Ginny said:
I for one have been looking for information on Jung's model
He never really wrote down a "model" in the uber-structured form the MBTI-ers have taken it, and it's more like he had long essays in Psychological Types discussing various people's types in a more unstructured way.
So mostly, you have to read it and decode it.
But I can present you with the short-and-sweet version (I do consider myself relatively unbiased+thorough, and I have a nose for exceptions, so I rarely get attached to one way of thinking): Jung didn't think of introversion/extraversion of functions as separate from introversion/extraversion of the overall psyche. At least in Psychological Types, and I've never seen evidence to suggest this fundamentally changed. Meaning, the
person is an introvert or extravert, and what he felt is that any developed function of an introvert/extravert (only one could be fully so) operates in a special way.
He spent a ton of time just discussing introverts and extraverts by themselves, without ever attaching a function to those things, even if he also covered in Ch. X (which has come to be sort of overused in lieu of his other writings) that the functions look different in each attitude.
Basically, Jung's "model" was the simplest of all of them.... a dichotomies model: intuition/sensation, feeling/thinking, introversion/extraversion, rational/irraitonal. He thought the developed aspects support the "ego" ie the center of conscious activity, and that the rest color the unconscious.
The attitude of the auxiliary is controversial, because technically Jung only thought one function is truly differentiated (what he means by differentiated is developed, but the reason he uses that specific term is he pictured undeveloped functions to be fused with others, rather than standing in a more fine-tuned way for themselves, as e.g. you'd see of feeling fused with sensation as being fused with primitive pleasure/pain sensations, more on the level of physical disturbances than cognitively mediated value judgments).
However, in reality, it's quite clear the aux was GENERALLY considered to be in the same attitude as the dom, for the following reason: Jung seemed to think the aux pairing with the dom subordinates it to the same attitude and renders it also in a suitable sense a superior/conscious (as opposed to inferior) function....he not infrequently used language like the superior functionS, ie the top two. Although he did think of the tertiary as a second auxiliary.
There's no question Jung's language is contradictory here, and that I'm providing the likely meaning only: here's what he says about one function alone being conscious
Jung said:
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. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone
However, bafflingly, he says this shortly later
Jung said:
A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.
In his seminar on Zarathustra, however, he does speak of the aux being undeveloped when Nietzsche relied exclusively on intuition. But as a normal matter, Jung seemed to think 2 would be developed. As many as three could be somewhat developed, as a rule, with the last always remaining inferior, but often 2 inferior functions could be spoken of (if only 2 were developed).
It interferes with my plans to study all the theories and come up with one that reconsiles them all.
Well I can certainly reconcile them (go ahead and quiz me, and I can tell you my sources for everything), but I suppose more by telling you what they focus on/how they organize things differently. It's hard to say if there is a 1 true functions theory, as it might just be that there are a lot of interesting observations you can make if you understand the ideas rather than 1 final structure.
In a sense, Jung's original style, which didn't follow a rigid 'stacking of function-attitudes' model was a lot closer to this. Socionics is kind of the opposite. It aims to make very rigid rules/categories. That's where it goes astray, as most of those rules are pretty arbitrary when you actually think about it.
I'd say my present style is taking Jung, adding some ideas from socionics, adding a lot of my own thoughts that I hope improve on all the others.... but forgetting most of the rigid rules of socionics. The reason I incorporate some socionics is it's much more complex than Jung and thus has some improvements, but I continue in the style of Jung, prioritizing depth of the ideas over fixing a final rigid structure.
anyways I don't think I understand, are you saying that Perceiving doesn't really mean that someone is okay with openness, like regarding life and plans? So is perceiving and Judging linked to Introversion and Extroversion?