to think of the dominant process as the General and the auxiliary process as his Aide. In the case of the extravert, the General is always out in the open. Other people meet him immediately and do their business directly with him. They can get the official viewpoint on anything at any time. The Aide stands respectfully in the background or disappears inside the tent. The introvert’s General is inside the tent, working on matters of top priority. The Aide is outside fending off interruptions, or, if he is inside helping the General, he comes out to see what is wanted. It is the Aide whom others meet and with whom they do their business. Only when the business is very important (or the friendship is very close) do others get in to see the General himself.

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 439-445). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Given what Jungs wrote, that I've shared here - it should be clear that there is no General nor Aide in the tent in the fashion outlined by Myers here.
Notice the General is intended to reflect a function (here, called, a 'process') in an entirely one-sided orientation, and if there is no Aide, then the opposing orientation is non-existent, it is required, according to this faulty understanding.

The following is relevant - of the General Attitude of Consciousness:

Although it is true that everyone orients himself in accordance with the data supplied by the outside world, we see every day that the data in themselves are only relatively decisive. The fact that it is cold outside prompts one man to put on his overcoat, while another, who wants to get hardened, finds this superfluous. One man admires the latest tenor because everybody else does, another refuses to do so, not because he dislikes him, but because in his view the subject of universal admiration is far from having been proved admirable.

One man resigns himself to circumstances because experience has shown him that nothing else is possible, another is convinced that though things have gone the same way a thousand times before, the thousand and first time will be different. The one allows himself to be oriented by the given facts, the other holds in reserve a view which interposes itself between him and the objective data. Now, when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decisions and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective conditions, we speak of an extraverted attitude.

When this is habitual, we speak of an extraverted type. If a man thinks, feels, acts, and actually lives in a way that is directly correlated with the objective conditions and their demands, he is extraverted.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 310). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

In the above, we can understand the general attitude of the consciousness is what orients ourselves towards either the external world (extraversion) or the internal world (introversion) - it is this orientation towards the the object - towards the outer world of values, ideas, principles etc, that creates the extraverted attitude - not the idea of being so super focused on and living in the outside world that the extraverted type requires introversion to have any kind of internal thoughts or subjective ideas or values - extraversion is simply an orientation towards the outer world - it is not a lack of an inner world, so severe one requires some 'introverted process' (see: function) completely different to the dominant nature of the type, to even remotely access.

Of the introverted general attitude of the conscious, Jung states:

As I have already explained in the previous section, the introvert is distinguished from the extravert by the fact that he does not, like the latter, orient himself by the object and by objective data, but by subjective factors.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 345). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So the introverted attitude is distinguished from the extraverted, due to an orientation towards subjective factors (their own ideas/values/thoughts/perceptions) as opposed to being oriented towards the outer world.
Note - it is not a deficiency in extraversion, to which Jung says:

Although the introverted consciousness is naturally aware of external conditions, it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 345). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

.."the introverted consciousness is naturally aware of external conditions" - here we see in the most simplest of terms, how Myers has missed the mark with regards to introversion and extraversion - she says, as I quoted earlier "the introverts’ auxiliary gives them a means to adapt to the world of action and to deal with it effectively" - this is obviously incorrect - Jung demonstrates that the introverted consciousness is indeed aware of external conditions, therefore it requires no such assistance of an extraverted function in order to "adapt to the world of action" or "deal with it effectively" - introversion is no more, no less, than an orientation towards ones self - not a lack of awareness of the outer world.

Introversion and extraversion stand on their own two feet and are complete 'temperaments', capable of precisely the same things - the difference merely being as has been outlined all post - an orientation towards the self (introversion) or towards the outer world (extraversion).

The introverted type can do everthing the extraverted type can do, and vica versa - there are no restrictions or limitations placed upon either attitude, outside of them simply not being oriented in the opposite way, 'most' (see: 51%) of the time.

..and so, the P/J divide, forcing alternating function-attitudes on us - is untrue to Jung and is simply a solution to a problem that only exists due to a misunderstanding of introversion and extraversion.


Now, as I understand it - Myers believed this dom-aux relationship altering the orientations of the functions, was due to this section from Jung:

For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Underlined emphasis is mine, however that's the part Myers latched on to:

The operative words are “in every respect.” If the auxiliary process differs from the dominant process in every respect, it cannot be introverted where the dominant process is introverted. It has to be extraverted if the dominant process is introverted, and introverted if the dominant process is extraverted.

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 518-519). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Myers was under the belief that this meant the auxiliary function was different in each and every way from the dominant function - and it is - where Myers went wrong, is that Jung was not talking about attitudes (introversion and extraversion), he was talking about the four functions. Not I/E.
This was a fatal assumption on her behalf, an error, a mistake, a fail, whatever you want to call it - this is where she was wrong and this is why everyone is wrong now.

Myers brought up I/E out of nowhere, as it doesn't even fit within the context of the section she quoted - further to this, in - quite literally - the very next paragraph, Jung goes on to outline what he meant by the above, as follows:

The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition, artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect, and so on.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So Jung - immediately after suggesting the auxiliary is in 'every respect' different to the dominant function, outlines what he meant - Thinking can be allied with Sensation for 'practical thinking', or with Intuition for 'speculative thinking' - Intuition can be supported by Feeling (artistic intuition) or Thinking (philosophical intuition) - the idea is clear - he is speaking, purely and entirely, of the functions.
NOT of the introverted or extraverted attitudes - in essence, he means - as so much of that section of the book suggests - that rational functions can only be directly supported by an irrational function (T/F supported by S/N) - and not supported by the other rational one (ie, Thinking with Feeling auxiliary is a no-go) - and, the same concept applies with the irrational functions - now the peculiar thing, is Myers actually quotes this exact same section in Gifts Differing, and still failed to understand it.

To further support her misguided assumption - Myers quotes the following Jung passage:

The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 521-522). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

However, using the above to support her point is again, an error of understanding - what Jung intended here (imo) is the effects of what happens when the introversion of Thinking is taken too far - when this occurs, it creates a 'block' whereby the auxiliary function joins the other functions in their unconscious attitude (so the above ISTJs Sensation shifts into becoming an Extraverted Sensation) - and this is when those functions of feeling, intuition and sensation which counterbalance introverted thinking possess a primitive, extraverted character - the take home note here, is the switch from the conscious attitude to the unconscious attitude by the auxiliary function - it's after the switch, that Myers has taken a quote from - so she is not supporting her argument with anything pertaining to the ordinary preferred orientation of the auxiliary function, which is that of the conscious attitude.

Now, the above will obviously draw attention from my fellow readers - right above the section Myers quoted, was this:

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images. But as their connection with objective experience becomes more and more tenuous, they take on a mythological colouring and no longer hold true for the contemporary situation.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 357). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


I don't believe it's a giant leap, to assume the section Myers quoted as supporting her alternating I-E dom-aux relationship, is actually, in context - to do with what happens when the introversion of Thinking is taken too far - too far removed from extraverted Thinking (in the same person), evidenced in the last line of the above quote - which is to say, given the rest of this post - that Jungs 'ordinary' 'stack', should there be one - would be IIEE for introverts and EEII for extraverts - however when the dominant function-attitude is taken too far - the auxiliary joins the tertiary and the inferior in their attitude, and forms an entire block of the unconscious in that opposing attitude to the dominant function.

..and so, the example ISTJ goes from Ti-Si-Ne-Fe to Ti-[Se-Ne-Fe]


To summarize, introversion and extraversion are mechanisms that pertain to the orientation of a function - they are not their own, separate entities - each, and every person possesses both mechanisms and alternates between them - stereotypes need not apply and it is possible to be a dichotomy I/E, yet 'lead' with a function in the opposing attitude (ie, an INTP in dichotomy, yet be an Extraverted Intuitive type from a Jungian perspective).
Myers completely and utterly misunderstood introversion and extraversion in every way, and this manifests itself in there even being an I/E dichotomy in the first place (the attitudes aren't to be separated from the functions), her J/P "how we communicate with the outer world" being a direct failure to understand how I/E actually work from a Jungian perspective, and the 'cognitive function stack', if there is one, should be IIEE or EEII.

Basic Definitions.

• Introversion - a placement of a higher value on ones own perspective, known information and ones own self, than on that of outside influences and outer-world information/objects/things/people/ideas etc - an orientation towards, or more-natural alignment with, ones own self/experience and all things within it.
  
  
• Extraversion - a placement of a higher value on the objective perspective, new information and external things/people/objects/ideas etc, than on that of ones own personal perspective, known information or self - an orientation towards, or more-natural alignment with, the objective outer world and all things within it.

I would like to note here, that I am aware of modern scientific advancements with regards to introversion and extraversion and am more than aware of how capable the MBTI is as its own personality type indicator.
I simply believe it is so far removed from Jungs theories that it we should not under any circumstances, attempt to merge the two.
ie, typing as a dichotomy INFJ, does not mean you are an 'Ni' dominant, from about a million different angles.

I feel the need here, to add my own personal thoughts on the above in relation to my 'beliefs' on 'stacks' - first and foremost, I do indeed believe the above to be the true Jungian stack - however, I am not opposed to the Harold Grant&Co IEIE/EIEI stacks playing out in reality, as genuine preferences as well - I don't see any reason to force ourselves to be restricted in our understandings - it's simply not true to Jung (or Myers, who believed in an IEEE stack for introverts, and an EIII stack for extraverts) - this doesn't mean it's not true in reality, now, so many decades later.

We should seek to make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around.

 

[GavinElster]

Thanks for making people aware of these issues. I try, too.

I'd say the knockdown support for IIEE is Nietzsche literally is typed as having introverted intuition dom, secondary introverted thinking. Ch. III. And referenced in Ch. X, too. As you say, this is because introversion is just the general attitude of consciousness in an introvert/all conscious activity follows that.

 

[unmagic]

I prefer the Jungian functions that aren't based on these books.

 

[rav3n]

There are no facts in personality typing systems, only theories.

 

[Turi]

There are no facts in personality typing systems, only theories.

I beg to differ in the context of this thread - the 'fact' is, the MBTI is off the mark and is not a representation of Jungs work due to a critical misunderstanding of introversion and extraversion.

Not that this takes away from what the MBTI is, simply that the type dynamics it attempts to apply after the fact, are completely off the mark and built upon a failed understanding.

 

[Turi]

I prefer the Jungian functions that aren't based on these books.

Most of my post was connecting dots from Psychological Types, which book do you prefer for Jungian functions?

 

[GavinElster]

I think no matter how theoretical one consider the discipline of psychology, it's at least a fact what the authors/theorists of each thought.

 

[Turi]

I think no matter how theoretical one consider the discipline of psychology, it's at least a fact what the authors/theorists of each thought.

Especially considering, it's literally laid out in black and white what Myers thought, in regards to specific sections from Jung that she referenced and cited.
I mean, we actually have precise thoughts about exact passages - no theorizing involved on our behalf is required.
Fact is, Myers got it wrong. Misunderstood introversion and extraversion in a really severe way, and basically that's the cause of where the typology community is now, that's the root of all the problems.

I want to stress I personally am not opposed to some people genuinely preferring IExE or EIxI at all, that kind of thing can kind of explain.. 'extraverted introverts' and vica versa to some degree - but from a Jungian perspective, Myers is off-base due to Jungs theories on the general attitude of consciousness - I know some people debate Jungs 'stack', but well, my thoughts are in the OP, and I truly believe I'm correct in my deductions.

 

[unmagic]

Most of my post was connecting dots from Psychological Types, which book do you prefer for Jungian functions?

Reddit, Tumblr, and Youtube

 

[Eric B]

Thus, it should be clear that there is no such thing as an ‘introvert’ or ‘extravert’ rather, there is introverted Thinking types, or extraverted Sensation types, so on and so forth - the attitude manifests itself through the function, it does not manifest as an isolated ‘thing’ in itself, so to speak - thus, if the general attitude of the consciousness is in the introverted attitude for instance, then the preferred functions are also in the introverted attitude - take an ISTJ for example - due to a general preference for introversion - they become an:

• Introverted Thinking type; and an
• Introverted Sensation type.

As Extraversion is the unconscious attitude - they have less preferred and less differentiated:

• Intuition in the Extraverted attitude.
• Feeling in the Extraverted attitude.

IIEE/EEII - not IEIE/EIEI.
To support the above, I feel the need to include the following quotes from Jung, as without additional support - this is all that will be targeted, defeating the purpose of the post which is merely to draw attention to 'true' introversion and extraversion from a Jungian perspective, and so:

Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience. Not only that, it determines the kind of compensation the unconscious will produce.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 487). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The above draws attention to the preferred attitude, introversion or extraversion, pertaining to an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process - not just the 'style of behaviour' but also the quality of the subjective experience - in other words, how we communicate with others (see: MBTI P/J) is still in the preferred attitude, and our subjective experience is also in the preferred attitude (see: MBTI P/J again).

Here is a little information on this 'stack':

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

What Jung is saying above - is that the conscious functions form a 'block' in the same pattern as the conscious, likewise with the unconscious functions forming a 'block' in the same pattern as the unconscious - so, this supports the IIEE stack for the ISTJ example above - in fact, as luck would have it - I've used the exact same type in the example - conscious 'block' in the introverted attitude - Thinking and Sensation in the same attitude - and the unconscious 'NF' block in the extraverted attitude - with Feeling at the bottom.

I suggest ISTJ as a 'Thinking' type by the way, due to this 'stack' then, having Thinking preferred more than Sensation, so the rational function is more dominant than the irrational function - ergo, J>P, logically.

..and of course, the coup de grace:
One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect. For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 487). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Underlined emphasis is mine. The picture Jung paints is clear. IIEE for introverted types, EEII for extraverted types.


We can see here a complete failure to understand what exactly introversion and extraversion are, a failure to realize they are both mechanisms that run throughout single functions - the push-pull dynamics of I/E do not relate to those of differing functions but rather the general attitude of consciousness, and Jung lays out loud and clear, that the divide between introversion and extraversion within the same function can be blurry:


Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 318). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

In the above quote, we can see that Jung is demonstrating the difference between idea-related Thinking in the introverted type to pertain to their own objective experience, and Thinking in the extraverted type to pertain to the intellectual atmosphere of the times ie the objective outer world - what is important to take note of here, is that both are Thinking and both are related to ideas - and the line between the two is simply the preferred orientation of those ideas - no such requirement for an auxiliary introverted function to enable the extraverted type to access their own 'world of ideas', then.


In Gifts Differing, Myers states:

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 332-333). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Clearly not Jungs theory - I/E is definitely not independent of the SN and TF preferences, as I've demonstrated, and so the entire MBTI J/P theory comes crumbling to the ground insofar as it’s supposedly a reflection of Jungs theory.
Perhaps it’s valid, in it’s own way - if so, it is absolutely not utilizing Jungs theories in any way, shape or form.

Contrary to this belief Myers and Briggs held, Jung states the following - note, no suggestion of a magic function-switch - that, despite what people tend to think - absolutely was a part of Myers and Briggs understanding:


In the above, we can understand the general attitude of the consciousness is what orients ourselves towards either the external world (extraversion) or the internal world (introversion) - it is this orientation towards the the object - towards the outer world of values, ideas, principles etc, that creates the extraverted attitude - not the idea of being so super focused on and living in the outside world that the extraverted type requires introversion to have any kind of internal thoughts or subjective ideas or values - extraversion is simply an orientation towards the outer world - it is not a lack of an inner world, so severe one requires some 'introverted process' (see: function) completely different to the dominant nature of the type, to even remotely access.

So the introverted attitude is distinguished from the extraverted, due to an orientation towards subjective factors (their own ideas/values/thoughts/perceptions) as opposed to being oriented towards the outer world.
Note - it is not a deficiency in extraversion, to which Jung says:

.."the introverted consciousness is naturally aware of external conditions" - here we see in the most simplest of terms, how Myers has missed the mark with regards to introversion and extraversion - she says, as I quoted earlier "the introverts’ auxiliary gives them a means to adapt to the world of action and to deal with it effectively" - this is obviously incorrect - Jung demonstrates that the introverted consciousness is indeed aware of external conditions, therefore it requires no such assistance of an extraverted function in order to "adapt to the world of action" or "deal with it effectively" - introversion is no more, no less, than an orientation towards ones self - not a lack of awareness of the outer world.

Introversion and extraversion stand on their own two feet and are complete 'temperaments', capable of precisely the same things - the difference merely being as has been outlined all post - an orientation towards the self (introversion) or towards the outer world (extraversion).

The introverted type can do everthing the extraverted type can do, and vica versa - there are no restrictions or limitations placed upon either attitude, outside of them simply not being oriented in the opposite way, 'most' (see: 51%) of the time.

..and so, the P/J divide, forcing alternating function-attitudes on us - is untrue to Jung and is simply a solution to a problem that only exists due to a misunderstanding of introversion and extraversion.


Now, as I understand it - Myers believed this dom-aux relationship altering the orientations of the functions, was due to this section from Jung:

For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Underlined emphasis is mine, however that's the part Myers latched on to:

The operative words are “in every respect.” If the auxiliary process differs from the dominant process in every respect, it cannot be introverted where the dominant process is introverted. It has to be extraverted if the dominant process is introverted, and introverted if the dominant process is extraverted.

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 518-519). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

Myers was under the belief that this meant the auxiliary function was different in each and every way from the dominant function - and it is - where Myers went wrong, is that Jung was not talking about attitudes (introversion and extraversion), he was talking about the four functions. Not I/E.
This was a fatal assumption on her behalf, an error, a mistake, a fail, whatever you want to call it - this is where she was wrong and this is why everyone is wrong now.

Myers brought up I/E out of nowhere, as it doesn't even fit within the context of the section she quoted - further to this, in - quite literally - the very next paragraph, Jung goes on to outline what he meant by the above, as follows:


Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So Jung - immediately after suggesting the auxiliary is in 'every respect' different to the dominant function, outlines what he meant - Thinking can be allied with Sensation for 'practical thinking', or with Intuition for 'speculative thinking' - Intuition can be supported by Feeling (artistic intuition) or Thinking (philosophical intuition) - the idea is clear - he is speaking, purely and entirely, of the functions.
NOT of the introverted or extraverted attitudes - in essence, he means - as so much of that section of the book suggests - that rational functions can only be directly supported by an irrational function (T/F supported by S/N) - and not supported by the other rational one (ie, Thinking with Feeling auxiliary is a no-go) - and, the same concept applies with the irrational functions - now the peculiar thing, is Myers actually quotes this exact same section in Gifts Differing, and still failed to understand it.

To further support her misguided assumption - Myers quotes the following Jung passage:
The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)

Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 521-522). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.

However, using the above to support her point is again, an error of understanding - what Jung intended here (imo) is the effects of what happens when the introversion of Thinking is taken too far - when this occurs, it creates a 'block' whereby the auxiliary function joins the other functions in their unconscious attitude (so the above ISTJs Sensation shifts into becoming an Extraverted Sensation) - and this is when those functions of feeling, intuition and sensation which counterbalance introverted thinking possess a primitive, extraverted character - the take home note here, is the switch from the conscious attitude to the unconscious attitude by the auxiliary function - it's after the switch, that Myers has taken a quote from - so she is not supporting her argument with anything pertaining to the ordinary preferred orientation of the auxiliary function, which is that of the conscious attitude.

Now, the above will obviously draw attention from my fellow readers - right above the section Myers quoted, was this:

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 357). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


I don't believe it's a giant leap, to assume the section Myers quoted as supporting her alternating I-E dom-aux relationship, is actually, in context - to do with what happens when the introversion of Thinking is taken too far - too far removed from extraverted Thinking (in the same person), evidenced in the last line of the above quote - which is to say, given the rest of this post - that Jungs 'ordinary' 'stack', should there be one - would be IIEE for introverts and EEII for extraverts - however when the dominant function-attitude is taken too far - the auxiliary joins the tertiary and the inferior in their attitude, and forms an entire block of the unconscious in that opposing attitude to the dominant function.

..and so, the example ISTJ goes from Ti-Si-Ne-Fe to Ti-Se-Ne-Fe]


To summarize, introversion and extraversion are mechanisms that pertain to the orientation of a function - they are not their own, separate entities - each, and every person possesses both mechanisms and alternates between them - stereotypes need not apply and it is possible to be a dichotomy I/E, yet 'lead' with a function in the opposing attitude (ie, an INTP in dichotomy, yet be an Extraverted Intuitive type from a Jungian perspective).
Myers completely and utterly misunderstood introversion and extraversion in every way, and this manifests itself in there even being an I/E dichotomy in the first place (the attitudes aren't to be separated from the functions), her J/P "how we communicate with the outer world" being a direct failure to understand how I/E actually work from a Jungian perspective, and the 'cognitive function stack', if there is one, should be IIEE or EEII.

Basic Definitions.

• Introversion - a placement of a higher value on ones own perspective, known information and ones own self, than on that of outside influences and outer-world information/objects/things/people/ideas etc - an orientation towards, or more-natural alignment with, ones own self/experience and all things within it.
  
  
• Extraversion - a placement of a higher value on the objective perspective, new information and external things/people/objects/ideas etc, than on that of ones own personal perspective, known information or self - an orientation towards, or more-natural alignment with, the objective outer world and all things within it.

Two of the key statements here:

"Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process"

"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.

You address the "in every respects different" statement, but immediately preceding that is "a relatively UNCONSCIOUS, auxiliary function"

Less you take hold of the "relatively", and try to say it's still partly conscious, and thus included:

The relative or total unconsciousness of such tendencies or functions [previous paragraph: "forms dependent of feeling" and "irrational forms"; i.e perception, thus he's referring to all three non-dominant functions] as are excluded from any participation in the conscious attitude keeps them in a relatively undeveloped state. As compared with the conscious function they are inferior. To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the remaining contents of the unconscious, from which they acquire a bizarre character. To the extent that they are conscious, they only play a secondary rôle, although one of considerable importance for the whole psychological picture.

Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.

"The general attitude of the consciousness" is referring to the dominant function only. That's why the other three functions would default to the unconscious attitude, and then Lenore Thomson and Beebe's theories clarify why the tertiary would revert back to the dominant attitude; explaining Grant's stack.

You then address "The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character.", but then admittedly switch to your own "opinion" or even assumption, posed as a hypothesis, that you "don't believe is a great leap". That's where the "fail" in this is. While you're entitled to your own ideas of what it means, to so emphatically claim Myers "totally misunderstood" Jung (and "everyone now", after her, is wrong) based on that is what's wrong.
To make sure I read you right, in case it's not actually just your own assumption; did he say anywhere that that was referring to the attitude of the dominant being "taken too far"? If not, then your whole argument falls.

More evidence; right next to that quote, Myers continued with another one:
"When the mechanism of extraversion predominates...the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in service of introversion" (1923, p.426)

And "predominates" doesn't mean "taken too far". He's referring to "A normal extraverted attitude", and addressing the fact that it doesn't behave invariably according to an "extraverted" schema.

The larger context of "conscious functions" is:

"Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation but never with feeling....The auxiliary function is usefully only in so far as it serves the dominant function ....the unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition." (Jung, 1971, 406-407)

But like with where you claim Myers erred' the same mistake is made here, in that he's not referring to introversion or extraversion of the functions! The word "attitude" is there, but attitude means more than i/e.

It should be noted, than if the auxiliary is "serving" the dominant, then it is serving the ego's agenda, and if the ego is introverted, then it is serving an "introverted" agenda —despite whatever its own attitude is! This is something I point out sometimes. My auxiliary iNtuition is extraverted, and definitely not introverted, but in serving dominant Ti, it's still serving an ultimately introverted agenda, while still being itself extraverted. What that means is that the ego looks inward to determine what's truth. It then uses the auxiliary to gather inferential data from without. I point out that the stack, and its attitudes are set by associated complexes, but apart from those, the ego can access the products of any of the undifferentiated functions, and of course, either attitude realm.
When Myers speaks of the auxiliary being needed to access the opposite realm, she's probably thinking in terms of a more egoically conscious perspective. Like I can see, hear, touch, etc. without using 7th function Se in a differentiated form. So the ego has access to the outside world through that. Still, the ego's structure of consciousness, whereby it pays more attention to specific data, and where I end up preferring N over S (not that I have no access to S), employs an auxiliary complex to balance the ego perspective, but turning outside for perception (but N rather than S). That's all this theory is saying.

This site: Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman addresses some of this noting:

"The importance of these principles for the third and fourth functions is multilayered. Jung specifically notes that a judging function is paired with a perceiving function and that this similar pairing is repeated in unconsciousness. He notes that the auxiliary serves the dominant and by parallel it would make sense that the third serves the fourth function, as the fourth is the most unconscious of functions and therefore the dominant energy force in the unconscious. Notice the speculative and tentative assertions as suggested by "may be" comments. We can speculate that he either didn't want to say or simply wasn't too interested in this exploration at that time. Nonetheless, he comments that there is a correlative structure in the unconscious self, and how that correlation is interpreted is very much at stake in understanding the third function. As will be suggested later, Jung leaves room for numerous interpretations of these principles, and did so throughout the course of his writings in his career."

This is what I've been saying, and why you can't really create a Jungian "orthodoxy". What you're pitching is simply Gray and Wheelwright's interpretation, and is no better than Grant and Beebe.
The thing the latter have though, is that more people can relate to it. Like I'm not TiNi or TeNe. An INTJ might look something like TiNi at first glance, but their Thinking is clearly "objective"-ly focused. ENTJ's look nothing like having Ne as a preferred function. An ISTJ is Si, but not Ti.

Also should be noted, that with the "basic definitions" of I/E you cited as "a placement of a higher value on..." objective or subjective contents, that then does fit with being a dichotomy. All of this is "holistic"; different ways of looking at the same things. An introverted or extraverted ego orients its dominant function into its dominant attitude. So yes, attitude merges with the functions, but it is a dichotomy along with the functions.

 

[Turi]

Two of the key statements here:

"Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process"

"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.

There is no mistake here.

You address the "in every respects different" statement, but immediately preceding that is "a relatively UNCONSCIOUS, auxiliary function"

Less you take hold of the "relatively", and try to say it's still partly conscious, and thus included:

Eric - we both know exactly what was intended here - yes, of course, we should "take hold of" the word "relatively" - it's important - relative, in comparison to the superior function - thus, the auxiliary is conscious but not *as conscious* as the superior.
Ergo, still in the same general orientation - view it as a stack, descending from most conscious preference to least conscious - assuming conscious attitude is introverted:

Ti - most conscious, most "I".
Ni - relatively unconscious, still mostly conscious - in between I/E, closer to I.
Se - relatively conscious, mostly unconscious - in between I/E, closer to E.
Fe - most unconscious, most "E".

"The general attitude of the consciousness" is referring to the dominant function only. That's why the other three functions would default to the unconscious attitude, and then Lenore Thomson and Beebe's theories clarify why the tertiary would revert back to the dominant attitude; explaining Grant's stack.

Jung isn't referring to I/E when he mentioned "attitude" - he's talking about what we've now deemed as P/J - here's clarification:

But as soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would bring about a change of attitude which would contradict the whole trend of thinking. They would change the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of perception.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 374). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

You then address "The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character.", but then admittedly switch to your own "opinion" or even assumption, posed as a hypothesis, that you "don't believe is a great leap". That's where the "fail" in this is. While you're entitled to your own ideas of what it means, to so emphatically claim Myers "totally misunderstood" Jung (and "everyone now", after her, is wrong) based on that is what's wrong.
To make sure I read you right, in case it's not actually just your own assumption; did he say anywhere that that was referring to the attitude of the dominant being "taken too far"? If not, then your whole argument falls.

I don't know what to say here - you're literally responding to my observations on precisely where he implies such a thing - and I included the quote to support it in that post.

I'll re-quote:

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images. But as their connection with objective experience becomes more and more tenuous, they take on a mythological colouring and no longer hold true for the contemporary situation.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 357). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.


If you've got another way of interpreting this - I'd love to hear it - he's laying down here that when Ti goes too far "I" - hence the connection with the objective experience (E) becoming more and more tenuous - their ideas take on a mythological colouring etc - I don't believe it's a stretch to summarize the above as Jung discussing what happens when "Ti" is taken too far.

If your issue here is with regards to any assumptions on my behalf - why do you not take issue with the Grant stack, which was proposed with almost the exact same reasoning - as a "plausible hypothesis"?
Just curious.

A little more to support the "taken too far" thing:

The egoism which characterizes the extravert’s unconscious attitude goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it verges on the ruthless and the brutal. Here we find in full flower the incest-wish described by Freud. It goes without saying that these things are entirely unconscious and remain hidden from the layman so long as the extraversion of the conscious attitude is not extreme. But whenever it is exaggerated, the unconscious comes to light in symptomatic form; its egoism, infantilism, and archaism lose their original compensatory character and appear in more or less open opposition to the conscious attitude.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 315). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

More evidence; right next to that quote, Myers continued with another one:
"When the mechanism of extraversion predominates...the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in service of introversion" (1923, p.426)

And "predominates" doesn't mean "taken too far". He's referring to "A normal extraverted attitude", and addressing the fact that it doesn't behave invariably according to an "extraverted" schema.

I never claimed "predominates" means "taken too far" - let's actually pull up a larger section, for our fellow readers - to provide some context, transparency and all that - I'm not seeking to push any agenda here:

A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual invariably behaves in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological processes may be observed that involve the mechanism of introversion. We call a mode of behaviour extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In these cases the most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted; in other words, the superior function is the most conscious one and completely under conscious control, whereas the less differentiated functions are in part unconscious and far less under the control of consciousness. The superior function is always an expression of the conscious personality, of its aims, will, and general performance, whereas the less differentiated functions fall into the category of things that simply “happen” to one.

These things need not be mere slips of the tongue or pen and other such oversights, they can equally well be half or three-quarters intended, for the less differentiated functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness. A classic example of this is the extraverted feeling type, who enjoys an excellent feeling rapport with the people around him, yet occasionally “happens” to express opinions of unsurpassable tactlessness. These opinions spring from his inferior and half-conscious thinking, which, being only partly under his control and insufficiently related to the object, can be quite ruthless in its effects.

Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 316). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

So, it's clear here that Jung is indeed referring to Thinking, in the Extraverted Feeling type.
Context required.

The larger context of "conscious functions" is:

"Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. Thus thinking as the primary function can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation but never with feeling....The auxiliary function is usefully only in so far as it serves the dominant function ....the unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking may be an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition." (Jung, 1971, 406-407)

But like with where you claim Myers erred' the same mistake is made here, in that he's not referring to introversion or extraversion of the functions! The word "attitude" is there, but attitude means more than i/e.

If you understand this, I've got no idea how or why you're taking the position that you are.

It should be noted, than if the auxiliary is "serving" the dominant, then it is serving the ego's agenda, and if the ego is introverted, then it is serving an "introverted" agenda —despite whatever its own attitude is! This is something I point out sometimes. My auxiliary iNtuition is extraverted, and definitely not introverted, but in serving dominant Ti, it's still serving an ultimately introverted agenda, while still being itself extraverted. What that means is that the ego looks inward to determine what's truth. It then uses the auxiliary to gather inferential data from without. I point out that the stack, and its attitudes are set by associated complexes, but apart from those, the ego can access the products of any of the undifferentiated functions, and of course, either attitude realm.

..and, this should be noted as your opinion - at least, insofar as any 'extraversion' of the orientation of an auxiliary function is concerned.
It's not true to Jung.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to it - I'm just stating the facts from a Jungian perspective.
I'm all for Ti-Ne and Ti-Ni as legitimate preferences (no "loops" involved).

Thinking that introverted types need an extraversion in the form of their auxiliary function displays the exact problem here that I'm highlighting - introversion and extraversion are there own complete temperaments. Introverts do not require an extraverted function to "gather inferential data" from without.
This understanding is flawed and is an either/or black and white understanding that completely misses the mark.

When Myers speaks of the auxiliary being needed to access the opposite realm, she's probably thinking in terms of a more egoically conscious perspective. Like I can see, hear, touch, etc. without using 7th function Se in a differentiated form. So the ego has access to the outside world through that. Still, the ego's structure of consciousness, whereby it pays more attention to specific data, and where I end up preferring N over S (not that I have no access to S), employs an auxiliary complex to balance the ego perspective, but turning outside for perception (but N rather than S). That's all this theory is saying.

Now we're getting into assumption land - this is absolutely not how Myers laid it down, it's plain to see what she thought - she viewed introverted types as requiring an extraverted function in order to basically exist, she viewed them essentially as mummies.
Likewise, she viewed extraverted types as completely extraverted, with no inner world whatsoever - this is purely and solely accessed by way of a function in the introverted attitude from her perspective.

This demonstrates beyond all doubt, she didn't understand introversion or extraversion at all and this mistake is at the heart of why we are where we are now.

This site: Personality Type - Third Mental Function | Roger Pearman addresses some of this noting:

"The importance of these principles for the third and fourth functions is multilayered. Jung specifically notes that a judging function is paired with a perceiving function and that this similar pairing is repeated in unconsciousness. He notes that the auxiliary serves the dominant and by parallel it would make sense that the third serves the fourth function, as the fourth is the most unconscious of functions and therefore the dominant energy force in the unconscious. Notice the speculative and tentative assertions as suggested by "may be" comments. We can speculate that he either didn't want to say or simply wasn't too interested in this exploration at that time. Nonetheless, he comments that there is a correlative structure in the unconscious self, and how that correlation is interpreted is very much at stake in understanding the third function. As will be suggested later, Jung leaves room for numerous interpretations of these principles, and did so throughout the course of his writings in his career."

It's curious that you bring up Pearman - he notes IP types as being Introverted Sensing and Introverted Intuitive leads in his and Albrittons book I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You - a notion I would of course, agree with - he's accurately placing the "P" preference in introverts as depicting - well, a dominant P preference.
The type "stacks" are also noted as IEEE and EIII, in this book.

It is noted that the auxiliary is in the non-preferred attitude, but I fear the authors haven't realized that Jung wasn't referring to introversion and extraversion when he used the word "attitude" - as noted above - he was referring to rational/irrational (or, todays P/J).

I believe this to be the case, as the following sources are cited to support the claim that the auxiliary is in this orientation:
"Jung, C.G. Psychological Types, pp. 405– 407; Myers, Isabel B., Introduction to Type ®, Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., pp. 8– 23."

My copy of Psychological Types places me halfway through Identity in the Definitions chapter, at page 405 so I can't confirm this (he's obviously got a different copy - I've got the Kindle version) - and, I don't have Myers Introduction to Type book - however, if the same reasoning is used there, as is in Gifts Differing - it's off-base for basically all of the reasons I've outlined in this thread.

This aside - ignoring this mistake - I'd like to note I like Pearman and Albrittons work, at least in that book - there is some excellent and useful information in it.

This is what I've been saying, and why you can't really create a Jungian "orthodoxy". What you're pitching is simply Gray and Wheelwright's interpretation, and is no better than Grant and Beebe.
The thing the latter have though, is that more people can relate to it. Like I'm not TiNi or TeNe. An INTJ might look something like TiNi at first glance, but their Thinking is clearly "objective"-ly focused. ENTJ's look nothing like having Ne as a preferred function. An ISTJ is Si, but not Ti.

I'm not attempting to create a Jungian "orthodoxy", I'm attempting to bring some kind of truth to the matter in the form of what Jung actually said.
That's literally it, and so far as this is concerned, I don't think it matters whether more people can relate to it or not - there's no scientific credibility supporting any interpretation of function-attitude orders - and no, the dichotomy does not "indirectly" support this, as you attempted to suggest earlier by way of INP and "Ti".

Some people do prefer TiNi, and TeNe etc etc - these are true, real preferences for some people.
There's more than one "ENTJ" so absurdly broad generalizations like that, I'll dismiss.

 

[Eric B]

There is no mistake here.

Eric - we both know exactly what was intended here - yes, of course, we should "take hold of" the word "relatively" - it's important - relative, in comparison to the superior function - thus, the auxiliary is conscious but not *as conscious* as the superior.
Ergo, still in the same general orientation - view it as a stack, descending from most conscious preference to least conscious - assuming conscious attitude is introverted:

Ti - most conscious, most "I".
Ni - relatively unconscious, still mostly conscious - in between I/E, closer to I.
Se - relatively conscious, mostly unconscious - in between I/E, closer to E.
Fe - most unconscious, most "E".

Jung isn't referring to I/E when he mentioned "attitude" - he's talking about what we've now deemed as P/J - here's clarification:

A little more to support the "taken too far" thing:

I never claimed "predominates" means "taken too far" - let's actually pull up a larger section, for our fellow readers - to provide some context, transparency and all that - I'm not seeking to push any agenda here:

So, it's clear here that Jung is indeed referring to Thinking, in the Extraverted Feeling type.
Context required.

If you understand this, I've got no idea how or why you're taking the position that you are.

..and, this should be noted as your opinion - at least, insofar as any 'extraversion' of the orientation of an auxiliary function is concerned.
It's not true to Jung.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to it - I'm just stating the facts from a Jungian perspective.
I'm all for Ti-Ne and Ti-Ni as legitimate preferences (no "loops" involved).

Thinking that introverted types need an extraversion in the form of their auxiliary function displays the exact problem here that I'm highlighting - introversion and extraversion are there own complete temperaments. Introverts do not require an extraverted function to "gather inferential data" from without.
This understanding is flawed and is an either/or black and white understanding that completely misses the mark.

My whole point with all of that was to establish that the dominant function was what he was seeing as "conscious", because you seemed to be indicating he was treating the auxiliary as if it were [fully] conscious; hence the "blocks" of attitude preference. The auxiliary may the next most conscious, but it's still not [at least necessarily] what he's referring to when addressing the dominant attitude.

I don't know what to say here - you're literally responding to my observations on precisely where he implies such a thing - and I included the quote to support it in that post.

I'll re-quote:

If you've got another way of interpreting this - I'd love to hear it - he's laying down here that when Ti goes too far "I" - hence the connection with the objective experience (E) becoming more and more tenuous - their ideas take on a mythological colouring etc - I don't believe it's a stretch to summarize the above as Jung discussing what happens when "Ti" is taken too far.

If your issue here is with regards to any assumptions on my behalf - why do you not take issue with the Grant stack, which was proposed with almost the exact same reasoning - as a "plausible hypothesis"?
Just curious.

Now we're getting into assumption land - this is absolutely not how Myers laid it down, it's plain to see what she thought - she viewed introverted types as requiring an extraverted function in order to basically exist, she viewed them essentially as mummies.
Likewise, she viewed extraverted types as completely extraverted, with no inner world whatsoever - this is purely and solely accessed by way of a function in the introverted attitude from her perspective.

This demonstrates beyond all doubt, she didn't understand introversion or extraversion at all and this mistake is at the heart of why we are where we are now.

What we have there is "With the intensification of his type..." and mentioning stuff like "becom[ing] all the more rigid and unbending". I'm not too sure if it is "taken too far" in some sense that screws up the stack (like the so-called "loops", where you're operating off of the dominant and tertiary, and thus stuck in the same attitude. Which you seem to be insisting is a possible normal preference). He gives the ideal of what Ti is like in its most positive form, and then says if it's disconnected from objective experience, it becomes "mythological and untrue for the present situation". It's obviously an imbalanced perspective, but then all of us have suffered stuff like that at times, when in the grip of the ego. Function preference itself he has been quotes as calling a "wound on the psyche". It's all a splitting of reality.
The thing is, what it doesn't say is that "the auxiliary" then takes on a primitive extraverted characteristic; it says all three. So again, since your argument is that "the whole psyche" takes on the dominant attitude, then the normal "healthy" stack would again be IIII, (and it only turns into IEEE when unhealthy. We still do not see a fixed "normal" IIEE specified there).

You would think it would be the other way around, and that the more disconnected from objective experience the ego becomes, the more of the stack would become introverted. But the key there is "primitive", which is referring to the nature of what's unconscious. The more you focus on the dominant perspective, the more everything else gets plunged into unconsciousness.
The basis of auxiliary-as-opposite-function is that the dominant is most conscious, and thus most differentiated. The auxiliary is "relatively" conscious/unconscious, but this doesn't tell us which attitude it takes, or even when. So then Myers hypothesized that its opposite attitude was "needed" for balance. I believe a complete model will point out that complexes are what set all the attitudes, and that the one associated with the auxiliary is about restoring balance, and thus will turn to the opposite attitude. If it was up to the ego itself, it would be IIII or EEEE, but the complexes are lesser senses of "I" under the ego, that have their own missions.
So when the the introverted ego develops some connection to objective experience, it doesn't begin introverting its auxiliary too, for that's becoming more one sided (it's not about "having any access to" the opposite orientation; it's about having, but ignoring it). It instead begins to integrate more of the objective world through the auxiliary, and integration of what's unconscious is the whole goal of Jung's theory..

 

[Turi]

My whole point with all of that was to establish that the dominant function was what he was seeing as "conscious", because you seemed to be indicating he was treating the auxiliary as if it were [fully] conscious; hence the "blocks" of attitude preference. The auxiliary may the next most conscious, but it's still not [at least necessarily] what he's referring to when addressing the dominant attitude.

I've got no idea how you got to me treating the aux as fully conscious.

What we have there is "With the intensification of his type..." and mentioning stuff like "becom[ing] all the more rigid and unbending". I'm not too sure if it is "taken too far" in some sense that screws up the stack (like the so-called "loops", where you're operating off of the dominant and tertiary, and thus stuck in the same attitude. Which you seem to be insisting is a possible normal preference). He gives the ideal of what Ti is like in its most positive form, and then says if it's disconnected from objective experience, it becomes "mythological and untrue for the present situation". It's obviously an imbalanced perspective, but then all of us have suffered stuff like that at times, when in the grip of the ego. Function preference itself he has been quotes as calling a "wound on the psyche". It's all a splitting of reality.

No matter how we try and spin it, he's clearly outlining what happens when "Ti" goes too "I".
Since you mentioned "loops" I want to go on record for the billionth time for our fellow readers and state they are not real at all, not one bit, and some guy made them up on PerC. They're completely fabricated.

People can genuinely prefer functions in the same attitude.

The thing is, what it doesn't say is that "the auxiliary" then takes on a primitive extraverted characteristic; it says all three. So again, since your argument is that "the whole psyche" takes on the dominant attitude, then the normal "healthy" stack would again be IIII, (and it only turns into IEEE when unhealthy. We still do not see a fixed "normal" IIEE specified there).

I never stated anything of the sort concerning "whole psyche" - are we in this discussion together?

You would think it would be the other way around, and that the more disconnected from objective experience the ego becomes, the more of the stack would become introverted. But the key there is "primitive", which is referring to the nature of what's unconscious. The more you focus on the dominant perspective, the more everything else gets plunged into unconsciousness.
The basis of auxiliary-as-opposite-function is that the dominant is most conscious, and thus most differentiated. The auxiliary is "relatively" conscious/unconscious, but this doesn't tell us which attitude it takes, or even when. So then Myers hypothesized that its opposite attitude was "needed" for balance.

Myers erred in her decision on account of not understanding introversion and extraversion as their own complete temperaments, see: first post in the topic.
I'd like to note here, that Jungs theories on I/E are actually being proven scientifically, and these type-dynamics are, well, not (are you aware of a single study that supports the type-dynamics in the form of these "function stacks"?)

 

[Eric B]

I've got no idea how you got to me treating the aux as fully conscious.

I never stated anything of the sort concerning "whole psyche" - are we in this discussion together?

The whole argument you're using, from the quotes of him you gave, that the auxiliary must be the "preferred" attitude. You didn't say it was fully conscious, but you're insisting on a "block" of "attitude of consciousness" where the dominant and auxiliary must share the same attitude. This is what you haven't proven.

No matter how we try and spin it, he's clearly outlining what happens when "Ti" goes too "I".

Regardless, it doesn't say that this effect is the only thing that makes the auxiliary the opposite attitude, and that otherwise, it defaults to the dominant attitude.

Since you mentioned "loops" I want to go on record for the billionth time for our fellow readers and state they are not real at all, not one bit, and some guy made them up on PerC. They're completely fabricated.

People can genuinely prefer functions in the same attitude.

Someone on PerC may have come up with the term, but they didn't make up the notion that the tertiary often "inflates" itself when the auxiliary is too weak or being ignored, creating attitudinal imbalance. So how do you know that what you describe is a natural preference, and not, either a jump to the tertiary, or perhaps mistaking what functions they really prefer? It can be pretty easy to confuse one attitude for the other, especially iNtuition!

If you insist on this hard preference for the same attitude, then it sounds like you're the one that has bound the attitudes into the functions (instead of seeing the attitudes separately as you're insisting), like I always say regarding common assumptions, like there's eight solid "gears", and you're insisting a person prefers to push a certain two at the same time, that others say can't be. But I keep pointing out, it's about complexes setting the function and attitude preferences. Since you allow the tertiary is the opposite attitude, then what makes that tertiary, and the other one the auxiliary? (In the debates, people used to point out that Jung suggested "two auxiliaries", implying that the two can get confused for each other).

Myers erred in her decision on account of not understanding introversion and extraversion as their own complete temperaments, see: first post in the topic.
I'd like to note here, that Jungs theories on I/E are actually being proven scientifically, and these type-dynamics are, well, not (are you aware of a single study that supports the type-dynamics in the form of these "function stacks"?)

Again, your argument would then suggest IIII or EEEE. There's no need for the tertiary and inferior to be the opposite attitude, then.
I also wonder why you keep using the specific term "temperaments". When we speak of "temperaments", we usually think of at least two factors (as in classic temperament or Keirsey), or perhaps more, as in the modern "child temperament" theories. I/E is a single factor, not a whole temperament matrix. If you simply mean "disposition" (which is what "temperament" means), then OK, but it is still one factor.

Nardi's work is aiming to find neurological evidence of the functions, so that's a start. But then your alternate Gray-Wheelwright stack isn't proven either.

 

[Turi]

The whole argument you're using, from the quotes of him you gave, that the auxiliary must be the "preferred" attitude. You didn't say it was fully conscious, but you're insisting on a "block" of "attitude of consciousness" where the dominant and auxiliary must share the same attitude. This is what you haven't proven.

Regardless, it doesn't say that this effect is the only thing that makes the auxiliary the opposite attitude, and that otherwise, it defaults to the dominant attitude.

I've supported my argument with as much from Jung as I can be bothered with at this point - and it's a stronger argument than anything against it, if we're relying exclusively on Jungs words.
If you've got a better position, that isn't fraught with misinterpretations and out-of-context quotes, I'm all ears.

Someone on PerC may have come up with the term, but they didn't make up the notion that the tertiary often "inflates" itself when the auxiliary is too weak or being ignored, creating attitudinal imbalance. So how do you know that what you describe is a natural preference, and not, either a jump to the tertiary, or perhaps mistaking what functions they really prefer? It can be pretty easy to confuse one attitude for the other, especially iNtuition!

Jung doesn't refer to a 'tertiary' function full-stop.
Jung outlines what we refer to as a 'tertiary', as essentially an auxiliary to the inferior function - which means, given other sections of his theory that I'm not going to re-quote, we can assume the same relationship applies between 'tert' and inferior, as aux does to dom.
Which means, if one is introverted - then, II conscious, EE unconscious.
Ergo, IIEE.

I disagree that it's easy to confuse attitudes, it's only confusing for people that don't understand introversion and extraversion - for help with that, see the first post of this thread.

If you insist on this hard preference for the same attitude, then it sounds like you're the one that has bound the attitudes into the functions (instead of seeing the attitudes separately as you're insisting), like I always say regarding common assumptions, like there's eight solid "gears", and you're insisting a person prefers to push a certain two at the same time, that others say can't be. But I keep pointing out, it's about complexes setting the function and attitude preferences. Since you allow the tertiary is the opposite attitude, then what makes that tertiary, and the other one the auxiliary? (In the debates, people used to point out that Jung suggested "two auxiliaries", implying that the two can get confused for each other).

I've repeatedly stated I'm not tied to this IIEE/EEII idea, nor the IEEE/EIII one, nor the IEIE/EIEI one - I think forcing any of them as the "only" one, is limiting and restrictive.
This doesn't alter the fact that according to Jungs theories, it's IIEE/EEII. That's Jungian. Doesn't mean it's true, just means it's Jungian.

I don't see a need to respond to the rest because it's targeted at some hard-stance I didn't take (and have noted as not taking, multiple times).

Again, your argument would then suggest IIII or EEEE. There's no need for the tertiary and inferior to be the opposite attitude, then.
I also wonder why you keep using the specific term "temperaments". When we speak of "temperaments", we usually think of at least two factors (as in classic temperament or Keirsey), or perhaps more, as in the modern "child temperament" theories. I/E is a single factor, not a whole temperament matrix. If you simply mean "disposition" (which is what "temperament" means), then OK, but it is still one factor.

I intend 'temperament' as ones basic predisposition towards introversion or extraversion, as determined at birth - this is the position that's supported by most research I can find.

Nardi's work is aiming to find neurological evidence of the functions, so that's a start. But then your alternate Gray-Wheelwright stack isn't proven either.

Nardi literally stated his work re: Neuroscience of Personality was a "pilot study" and "proved nothing", right here on the forum - so, that's that.

 

[Eric B]

I've supported my argument with as much from Jung as I can be bothered with at this point - and it's a stronger argument than anything against it, if we're relying exclusively on Jungs words.
If you've got a better position, that isn't fraught with misinterpretations and out-of-context quotes, I'm all ears.

Jung doesn't refer to a 'tertiary' function full-stop.
Jung outlines what we refer to as a 'tertiary', as essentially an auxiliary to the inferior function - which means, given other sections of his theory that I'm not going to re-quote, we can assume the same relationship applies between 'tert' and inferior, as aux does to dom.
Which means, if one is introverted - then, II conscious, EE unconscious.
Ergo, IIEE.

I disagree that it's easy to confuse attitudes, it's only confusing for people that don't understand introversion and extraversion - for help with that, see the first post of this thread.

I've repeatedly stated I'm not tied to this IIEE/EEII idea, nor the IEEE/EIII one, nor the IEIE/EIEI one - I think forcing any of them as the "only" one, is limiting and restrictive.
This doesn't alter the fact that according to Jungs theories, it's IIEE/EEII. That's Jungian. Doesn't mean it's true, just means it's Jungian.

You're still admittedly making an assumption. Which means the Gray-Wheelwright stack is no more definitely "Jungian" than anything else. It's just as much a possible misinterpretation.

 

[Turi]

You're still admittedly making an assumption. Which means the Gray-Wheelwright stack is no more definitely "Jungian" than anything else. It's just as much a possible misinterpretation.

My mistake on the phrasing - it's less an assumption than it is a logical deduction derived from sources I've provided in this very thread, as well as those I haven't.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop mentioning Gray-Wheelwright - you're attempting to shift the focus off of my point - it's more of an appeal to our fellow readers than it is to do with addressing my position, which is that the IIEE/EEII idea is true to Jung - I'm not using any source outside of Jung to support myself here.

 

[Eric B]

It's still a "deduction" based on Jung, rather than any direct statement from Jung, and so, isn't really any more "Jungian" than the Grant stack. Let's face it; Jung wasn't totally clear on things. So everyone has had to try to 'deduct" something from him. If you really want to be purely "true" to him, then you'll use a three letter type code, consisting of dominant attitude, dominant function, and "with" auxiliary function without attitude: "IT-N", "IN-T" etc.

 

[Turi]

It's still a "deduction" based on Jung, rather than any direct statement from Jung, and so, isn't really any more "Jungian" than the Grant stack. Let's face it; Jung wasn't totally clear on things. So everyone has had to try to 'deduct" something from him. If you really want to be purely "true" to him, then you'll use a three letter type code, consisting of dominant attitude, dominant function, and "with" auxiliary function without attitude: "IT-N", "IN-T" etc.

Yes, it's more Jungian than the Grant stack (which is not Jungian) - as evidenced in the first post I keep referring you to.
I'm not entirely sure why people keep saying Jung wasn't clear on things - I find him easy to follow - to each their own, though.

If people want to use a three letter type code, they can feel free to - I've noted numerous times now that I'm not married to forcing any one particular "stack" onto people.
I'm simply noting how it's intended from a Jungian perspective.

I'm not a supporter of a strictly Jungian IIEE/EEII approach, nor do I support a strict IExE/EIxI approach - I believe both are legitimate as true preferences, despite the theory.

 

[Eric B]

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?