Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
"So Jung has no type?"

Where did I say that?

Because you are arguing against LSI, but you can't argue for ILI... and then you can't think of a better choice. He has to be one of them. Which is it? I see LII as MORE likely than ILI, but there are still problems with him being that type.

Like I said before, I'm not arguing that he's an INTp, I'm arguing that he's NOT an ISTj.

"Yes, I realize that he was a spiritual guy; he talked about religon a lot. I have also noticed that LSIs (or ISTJs) usually become VERY religous. "

Yes, they're usually very RELIGIOUS; Jung, on the other hand, was very SPIRITUAL

-->

"Let me put it this way. There are three values that I can see in Jung. They are: Ti, Se, Ni. If this is correct, then the only types that Jung could be are the Betas. LSI is the most likely Beta. "

Seeing as how I completely disagree with your definition of Se, I wouldn't say he has Se in his EGO-block.

So now you're back to ILI maybe? But what about his dislike of Te, IEI?!?

"Umm, LSI anyone?"

How so? LSIs are usually write in a very clear and very formal manner; two good examples of this would be Pearl and Five.

Because of the slow read, need for editing etc..