As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Jung was right or wrong about various things, and there are plenty of aspects of Jung's writings where reasonable people can disagree about exactly what Jung's views were.
Buuut certain aspects of Jung's writings are clear enough that
what Jung thought (not whether he was right or wrong) is really more of a
factual matter than a matter of
opinion. And one of the things that's clear is that Jung thought that Ti-doms — far from being the most "accurate ... when it comes to details," and the most "zoomed in" on the details (at the expense of the "big picture") — were in fact prone to focus first and foremost on their big picture theories at the expense of facts and objective data.
As Jung explained, "introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play."
Jung said that a Ti-dom's theories tended to have their source in the primordial images in the collective unconscious, which "are irrepresentable because they lack content ... and accordingly they seek something to fill them out. They draw the stuff of experience into their empty forms, representing themselves in facts rather than representing facts. They clothe themselves with facts, as it were. Hence they are not, in themselves, a known
point d'appui, as is the empirical fact in concrete thinking, but become experienceable only through the unconscious shaping of the stuff of experience."
Jung viewed himself (at the time he wrote
Psychological Types at any rate) as a Ti-dom working in a scientific world that was dominated by Te-doms, and here's some of what he had to say about a Ti-dom's relation to (subjective) theory and (objective) facts:
External facts are not the aim and origin of [introverted] thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style. Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind's eye. ...
But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play. ...
This kind of thinking easily gets lost in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly, visions of numerous possibilities appear on the scene, but none of them ever becomes a reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being mere symbols of the ineffable and unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as thinking that remains bound to objective data.
A-a-and conversely, as briefly noted in that quoted passage, Jung described a Te-dom's thinking as "concretistic," and hence overly tied down by the "facts" and "objective data" at the expense of abstract "interpretation" of the facts. Jung said that extraverted thinking involves ideas that are very closely tied to external physical facts, with a relatively low level of abstraction. As I noted in my first reply to Qlips, in distinguishing Te from Ti, Jung explained that "thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception," and Jung classified Te as thinking that was "conditioned in a larger measure by the latter than by the former." Jung said that Te involves concepts that are "not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception," and Jung noted that, "so far as the recognition of facts is concerned this orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the
interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual. Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data."
And those stark differences (as Jung saw it) between Ti-doms and Te-doms correspond to the fact that Jung viewed
details vs. big picture as an E/I thing, first and foremost.
Buuut Myers spent years putting Jung's original categories to the test, and she discovered that an extravert was no more likely to be a concrete, fact/detail-oriented type than an introvert — and conversely, that an introvert was no more likely to be a big-picture, factually-insensitive type than an extravert. The modern MBTI slots concrete/abstract (detail/big picture) as part of the S/N dimension. The official MBTI "Step II" Manual notes that Concrete vs. Abstract is the "core facet" of S/N, and explains that S's "are grounded in reality and trust the facts," but "may find it hard to see trends and link facts to the bigger picture."
As PaladinX has previously noted, your notion that IPs and EJs are the "details first" types and EPs and IJs are the "big picture" types is an idiosyncratic opinion that you're entitled to hold as
your opinion (although it flies in the face of decades of MBTI data), but it's inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and you're simply
wrong — as a factual matter — to claim that it's "precisely what is purposed by Jung and MBTI."
. LOLLLL. Ohhh look you have a fan too. How cute. You are not looking for proof. You are looking for things to confirm your own reality. The arguments I'm stating stand on their own. If you can't see that, no amount of proof will make a difference.
