Except this isn't quite true. This is what you want to believe because this is how you want to align the systems, but just because you want to believe it, it doesn't make it true. Yes, Jung cites behavior in PT, but he also does a lot of other things in PT completely unrelated to behavior. Did it ever occur to you to question why he spends time describing behavior, typical manifestations of the types and provide with type examples at all?At the end of the day, Jung's typology and the MBTI both deal, at their core, with internal temperament dimensions and the various ways they end up being typically manifested both internally (by way of values, motivations, thinking processes, attitudes, emotional responses, etc.) and externally (through speech and behavior). And anyone who's interested can read more about that here.
Jung also spent a lot of his time during his life lamenting the fact that in order to even make his idea somewhat acceptable within his current sphere of influence he had to adhere to the scientific principle which is fundamentally an ST thing because it's empirical. If Jung had been a part of a field of science where empirical logic is heavily rejected e.g. cultural anthropology, I think Jung would never have stressed all these behavioral traits as much as he did. The behavior is not really the meat and juice of Jungian theory but it's his delineation of the categories he's describing that are.
You keep always citing sources that support your case. That's cherrypicking to the finest degree. You lack overall scope and focus and you aren't reviewing PT in its totality. You need to stop look at the pages and you need to look at how the pages actually link together into a more wholesome thing.
It's not a false internet meme that is being passed around that Jung was not interested in traits. The man fucking explicitly states so himself. He was not happy with the fact that he had to focus on things measurable such as traits in order for people to accept his theory as something else than mere quackery.
No, you just lack reading comprehension pretty much, and I wholeheartedly agree with @blue street news that if Jung was around and knew what his theory has become aka MBTI and it even abuses his name in order to promote it even though it's so far removed anything Jungian, he would likely distance himself very far from it. MBTI does not capture the Jungian reality of type. It simplifies and makes it concrete. Jung's idea of type is not concrete.
While I'm at this very point, I might as well address this too:
I fail to see how the two quotes you provided actually genuinely correspond to "outgoingness" and "shyness" though reclusion may be somewhat apt though it still doesn't quite capture the reality in which Jung was actually trying to get at.Are you saying those Jung quotes aren't inconsistent with your assertion that, from Jung's perspective, in your words, "outgoingness [and] shyness and reclusion ... have no real correlation with ... actual introversion and extroversion"?
Another and very important facet when it comes to Jung's descriptions and when it comes to MBTI is the difference between observation of self from the self and from the outside. Also, even modern neuroscience today has moved beyond traits as an attempt to measure introversion-extroversion and tends to try to understand it through the notion of limbic energy which means that an introvert can indeed appear highly energized but will as a whole still have a greater time dealing with too much external stimulus which is actually what Jung is implying here too, though he did not mean that so much in terms of physiological as much as psychic character.
Also, when it comes to the idea that Big 5/OCEAN/SLOAN, the MBTI and modern neuroscience would somehow tap into the same temperamental idea of I/E that Jung did seems almost oddly redundant, since introversion and extroversion are in their origin Jungian constructs.
If modern science is staying true to Jung's observations, of course they will tap into the same temperamental idea. Whether this is actually something we are born with or not is however at this point, quite questionable. Some science suggests we are and some science suggests we don't. Furthermore, there is to my knowledge, no science done to test if there is a genuine correlation between Jungian introversion and extroversion and the way introversion and extroversion are defined in neuroscience today. I entirely dismiss the SLOAN/Big 5/OCEAN and MBTI definitions unless they at least admit it has to do with energy, not personality traits in themselves.
As you are likely aware, Susan Cain is perhaps the most prominent author right now when it comes to debunking the idea that introversion has actually something to do with the way the word is usually conflated to be understood i.e. someone who is socially withdrawn regardless of the causes of that.