Could Jung been a LIE?

[Tigerfadder]

And if not, why? He had a motivation to categorize and enjoyed traveling.

[FDG]

I can't see that, his life seems to be the life of an introvert, and his thinking process is more convoluted compared to your standard LIE.

[Bertrand]

I definitely think he could have been. The problem with genius is it, almost by definition, entails a transcendence of the cognitive functions in terms of their polarity in order to provide a product for the world with (near) universal validity. This makes typing these kinds of figures difficult because you can analyze their product from any number of angles in terms of cognitive functions and make a valid case as to how it is a product of said function. The bottom line is no one on this forum knew him personally, which would add a ton of useful context to his actions, and very few if any have actually read and fully understood any of his complete works, rather people rely on stereotypes and secondary sources primarily. Thus the idea that this is going to be anything other than a regurgitation of the "lol Ni base" cult is unlikely

[FDG]

I definitely think he could have been. The problem with genius is it, almost by definition, entails a transcendence of the cognitive functions in terms of their polarity in order to provide a product for the world with (near) universal validity. This makes typing these kinds of figures difficult because you can analyze their product from any number of angles in terms of cognitive functions and make a valid case as to how it is a product of said function. The bottom line is no one on this forum knew him personally, which would add a ton of useful context to his actions, and very few if any have actually read and fully understood any of his complete works, rather people rely on stereotypes and secondary sources primarily. Thus the idea that this is going to be anything other than a regurgitation of the "lol Ni base" cult is unlikely

Don't you think his life biography seems to be the one of a introverted type?

[PrettySavage]

And if not, why? He had a motivation to categorize and enjoyed traveling.

Which in his case were due to + (I'm the same, we're Mirrors). I'm yet to see a good argument for contesting his own self typing, but if you have a case for him being LIE then let's hear it out, the burden of proof is on you

[Bertrand]

Don't you think his life biography seems to be the one of a introverted type?

yeah, definitely. I've read Memories Dreams and Reflections he does seem highly introverted, in the sense that he never really "makes it his mission" to change the world, rather he seems fixed on understanding himself

however, many typologists type Hegel and Nietzsche EIE, so the issue becomes, why is Jung not EIE or LIE? I do think the best case for that is because while those philosophers set out to describe the world in such a way as to promote a new vision for the world, Jung basically derived most of his Ni products as a byproduct of his own method of sustaining himself via his clinical practice and out of his own interest in understanding himself. To me he seems probably IEI or ILI, but at the same time there's so much we don't know

the best argument for Jung being introverted as far as I can tell is he never really made it his mission to promote or propagate any of his ideas he derived as tools for his practice and even had to be convinced by others to even try, for example when he was begged to write Man and His Symbols

in other words, he had a consistently local approach to why he developed these ideas, that just happened to be global in their implications because they were derived from such deep insights, which seems to me to be an ILI thing. one of the best descriptions of the types comes from Ermak and Roslananka (they do all 16), where they proceed by making composites of the functions, for Balzac it says "develops, improves and actively offers new, effective technologies, methods and methods of working in a certain area"

it seems like this is the case for Jung, it just so happened his "certain area" was psychology and the subject was the phenomenological "self", thus they had global import and application. he developed these tools as methods to better treat patients and to understand himself, and he did not treat his ideas as a means unto themselves to present to the world, he says this as much in Psychological Types, where to him typology didn't exist as its own separate thing, but rather only used from within the scope of his treatment of patients, and he had little interest in developing it as a full blown system. it seems to me his primary care was introverted and patient centered. he never stopped saying he thought of himself as a clinical psychologist first

this goes to what creative Te (or Fe) exist to do vs creative Ni. Creative Te with base Ni exists to maintain the wholeness of the Ni with Te products that function to that end. Whereas creative Ni are products that exist to "cover territory" (Te). Seems to me, Jung was (brilliantly) using creative Te focused on local problems (Ni) [1] instead of using creative Ni to address global problems (Te). Although he did in some sense end up doing precisely that, that was not his orientation to the world as a matter of personality... whereas someone like N or Hegel were precisely aiming at the world itself... one of the deepest insights of Jung is you can go outward or inward and either way terminates in God. the point here is extreme introversion creates insights of global import just like insights of profound extroversion create local import. in some sense both the extroverted and introverted paths lead to the same destination, when sufficiently advanced, which is exactly how Jung and genius explode typing dichotomies. in a certain sense being a clearly expressed anything by manifestation is clearer the less developed you are... i feel this is perhaps why Jung never considered it necessary to focus directly on typology because it is more prone to stifle development than produce it unless it is viewed as essentially "maya"--and why would he develop maya when his goals were always more directly clinical. as soon as you make typology about identity and make it an end unto itself you risk halting development not promoting it. thus he only ever developed it to the extent that it was useful for him to treat others, not as a product for the world because it was, for lack of a better word, dangerous, or perhaps "counter productive" to do so


[1] base introverted and mobilizing mean the primary motivation is local preservation of self

[Tigerfadder]

I can't see that, his life seems to be the life of an introvert, and his thinking process is more convoluted compared to your standard LIE.

He lived in a time where there was not much 'facts' and 'scientific thinking' within the phycology. Intuition might display in such a way it tell the story and meaning and he did create a new way to categorize people. A foundation strong enough for additional theories to spring from it.

[Bertrand]

He lived in a time where there was not much 'facts' and 'scientific thinking' within the phycology. Intuition might display in such a way it tell the story and meaning and he did create a new way to categorize people. A foundation strong enough for additional theories to spring from it.

there's also the fact that, according to Reinin (you know the guy who made the single biggest lasting contribution to socionics besides augusta herself with his dichotomies), LIE has the greatest psychological space of all the types. which is ironic because this place has adopted the exact opposite stereotype as true

but you know, what are facts. Te is about $$ rite

[Aylen]

I am sure many people want to claim Jung as an identical but if you can't trust him to have grown to understand how his own intuition and mind works then you don't get what he was teaching at all. I am not prepared to dismiss his evaluation of self. I am reluctant to type him anything since I feel he managed to transcend type which is my "goal" as well.

“My speech is imperfect. Not because I want to shine with words, but out of the impossibility of finding those words, I speak in images. With nothing else can I express the words from the depths.”
― C.G. Jung, The Red Book: A Reader's Edition: A Reader's Edition

^ I can relate.

If you are correlating to socionics his evaluation of self would have both 4D Ti and 4D Ni but he also linked it to sensing... Te lead sounds way off if you have read "The Red Book". Any kind of Te valuing is highly suspect in any of his writings.

In other news, Jesus is SLE. <--- It is amusing but this is how some people's typings come off to me, here, so LIE for Jung seems equally ludicrous as Jesus being SLE.







^ I agree

In November of 1913 C. G. Jung embarked upon an extraordinary imaginative journey; in later life he called it his “confrontation with the unconscious”. An “enigmatic stream” of visions flooded upon him, and for the next decade he labored to accurately document these events in his private journals. As the work progressed, Jung felt a need to give the “revelations from his Soul” a more formal elaboration. With great artistic craft – employing antique illuminated calligraphic text and stunning artwork – he transcribed the record of his visions into a massive red leather-bound volume: This is the mysterious Red Book. Jung titled it Liber Novus, the “Book of the New”. Near the end of his life, Jung remarked about his work:

The years … when I pursued the inner images were the most important time of my life. Everything else is to be derived from this. It began at that time, and the later details hardly matter anymore. My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream and threatened to break me. That was the stuff and material for more than only one life.... Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then.

For nearly a century the Red Book, Liber Novus, remained Jung’s hidden treasure. Only a handful of Jung’s most trusted students and colleagues were allowed to see it during his life; after his death in 1961, all requests for access to the volume were refused by his family. But now, after decades veiled in mystery, the Red Book has finally been released to the world in a magnificent facsimile edition. This singular visionary volume – a book that defies category or comparison – is the crux for any developed understanding of Jung’s psychological work.

[...]

In 1957, C. G. Jung stated that the imaginative and visionary events recorded in The Red Book: Liber Novus – which he began transcribing in 1914 – were the foundation to all his subsequent work:

My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream.... Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then.

The Red Book: Liber Novus provides the long-awaited primary evidence to the truth of those words. It now becomes apparent that Liber Novus is indeed the bedrock upon which any understanding of the life and work of C. G. Jung must be built. Its publication initiates a new era in Jungian studies.


[...]

I. C. G. Jung: The Puzzle of Story and History

C. G. Jung penned the following words in introduction to his biographical memoir:

My life is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious. … I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem. What we are to our inward vision, and what man appears to be sub specie aeternitatis, can only be expressed by way of myth. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely than does science. Science works with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of an individual life. Thus it is that I have now undertaken, in my eighty-third year, to tell my personal myth. I can only make direct statements, only "tell stories." Whether or not the stories are "true" is not the problem. The only question is whether what I tell is my fable, my truth.

http://gnosis.org/redbook/

[Pallas]

Jung doesn't have type. He is type, and a Mentor to many people.

[lynn]

i think he's ILE.

[Bertrand]

I am reluctant to type him anything since I feel he managed to transcend type which is my "goal" as well.

totally agree, except I don't think Red Book is antithetical to Te for someone who made understanding the phenomenology of self "the goal." I think the logic of actions in that regard is clear

[Olimpia]

Jung was IEI-Ni.

Te PoLR.

Seriously though, there is zero to no Te in his work. It is all Ni, with some (weak) attempts of Ti categorization. @Aylen's post is pretty much showing his Ni-Fi. I find it odd that anyone could suggest Te lead for him. Suggesting LII makes a bit more sense. But still, his Ni valuing is way too obvious, and his Ti is not strong enough to count as Ti lead.

If his Ti had been strong enough, he would have been able to come up with a typology system like Socionics.
Instead, he only wrote about his subjective impressions and observations in a rather "loose" manner. His writing style additionally lacks structure and clarity of thought; it is all very "convoluted", as @FDG said.

I am guessing that many people don't see him as IEI because of his core fix not being Type 4, and the stereotypical IEI is a 4 in Socionics. I'd suggest he could have been a 6w5 or 5w6 core, which makes him seem more "detached" and "logical" than he truly is (besides the boosted Ti).

[Aylen]

Ok, I understand what you are saying so in a sense I would have to agree that it is not antithetical. When I previously considered a type for him I looked at both Ti and Ni base types then decided none of them did him justice.

Edit: in response to Bertrand.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have though LIIs as systematic but more I see other LIIs I don't think this is the case.

They are ignoring and subjective.

Jung typed himself as LII (well if translate him having socionics type) and I think this is something that is hard particularly to dispute. Afterall he defined it all. It would be extremely hard to see him as IEI/ILI just by taking into account that he had seen lots of people and done lots of introspection.

[Olimpia]

I have though LIIs as systematic but more I see other LIIs I don't think this is the case.

They are ignoring and subjective.

Jung typed himself as LII (well if translate him having socionics type) and I think this is something that is hard particularly to dispute. Afterall he defined it all. It would be extremely hard to see him as IEI/LII just by taking into account that he had seen lots of people and done lots of introspection.

It is quite common for introverts with an Inert subtype to mistype themselves as their HA, aka as their Beneficiary or Activity partner.

When he was introspecting, he was probably focusing on improving his Ti. Besides that, he was apparently identifying with the more masculine gender role of a Logical type. Didn't he also argue that all Extraverted Feeling types were women? Being a man, he could not possibly type himself as a Feeler, obviously. ;p

P.S: I've looked it up, he basically said that almost all Fe leads were women, and that Fi leads were predominately women. All in all, his take on Feeling types includes them being feminine. Again, he apparently regarded himself as not being too feminine, so I am pretty sure that impacted his view or "typing" of himself.

[Bertrand]

on the contrary I think socionics is an understanding of type separate and distinct from Jungs own, hence it is not at all the case that Jung defined himself as LII since LII did not exist at that time, regardless if it was based on his ideas, it developed beyond them and the meanings of introverted thinking have shifted especially in terms of the socionic framework. just look at gulenko's model G and you will see ILI defined as Ni Ti for example. It is not a fundamental shift of reality but a shift in what the words represent and how the model is set. thus Jung can be an "introverted thinking type" a INTP (MBTI) and a ILI all at the same time.

if you actually read Jung he says blunt and off color, politically incorrect, even for his time, stuff, all the time and justifies the need to do so in a way inconsistent with Fe valuing, but that isn't to say he wasn't playing a higher level Fe game, just that he didn't seem to be particularly interested in Fe as a form of expression which is typical of SEI and IEI (but not necessarily EIE ILE LII etc)

anyway it really is useless trying to battle for his soul, but it is an interesting topic inasmuch as it helps to elucidate understanding of type in general

[Olimpia]

on the contrary I think socionics is an understanding of type separate and distinct from Jungs own, hence it is not at all the case that Jung defined himself as LII since LII did not exist at that time, regardless if it was based on his ideas, it developed beyond them and the meanings of introverted thinking have shifted especially in terms of the socionic framework. just look at gulenko's model G and you will see ILI defined as Ni Ti for example. It is not a fundamental shift of reality but a shift in what the words repsent and how the model is set. thus Jung can be an "introverted thinking type" a INTP (MBTI) and a ILI (model G) all at the same time.

I'd agree with the idea that LII did not exist back then etc., but Ni Ti for ILI simply means those are the strongest IEs of that type, not their Ego – and there is a big difference between the strongest IEs and someone's Ego.

Anyhow, I find it rather obvious that Jung's Ti nor Te were that strong, so it rules out INTx anyway, for me at least.

[Aylen]

Jung was IEI-Ni.

Te PoLR.

Seriously though, there is zero to no Te in his work. It is all Ni, with some (weak) attempts of Ti categorization. @Aylen's post is pretty much showing his Ni-Fi. I find it odd that anyone could suggest Te lead for him. Suggesting LII makes a bit more sense. But still, his Ni valuing is way too obvious, and his Ti is not strong enough to count as Ti lead.

If his Ti had been strong enough, he would have been able to come up with a typology system like Socionics.
Instead, he only wrote about his subjective impressions and observations in a rather "loose" manner. His writing style additionally lacks structure and clarity of thought; it is all very "convoluted", as @FDG said.

I am guessing that many people don't see him as IEI because of his core fix not being Type 4, and the stereotypical IEI is a 4 in Socionics. I'd suggest he could have been a 6w5 or 5w6 core, which makes him seem more "detached" and "logical" than he truly is (besides the boosted Ti).

Well I agree his Ni is off the charts but I don't see a problem with his Ti either. His writings are about "pure" types. His own descriptions of Ti are linked to the subjective and mythological so meh, about him coming up with something like socionics since that was not the direction he was going in his explorations of consciousness. He was about deeper and higher level unity that is beyond most people. That is why I could only discuss Jung with very few people irl. Most of those people's eyes glazed over and some of them self type INFJ in MBTI. They did not want to look deeper. They only cared that he was labeled their type which bugged me since they couldn't even read a description all the way through.

Maybe I am just a Jung purist. Not type but I get him.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think his ethics was general and logic multifaceted.

Talking about man woman as some sort of opposites etc. I think this shows suggestive as he wasn't into relational specifics.

Overall his thinking shows interplay between base and suggestive.

[Olimpia]

I think his ethics was general and logic multifaceted.

Talking about man woman as some sort of opposites etc. I think this shows suggestive as he wasn't into relational specifics.

Overall his thinking shows interplay between base and suggestive.

This just shows he was influenced by the gender roles of his time (and probably synflow).

I find it odd that anyone could suggest him being anything but ego.

As @Aylen said, his "Ni is off the charts". I have never seen an LII use Ni as he has.
His main ideas are pure Ni – his idea of the collective unconscious is pretty much Ni-Fe Ego.

He apparently valued both Ni and Ti, so that makes him IEI-Ni > xNTx

[Bertrand]

I'd agree with the idea that LII did not exist back then etc., but Ni Ti for ILI simply means those are the strongest IEs of that type, not their Ego – and there is a big difference between the strongest IEs and someone's Ego.

Anyhow, I find it rather obvious that Jung's Ti nor Te were that strong, so it rules out INTx anyway, for me at least.

it means something more than that, it means they manifest them most strongly with the greatest dimensionality

[Olimpia]

it means something more than that, it means they manifest them most strongly with the greatest dimensionality

Sure. Greatest dimensionality means "the strongest". That is not anything different from what I have said, essentially.

[Bertrand]

so when we're reading his books are we experiencing only his ego or the manifestation of his entire self

(the same goes for the experience of any other person, book or otherwise)

[ashlesha]

When I read memories, dreams, and reflections the only thoughts about his type that crossed my mind were introversion and intuition, and 5 or 9 in enneagram. I don't think I'm saying anything groundbreaking but LIE would take work for me to see.

[The Reality Denialist]

This just shows he was influenced by the gender roles of his time (and probably synflow).

I find it odd that anyone could suggest him being anything but ego.

As @Aylen said, his "Ni is off the charts". I have never seen an LII use Ni as he has.
His main ideas are pure Ni – his idea of the collective unconscious is pretty much Ni-Fe Ego.

He apparently valued both Ni and Ti, so that makes him IEI-Ni > xNTx

Of course was huge but he collected it from elsewhere which is more demonstrative than base and was not suggestive.

[Aylen]

anyway it really is useless trying to battle for his soul

I agree. lol

[Pallas]

Jung was IEI-Ni.

Te PoLR.

Seriously though, there is zero to no Te in his work. It is all Ni, with some (weak) attempts of Ti categorization. @Aylen's post is pretty much showing his Ni-Fi. I find it odd that anyone could suggest Te lead for him. Suggesting LII makes a bit more sense. But still, his Ni valuing is way too obvious, and his Ti is not strong enough to count as Ti lead.

If his Ti had been strong enough, he would have been able to come up with a typology system like Socionics.
Instead, he only wrote about his subjective impressions and observations in a rather "loose" manner. His writing style additionally lacks structure and clarity of thought; it is all very "convoluted", as @FDG said.

I am guessing that many people don't see him as IEI because of his core fix not being Type 4, and the stereotypical IEI is a 4 in Socionics. I'd suggest he could have been a 6w5 or 5w6 core, which makes him seem more "detached" and "logical" than he truly is (besides the boosted Ti).

Anyone who you admire in some way is the same type as you. No one else can be IEI though, only ESI.

[silke]

He lived in a time where there was not much 'facts' and 'scientific thinking' within the phycology. Intuition might display in such a way it tell the story and meaning and he did create a new way to categorize people. A foundation strong enough for additional theories to spring from it.

Were Jung Te ego, he would have tried to create and introduce such methods, simply out of necessity that Te has no other way of grappling with such material. Yet Jung advocated something opposite to this:

C.G.J: "Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar's gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul."


The advanced enneagram folk have back in the day derived Jung's Etype to be 9w1 sx/sp, and I fully agree with this typing (he was "seducer" or sx subtype). He might have been the precursor for David Gray to name the sx/sp stacking as 'the alchemist' - http://enneasite.com/the-stackings/

[Bertrand]

that whole thing could be seen as a Te strategy, Jung till his dying day considered himself a medical physician. he just had to invent new methods, but the invention was fundamentally a Te statement, it explicitly presents itself in terms of logic of actions

the fact that he integrated Fe into that statement via a degree of poeticism militates against Te and Fe polr, from my view

really what I see here is a statement of intent to get at something more primordial than what science (Ti) has capacity to uncover (at that time), it was more a statement of intention to return to intuition (Ni) in order to develop the means in order to create a working psychology on the level of medical practice

anyway I think at the highest level intuition unites thought and feeling so, really, he could be Fe or Te valuing it really doesn't matter and I think a statement like that is susceptible to both interpretations precisely because of its intuitive depth

[Olimpia]

Anyone who you admire in some way is the same type as you. No one else can be IEI though, only ESI.

What type do you think he is? LII? How about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just low-key dissing me.

[Pallas]

What type do you think he is? LII? How about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just low-key dissing me.

You have this strong tendency to type people based on how you'd like to see yourself. You tried to make sure no one on the forum besides you was IEI at the same time you were making various famous and important people IEI. Jung's typology is his typology, but he actually considered himself Introverted Logic with Sensing, or LSI in socionics. This is also the guy who explained at length that Schiller couldn't tell emotion from sensation because he was Introverted Logic with Intuition and thus used the word fühlen for both, changed the types of his old German celebrities several times on the same page, as well as typing multiple philosophers in ways that experts in those philosophers find very creative and idiosyncratic at best. I think it should all be taken with a grain of salt, overall.

"It's all instrumentalia!"

— Carl Gustav Jung

[PrettySavage]

I am sure many people want to claim Jung as an identical but if you can't trust him to have grown to understand how his own intuition and mind works then you don't get what he was teaching at all. I am not prepared to dismiss his evaluation of self. I am reluctant to type him anything since I feel he managed to transcend type which is my "goal" as well.

^
THIS

Jung was IEI-Ni.

Te PoLR.

Seriously though, there is zero to no Te in his work. It is all Ni, with some (weak) attempts of Ti categorization. @Aylen's post is pretty much showing his Ni-Fi. I find it odd that anyone could suggest Te lead for him. Suggesting LII makes a bit more sense. But still, his Ni valuing is way too obvious, and his Ti is not strong enough to count as Ti lead.

If his Ti had been strong enough, he would have been able to come up with a typology system like Socionics.
Instead, he only wrote about his subjective impressions and observations in a rather "loose" manner. His writing style additionally lacks structure and clarity of thought; it is all very "convoluted", as @FDG said.

I am guessing that many people don't see him as IEI because of his core fix not being Type 4, and the stereotypical IEI is a 4 in Socionics. I'd suggest he could have been a 6w5 or 5w6 core, which makes him seem more "detached" and "logical" than he truly is (besides the boosted Ti).

This is simply not true, Jung had no interest in building any sort of system to classify people, he very directly ad explicitly opposed the very idea of MBTI. Like @Aylen said, he rejected the idea that people could be "put into boxes" so to speak, it has nothing to do with ability but choice rather.

I in turn "suspect" Socionics people are not that different from MBTI folks in their Intuitive bias, for some reason the idea that the father of cognitive functional theory was a Sensorial type must be hard to swallow. If he was Dominant then explain to me why he recounted his therapy session with that woman in such a way that made very clear how foreign that style of thinking was to him? He clearly couldn't relate to that kind of perception at all, not to mention his profile is the least concrete one, it's actually the reason why the majority of people in both typing systems don't have the foggiest as to why the function actually entails at all, why his description being the murkiest of the bunch.

This is not a man elaborating on his worldview:

[Olimpia]

MBTI is more Te whereas Socionics is more Ti (when it comes to the overall set-up and so forth).

I wasn't talking about MBTI.

His work is a prime example of strong Ni, and if you cannot recognize that, I am wondering how you define Ni in the first place.

[Bertrand]

it also bears remembering that Jung thought of closeness to the collective unconscious as a feature of introverted sensing

[Olimpia]

Alright. Jung is Delta ST. Final.

Someone can close the thread now.

[Pallas]

MBTI is more Te whereas Socionics is more Ti (when it comes to the overall set-up and so forth).

I wasn't talking about MBTI.

His work is a prime example of strong Ni, and if you cannot recognize that, I am wondering how you define Ni in the first place.

What do you mean, that it sparks religious reverence in you? Ni is just mysticism and symbolism in his descriptions (which has bled over into all the daughter systems, contrary to claims of "Ni is too obscure!"), and your (not his) definition of Ti vs. Te is Platonic truths vs. things meant to work. You say I value Te whenever I simply say that I'm against dogmatism in various contexts and think theory is a good servant but a poor master. It's amazing what people will say when you change the connotations of words.

[Bertrand]

Alright. Jung is Delta ST. Final.

Someone can close the thread now.

I actually wrote a post way back on how Jung could be SLI and I stand by it in the sense that he could reasonably be all sorts of types

[Olimpia]

I actually wrote a post way back on how Jung could be SLI

Perfect.

[Lao Tzunami]

I don't think he could be LIE. Besides his clear introversion, Jung had a very gentle and indirect writing style. He knows how to introduce the reader to things that on the surface seem ridiculous (alchemy, synchronicity and dream interpretation to name a few) but in small reasonable steps that do not offend the reader. Half way through, you find yourself agreeing with him even though you don't know exactly where you changed your mind. I would think Te leading person would make their argument front and center based on something provable and objective and not care much about tact.