• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jung Si explained, theory about the Jung Si type


New forum night mode looks cool!
Mar 26, 2017
Ok, this title got many stuff because this article is gonna be big! And there are a lot of things here...

I just recently had “figured” Jung typology, so I had decided to re-read some of the types. And after I had done reading almost all psychological type book – almost because I skip a few paragraphs because I got bored about Jung analyzing myth, history, art, etc... I had re-read Ne and I might write about that too, but this first!

So, I think that I should tell what my theory is. Well, it is more of a hypothesis, to be honest, but I rather call it theory! My theory about the Si type is that mother Nature had killed all highly differentiated Si types – reasons are the long explanation. Ok, I had actually read about stuff on the internet that are serious and have figured that this whole type is possibly a disorder (PS: I am speaking of Jung Si, not the Si=SJ that is spread out there, so Im not talking about the traditionalist ISTJ/ISFJ, but proper Jung Si). You know, that coming for a clear NP and probably Ne-dom might be subjective and biased on a bad way, however this does not affects the Ne type positively. Just a wild example, let’s say that we categorize people by their ingest of water, let me say it, my water type. There are three types of people on the water type: a) The ones that hates water and does intake very little water, b) the ones who ingest huge amount of water – something like 3-5 liters a day, c) and the third type which takes a moderate amount of water. Well, all people from the type a, the one which does not intake much water, are all dead on this typology. They had died of thirst. However, their death does bring zero advantages for those who have a high intake. And those with a high intake can still die by exaggerating on the water, but it will take them a lot to do so. So, this is an example where one type is dead but the opposite of it does not gather any sort of advantage. For Si and Ne in this theory of mine works in the same way, the opposite of what kills Si does not give much advantage to Ne.

But first things first. There are some aspects where the reader needs to be reminded about Jung E/I and N/S and its differences from MBTI – and I am not judging if Jung is “wrong or right” here and I invite you to do the same while reading Jung Si and Ne descriptions. Jung E/I is has N/S characteristics from MBTI, specially these:
- Abstract VS Concrete: On MBTI, concrete relates to sensing while abstract relates to intuition. In Jung, concrete relates to Extroversion and abstract relates to Introversion.
- Experiential VS Theoretical: In MBTI, Experiential is Sensing related, while Theoretical is Intuition related. In Jung, Experiential is related to Extroversion, while Theoretical does not really have a clear inclination to Thinking or Introversion and might be both (so the Ti type would be the Theoretical type).
- Internal vs External: This is a good reminder that in MBTI, Internal vs External seems to be assigned to N/S if refer to things, and to I/E if refers to people, so External orientation towards things is Sensing and External orientation towards people is Extroversion. In Jung, Internal vs External, either things or people or anything in general, still belongs to E/I.
- Subjective vs Objective: I don’t know if there is any correspondence on MBTI, but on Jung subjective is from Introversion and Objective is from Extraversion.
- Imagination vs Realistic: That is N/S on both.
- Practical vs Conceptual: Sensing vs Intuition on both.
- Traditional vs Original: Actually, the opposite of original is not necessarily traditional and the opposite of traditional is not necessarily original. Traditional description is very friendly to the undifferentiated type on Jung typology, rather than associated with Sensing.

So, Ne type is Experiential, Concrete, Imaginative, Intuitive, Conceptual, External, Objective. While Si type is Abstract, Realistic, Sensation, Practical, Internal, Subjective. While the EN type on MBTI is Abstract, Theoretical, External to people and Internal to things, Imaginative, Conceptual, Original, while the IS type is Concrete, Experiential, Internal on people & External on things, Realistic, Practical, Traditional. So, yeah, IS and Si goes quite differently and Im not actually telling all the differences, but the core important for now. Because you need to understand that Jung Si is abstract rather than concrete and internal in general. So, let’s read the Si text with me assisting the read almost every paragraph. The start describes Sensing crossed with Introversion (Sensation with the introverted attitude), with the type description coming later:

Sensation, which by its very nature is dependent on the object and on objective stimuli, undergoes considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for besides the sensed object there is a sensing subject who adds his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is based predominantly on the subjective component of perception. What I mean by this is best illustrated by works of art which reproduce external objects. If, for instance, several painters were to paint the same landscape, each trying to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will be different from the others, not merely because of differences in ability, but chiefly because of different ways of seeing; indeed, in some of the paintings there will be a distinct psychic difference in mood and the treatment of colour and form. These qualities betray the influence of the subjective factor. The subjective factor in sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions we have discussed. It is an unconscious disposition which alters the senseperception at its source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject and only secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. Its predominance sometimes amounts to a complete suppression of the object’s influence, and yet the sensation remains sensation even though it has become a perception of the subjective factor and the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulus. Introverted sensation is oriented accordingly. True senseperception certainly exists, but it always looks as though the object did not penetrate into the subject in its own right, but as though the subject were seeing it quite differently, or saw quite other things than other people see. Actually, he perceives the same things as everybody else, only he does not stop at the purely objective influence, but concerns himself with the subjective perception excited by the objective stimulus.

First thing about Jung Si is that it is sometimes at first read associated with art, however Jung never associated art with Si – rather, Jung uses art and painting to explain the Si type. When different painters look at the same scenario, they draw the scenario in slightly different ways. The same scenario looks different in every painting – because every painting has a subjective bias. The art itself is still sensation, the paintings still represent the scenario or landscape in a sensing fashion, however it is no longer “truly sensing” but rather a distorted view of the scenario – distorted by subjectivity. It is still sensing anyway.

Subjective perception is markedly different from the objective. What is perceived is either not found at all in the object, or is, at most, merely suggested by it. That is, although the perception can be similar to that of other men, it is not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness—it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression because elements of a higher psychic order are discernible in it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It has to do with presuppositions or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primordial possibilities of ideas. Subjective perception is characterized by the meaning that clings to it. It means more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to one for whom the subjective factor means anything at all. To another, the reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of not being sufficiently like the object and therefore to have failed in its purpose.

Jung explains that subjective perception has elements of perception that is not found at all in the object – object here means actual reality. The subjectiveness on Jung has introverted elements, and on Jung the introverted type has dispositions and presuppositions of being highly influenced with the collective unconscious (well, that is a too long concept to explain it here), and that brings “images” that comes within from the unconscious, and these images brings primordial ideas and mythological images. Ok, but what? Well, to explain the collective unconscious on a quick and non-mystical way, it is as if the genes are able to bring images and myths on the unconscious and print them on the painting – you can understand the genes as one of the causes of differences between the picture and reality, so the person subjectiveness comes from patterns from the genes – or images from the collective unconscious. These images and myths are full of meaning.

Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.

The decisive thing for the Si-dom is not the reality of the object, but rather the reality from the images of the collective unconscious, or, as I like to compare with, the images of the genes. Notice that this genes and collective unconscious are a subjective interpretation of mine, but an interpretation that is created to draw a parallel between science and the collective unconscious rather than explaining it on the mythical and spiritual way, because it gets easier to understand this way – I know the spiritual explanation of it but explaining by Genes is easier. So, the Si-dom decisive thing is not the reality of the world, but rather the internal reality – which contains images and the psycho internal world. Or mirror psycho internal world. It is mirror because the Genes are shaped by the reality on the million-year-old evolutionary process of natural selection. It is as if the genes contains some sapient old knowledge – a knowledge that mirrors reality because they were shaped by it. So, the million-year-old consciousness contains patterns and images that had helped human beings to survive and thrive on nature, but this pattern and images from the Genes are still internal, yet they are very old pattern, so it is as if they contain a very old sapient knowledge, that is bring to life by the unconscious. So as Jung did a figure of speech, I made it either, but instead of using genetics as a figure. These pattern are all dependent on events that happened before the person was born – by thousands of years before (the process that shaped the genes: Natural selection). This is the age-old subjective experience printed on the unconscious and it is linked to a distant past. I didn’t really grasp where the future part comes in here. So, now comes to the type description:

The Introverted Sensation Type

The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus.
Obviously therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary.
What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert’s characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external
situation might lead one to expect.

Jung irrational means being lead to an N/S function. Whereas Se doms are external, they are guided by by the intensity of objective influences – in clearer words, Se doms are guided by the intensity of the environment influences, whereas introverted sensation is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus – guided by the intensity of the internal psyche and internal images excited by the environment stimulus. And here is the most bold part for my point after this explanation: “Obviously therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary”. Basically, for the Si type there is no proportional relation between the objective – which is a Jungian word for environment and indirectly for what is real in an external sense and outside the person, being what is real depending on the context of being scenarios, other people, etc... - and sensation, which is sensing per se, but the relationship of sensation and the object – or sensing and the real environment – is quite unpredictable and arbitrary. That is actually repeated a few lines later in other words.. “Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object”. What will make an impression, or what is going to be sensed by the Si type, that is subjective, and what will not can never be seem in advance, and from the outside, because the subjectiveness of the Si type adds properties to the object that are from the internal reality of the Si type internal psyche and internal images, which is not something that can be seem by an external observer. Then Jung explains that the if there were a way of this subjectiveness to be expressed fully, the irrationality of this type would be clear, and then, as an example, he mentions art again, but since the artist is an exception, this type can never fully express her/himself. Then, Jung explains that this type might even question why some parts of reality exists at all, since all the essential – which for this type is the internal reality of the psyche and images – still goes on happening without reality.

Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception.
Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in nearpsychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject—because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image—even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type. But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula—all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.

Jung explains that the effect of the object, or the external reality, do not penetrate the subject – the internal person’s reality – at all, because the subject content that comes from the unconscious intercepts the effect of the object – the effect of the external reality. With a stronger unconscious for this case, the subjective component of sensation (the internal psyche and internal images) becomes so alive that it almost obscures the influence of the object – the influence of the environment external reality. Yeah, this start to sound a little crazy, but if you re-read carefully it is as I’m saying, and this is one of the reasons this part of Jung is so difficult to grasp and understand. In more pathological cases, the person cannot distinguish what is real and what are images that comes from their head (“which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception”). Even when the unconscious image and model (which is sort of the internal images and model) and reality completely matches, the person will still follow the unconscious model rather than reality. And then, Jung describes when the influence of the object – external environment – does only partially penetrates the subject, it is always adjusted conform the internal images – what is taken as too low is raised, what is too high is get down, and etc..and anything out of the ordinary (out of what is expected by the internal images) reduced to the “right formula”, which here is the unconscious images, in order to keep the influence from external reality within the necessary bounds (necessary is dictated by the “right formula”). Then Jung seems to jump to a situation out of nowhere, but actually, this re-adjustment of reality of this type makes this type surprisingly more “tolerant” of aggressiveness of others, since their aggressiveness is apprehended as softer than actually it is, and such men allow themselves to be abused – actually, there is one interesting thing to note here. Despite this being the type description, Jung still explained Sensation with introverted orientation until this far to finally even mention someone from that type directly. This is quite different from any other types, which Jung starts mentioning persons – even using he or she pronouns every time or stating right away if the type has more females than males or vice versa. But here was different: Jung kept explaining the “mechanism”, Sensation with the introverted attitude, and only on the middle of the explanation went to the type, just to go back at the explanation. This really gives me an impression that Jung did not had much experiences with people from this type – as if this type is barely real for Jung.

If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.

Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If he has any aptitude for objective reason, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is ready to grant his sensations reality value, the objective world will appear a mere makebelieve and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule he resigns himself to his isolation and the banality of the world, which he has unconsciously made archaic.

Well, the first paragraph just tells you that this type cannot be understood by the others and perhaps not by himself, partially because the thinking and feeling functions, being less differentiated, are more primitive, more archaic (the interesting thing is that the same can be said for other 7 types non-clear auxiliary functions even though their “archaicness” was not mentioned with this emphasis). In the second part, since the internal images are related to myths and this type sensation is on the internal image, this type lives on a mythological world. This type is isolated and the banality of the world – and world here means the world on a subjective lens – and the world was made unconsciously archaic by this type. Archaic here actually means old, remember on the beginning where there was the “million-year” unconscious thing? Well, the internal images are very old and so they are “archaic”.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a “good nose” for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. The real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality that contrasts glaringly with the well-meaning innocuousness of the conscious attitude. So long as the individual does not hold too aloof from the object, his unconscious intuition has a salutary compensating effect on the rather fantastic and overcredulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic, the archaic intuitions come to the surface and exert their pernicious influence, forcing themselves on the individual and producing compulsive ideas of the most perverse kind. The result is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion.

This last part is about the unconscious of this type – this is not a part where I feel much safety on Jung’s theory but this is, apparently, what we usually know as “inferior Ne” description. Basically, the inferior (or archaicisized) Ne has a flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid and dangerous possibility in the background – which sort of might create of what we understand as paranoia? Perhaps? Well... This is it, anyway. The Si type description.

Now, it really did come to me that this type can barely survive. What I mean here is, basically, the Si type replaces the object with the subject, or, this type replaces the external environment reality with the internal psyche reality, and in general terms that is very alike hallucination – it is really hallucination if we stop to think of (ok, being rigorously, it is actually illusion rather than hallucination). This type is alienated from the external reality, that is switched for the internal reality. What happens here is that Sensation no longer reads the external environment, but instead the actual sensing that comes from the environment is being replaced by the internal psyche with internal signs that doesn’t exist on the reality, and, you know, for the this to form a type, it must be habitual, not episodic. This replacement of sensing signals from reality, we can sort of say the brain signals related to sensation such as vision, taste, smell, etc..., with signals that comes from the within psyche, is very likely an alternative description of hallucination. But the thing here becomes quite dangerous when the person is basically not even aware of what is real or what is not (“which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception”), because, you know, you can’t really proper survive if you can’t tell what is real or what is not – so, as a random example, a tiger arriving close to you (supposing you are now a pronounced Si type) on a dangerous forest might be perceived as a cutie cat probably until the last seconds of your life. This does not happens with Ne, since Ne is empirical (its Ne in Jung, not ENXX) and intuition does give motivations to go beyond the object, but intuition does not replace the whole perception of reality, it keeps it. Ni, for other instance, is less affected. Despite Ni being very internal centred – the most internal centred of the 8 types along with this one – there is not a replacement of Sensing with the internal reality, so at least the Ni type is way more likely to distinguish what is real and what is not, even though what is real might be quite suppressed and ignored.

This strong effect of this type not being able to distinguish reality from the internal psyche makes high differentiation unsustainable (and this affects the Ni cousin a bit), so the Si type from Jung on a highly differentiated form would not make it through reality – at least this is what I argue. I had read the wikipedia articles of delusion (Delusion - Wikipedia), illusion (Illusion - Wikipedia), hallucination(Hallucination - Wikipedia) and psychosis (Psychosis - Wikipedia), and there are many elements of this type on these pages. “Psychosis is an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not real. Symptoms may include delusions and hallucinations. Other symptoms may include incoherent speech and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. There may also be sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulties carrying out daily activities. Psychosis can have serious outcomes.” (Wikipedia,2021). This describes this type very well: The incoherent speech is actually explained by Jung and the inappropriate behavior either, the social withdrawal that is expected from the introversion.

A delusion is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception.” (wikipedia on delusion) - This also hits this type as a pathology, since the dogma is more related to Extraverted Thinking, whereas this case is not related to people being lied to or believing in lies. Ruling these exceptions out, the delusion here is a fixed belief not amenable to change in the light of conflicting evidence because, for the person, the evidence is always replaced with the internal content that does not belong to reality.

“An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which can reveal how the human brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. Although illusions distort our perception of reality, they are generally shared by most people.
Some illusions are based on general assumptions the brain makes during perception. These assumptions are made using organizational principles (e.g., Gestalt theory), an individual's capacity for depth perception and motion perception, and perceptual constancy. Other illusions occur because of biological sensory structures within the human body or conditions outside the body within one's physical environment.
The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water (or another auditory source) would be an illusion.” (Wikipedia on illusion) - Si is about sensory distortion! However, there are two things... The sensory distortion not only can bring illusion but can also bring hallucination, pretty much both:

“A mild form of hallucination is known as a disturbance, and can occur in most of the senses above. These may be things like seeing movement in peripheral vision, or hearing faint noises or voices. Auditory hallucinations are very common in schizophrenia. They may be benevolent (telling the subject good things about themselves) or malicious, cursing the subject, etc. Auditory hallucinations of the malicious type are frequently heard for example people talking about the subject behind their back.” (Wikipedia on hallucination)
Remember this: “Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons.”. Its strikingly similar.

Another interesting thing is to note that all types can use Sensing on an introverted orientation except the Ne-doms in theory. This partially where the human “subjectiveness” applies, and on Jung the only exception is actually Se-dom and Ne-dom (even though I would say that Ne-dom is not that much immune). So, a Si general example is Vierordt's law (Vierordt's law): - Wikipedia “Vierordt's law is "a robust phenomenon in time estimation research that has been observed with different time estimation methods". It states that, retrospectively, "short" intervals of time tend to be overestimated, and "long" intervals of time tend to be underestimated” – this links to this - “The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered”.

There are also other distortions related to this type on other typologies. What I mean is, if we read the hybrid of MBTI and cognitive functions (which is what most people from former data types themselves and still do) and the enneagram connections, we see that, while Ne and Se are mostly accommodated by Type 7, Te mostly accommodated on Type 3 and 8, Fe very accommodated on Type 2, Fi mostly accommodated on Type 4 and a little bit on 9, Ti being quite accommodated on Type 5, Ni is more spread and partially accommodated on Type 4, while Si is accommodated on Type 6 and partially on Type 9 (and there are some traces of Si type on both, even though Type 9 is “very stable”), that is basically the most undifferentiated type of all the enneagram types. Also, on MBTI, Si was very changed, and the Si you read out there that is mostly SJ rather than Jung Si, does posses traits from Thinking, specially Extraverted Thinking (relations with rules, procedures, etc...) and also traits from the undifferentiated type (traditional, loyal and quite low creativity – these characteristics are from the undifferentiated type). I think a part of this is because on the data most Si users taken into account were all less differentiated, and that cause the Si type on MBTI to be transformed and to absorb and abduct traits from the undifferentiated type on MBTI – since for MBTI everyone need to have a type – and to take Thinking and Feeling, specially the former, traits, since with less differentiation of the primary the auxiliary function (for a pure Si type or any of the other 7 types the auxiliary and tertiary are undifferentiated, mix, so it is as if there are two auxiliary function with four possible attitudes) plays a significant larger role. I think Te was more captured because of two things: First, because the less differentiation also has to happen on the E/I attitude, so that is why the ‘e’, and second, today’s data say there are more ISTJs than ISFJs world-wide, so probably for the Si type there were more Si-f than Si-t for the sample, which makes a biased towards thinking, thus making the Te type having traits abducted by Si, while there is also the problem that the opposite of the dogmatism of the intellectual formula of the Te type is the “open-mindness” and openness to experience of Ne, which is sort of a Jung flaw. Another aspect is that the MBTI might want to not generate any unhealthy patterns or unhealthy types, so, basically, any combination of Sensing/Sensation with internal and internalization leads to this pattern, which might incentive them to remove the internal vs external orientation or rather restrict it into only people and social related theme (isolated vs social replacement) and this could be a factor that made the MBTI E/I to be very social vs not social oriented while losing other Jung E/I aspects that are not related to socialization.

So, yeah, “my case”, or rather my theory, is quite strong here, this might be the biggest flaw on Jung once you understood it, however, to be honest, it is only a flaw if you are expecting all types to be equally healthy in the first place – if that premise doesn’t exist, then that is not, exactly, a flaw. But, yeah, it is sort of weird having one type as being mostly unhealthy if pronounced. And this whole factor actually interferes into how MBTI was constructed – this creates a hole on the typology, and this hole does have interference with the correlations and statistical construct of the MBTI, since Myers was not expecting one of the types barely existing, and this might had changed the construction of N/S and E/I on MBTI, specially because this was probably the cause of the appearance of the facet ‘tradition’ on Sensing, while Sensation and Sensing as functions got nothing to do with tradition at all. And all of it makes me question if Jung was really “wrong” into assigning empirical and external orientation in general to E/I rather than N/S as well...