I certainly think it's feasible that Jung was erroneous in his thinking when the cognitive processes have since been elaborated upon extensively in comparison to his original conceptions of them. There are both extensions and modifications, but which specific interpretation to apply is individual preference. Maybe I should have faith in Jung's perception, and perhaps it is appropriate to consider his opinion correct for solely his interpretation, but I would prefer to consider alternatives.
Jung established cognitive processes, I admit, yet I refuse to accept he completely dictates the direction which other people take with his theory. Frankly, no MBTI type is certain when everyone has varying notions regarding cognitive processes. Maybe everyone's only correct when applying their own interpretation to themselves.
I am hesistant to continue our discussion futher due to I was offended with the blunt usages of, 'silly', 'ludicrous', and 'laughable'. The approach I took was an independnet one for mere entertainment, to be honest.
To second post:
As I stated previously, numerous people have wrote their own interpretations of his definitions. Applying each definition will understandably result in different results.
"What are you talking about? Jung coined his functions Ti, Te, Fe, Fi, etc. Why are you wanting to redefine his work? MB did not redefine his work, she merely claimed that introverts are noticed by there extraverted function (auxiliary). She used the same defintions as Jung did."
You misinterpreted me. I was inquiring if people thought he was either Ti or Ni dominant. If Ti dominant, he'd have to be Ne or Se next to coincide with the MBTI framework (ISTP or INTP). For Ni dominant, he'd have to possess Te or Fe for auxiliary (INFJ or INTJ).
The implication that we disregard his opinion was merely to encourage people to develop independent theories which define Jung. Approaching Jung to analyze him when he's already done it is vain, hence people dismissing his own analysis to do it with their own thoughts. There's a fun in flexibility, for it enables interpretative thinking.
Perhaps I should submit to Jung's opinion of himself or significantly integrate it into my reasoning. I also apologize for the incorrect information regarding Jung - certainly contradictory or false (most probable). Although, it would not surprise me if Jung was indecisive with his type at times.
As I initially thought, Jung is likely an INTP, but I was articulating a contradictory statement (for him being INTP) to provoke a reasoned argument which supports him being INTP. Oh, and I apologize for the mistakes. Would you please explain your personal reasons for believing Jung is INTP (eager to read them through interest)?