I dropped the series in the middle of Season 2, it was apparent that the showrunners and writers have no intention of adapting Fire & Blood. Instead they used the unreliable narrator structure of the book as an excuse to pervert the narrative as much as they want, so they can write their own vastly inferior story. Seemingly, the point of their story is just 21st century Hollywood misandry.

At the time of Season 2 release Mauler and the crew were clearly hesitant to criticize it too much, despite the shortcomings of the writing. They had their reasons and one of them was that Mauler deliberately stayed away from the book to analyze the series on its own merits.

I can imagine that from that perspective, with series on its own, Season 2 may be considered something like 6/10: story is clearly deteriorating, but it is hard to say how bad or good it may get. If you read the book, however, it is much worse. I consider it closer to 3/10 just because so much potential was wasted, so many good things from the book were cut and replaced with fanfiction garbage.

It seems like the crucial change happened during the interval between Season 1 and Season 2. Writers went rogue and started to do what they like. It is not like adaptation and changes are bad, Season 1 had fair share of the changes to the story, but from the start of Season 2 the series went into its own direction. Fundamental problem with that is the fact that they are getting stuck between two worlds.

They don't respect the book or its author, they don't want to follow what is written. At the same time they can't really write their own story with freedom they need because it is still an adaptation and central plot points still have to happen. As a result the series' story is a huge contrived mess. The writers insert their fanfiction even if it is not fitting Fire & Blood story, while the book plot points happen even if those don't fit the fanfiction. It is like two minds trying to move one body. That sort of writing is a fertilizer for plot holes, ruined characters and thematic dissonance.

It seems like at the time of early Season 3 Mauler and Fringy caught up on what is going on, despite not reading the book. They are right in tearing Season 3 apart, it is only going to be worse because the rift between two visions of the story is going to grow more and more, by inertia or intent.

The very little information we got is that the U.S. government had to let go all of the criminals Harvey prosecuted because of his ties to Batman. There is a small line in #18:

>"Hanging out with the Batman has them looking at Dent differently. And all the folks he put away too "

Basically, they overturned his criminal cases. That's why he is hunting and removing those criminals vigilante-style. Sounds simple if you don't think about it, but if that reading is correct, it makes no sense:

1. How is the government even aware of the connection between Harvey and Batman? There is no evidence tying Harvey and Bruce together unless something happened off panel. The closest we have is that Harvey used his position to obtain some info for Bruce, but there is no link between his actions and Batman;
2. If there was any evidence, he would be in jail or under constant supervision;
3. If government does know Harvey is connected to Batman somehow, there is no legal ground for letting criminals go on the streets. There could be retrials in those cases, but even if there were, overturning all of them would only happen if the cases themselves would have no merit. Just letting people go is not how the system works.

To state the obvious, yes, we are reading a heightened reality sci-fi fantasy fiction comic books. So it is kind of pointless to expect realism, especially legal realism in the story. Sure. However, that's not an excuse for lapses in writing.

I've seen a lot of posts and comments asking why Radzig does not legitimize Henry at any point in the story despite Henry's apparent heroism. The answer is that Radzig simply does not intend to legitmize Henry ever, and there are good reasons for it.

Radzig is a product of feudalism

As we've seen in both games Radzig is genuinely fond and proud of Henry, and did for his son a lot more than many other nobles do for their illegitimate children. In the ideal world Radzig would've legitimized him long ago or better yet, have not given up Henry at all. However, they do not live in ideal world, they live in a feudal society .

What we know of Radzig is that he is very realistic and pragmatic about what kind of society he operates in. After all, remember how Radzig was cool with torturing a noble Henry caught during the counterfeit groschen investigation. He did not like it but he saw it as pragmatic and normal for the time and place they were in, so he had no qualms about it. That's Radzig's character. He is molded by the system and he thinks squarely in the parameters of that system.

With that in mind, what Radzig seemingly wishes to happen after KCD2 is:

1. Get Wenceslas out of prison, to elevate his own position and save the realm in the process;
2. Make sure Wenceslas has enough support;
3. Marry a noblewoman, because that's what is expected of him;
4. Father a legitimate heir, because that is also what is expected of him.

What would happen if Radzig legitimizes Henry

If he legitimizes Henry before he marries, he is going to put that simple plan into jeopardy and make things much worse for himself, the king, his future family and the entire Kobyla line. That would be a bad move (in feudal society) because:

• It would dramatically lessen his chances of getting a good marriage party. If Radzig has a grown up legitimized son named Henry Kobyla riding somewhere in Bohemia, no major lord would want to marry his daughter to Radzig knowing that the line of inheritance could be disputed;
• It would also be a major reputation hit for himself (for obvious reasons) but also for Wenceslas. Legitimizing a bastard was not a usual procedure in Medieval Ages as far as I know. Radzig is already known as Wenceslas favorite, so if Wenceslas just legitimizes Henry, other lords would no doubt see it as yet another sign of favoritism, precisely the reason why so many of them sided with Sigismund in the first place. By asking Wenceslas to legitimize Henry Radzig would endanger Wenceslas' reign again;
• If for some reason Radzig would insist, legitimize Henry and also gets married, it would mean that his new family would be automatically sided against Henry as a rival and Henry himself may want to get rid of the rivals after Radzig dies.

Radzig cares for Henry in his own way

So, Radzig actually does what he thinks is best he can give to Henry. He provides Henry with some income, social standing (if Henry was not Radzig's son he would not be treated so nicely by Divish or Hanush) and most importantly opportunities to prove Henry's worth to the world at large. Then, in the best case scenario, one day some king or major lord would elevate Henry to nobility on Henry's own merits, instead of Radzig risking it doing himself. That's why Radzig is so distant, he can't afford Henry to grow too close.

It is not fair for Henry and it is also not fair for Radzig, but that's feudalism.

I strongly advise anyone who struggles with contradictions within MBTI and Socionics to read Jung’s “Psychological Types”. Only after I read it in full for the first time did I finally find sufficient explanations and solutions to the typology problems, particularly when it comes to the fact that some people just don’t fit the model.

Jung believed there are people who don’t belong to a type

That’s the most important difference between Jung’s original writing and derivative theories. As far as Jung is concerned you may only speak of type if a person develops one of the functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuition) to such a degree of differentiation that it becomes pure, dominant and starts to exert influence on the whole psyche:

>“Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other”

>"This will be followed by a description of those more special types whose peculiarities are due to the fact that the individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most differentiated function"

By differentiation Jung means a process, which makes a function truly its own. For example, differentiated thinking is pure, directed, active thinking for thinking sake, which is not fused with other functions. If someone thinks, but his thoughts are strongly shaped by his feelings or fantasies, that’s not what Jung means by pure differentiated thinking:

>“Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies”

Meaning, that mere propensity to use a function is not indicative of the type: if you think a lot, it does not mean you are a thinking type:

>"This does not mean that the [Extraverted Feeling type] woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may think a great deal and very cleverly, but her thinking is never sui generis—it is an Epimethean appendage to her feeling"

If a person does not have any function which truly acts differentiated and dominant, if the psyche is ruled by a fusion of different parts and functions, there is no type, instead it is what Jung calls “primitive mentality”. The quote:

>“The uniformly conscious or uniformly unconscious state of the functions is, therefore, the mark of a primitive mentality”.

Note that Jung’s position sharply contradicts what MBTI and Socionics teach. As far as those theories are concerned, a person has to belong to one of 16 types because everyone allegedly has to have a dominant function and other functions following it in a stack. In Jung's writing, development of a dominant function may or may not happen and the nature of the stack also varies from person to person because there actually is no stack. More on that later.

Jung did not write about eight "cognitive functions"

In both MBTI and Socionics cognitive functions are generally understood as eight inherent processes within the psyche, which, depending on their relative priority, configure psyche in a particular way.  As a result, you get classic symmetrical 4-function stack or 8-function-stack, depending on the model. In any case the type is defined by a particular configuration of functions. Meaning, that ISTJ, for example, is a person who naturally prioritizes Si-Te-Fi-Ne, that’s why we call such person ISTJ. In other words, cognitive functions produce and determine the type. That’s the basis for both MBTI and Socionics (opposed to 16personalities, which is OCEAN in disguise, of course).

In Jung’s writing there is a subtle but fundamental difference. For Jung, cognitive functions do not produce the type. Instead, it is the type who operates in such a way that it seems like cognitive functions exist. In other words, Jung never proclaimed eight functions to exist! He writes in several places of "introverted thinking" or "introverted feeling", but in the context the meaning is different: it is not aboute elements of the consciousness, only about its attitude.

For Jung, there really are only two types: extravert and introvert. One is oriented towards the external world, the other – to the internal one. Then, depending on what function (sensing, intuition, thinking, feeling) takes relative precedence by the process of differentiation, if any differentiates at all (!), we may speak of Introverted Sensing type and so on.

Note the crucial difference: for Jung there is no such inherent thing as Introverted Sensing (Si), there is instead differentiated Sensing of the Introvert. Meaning, an Introverted Sensing type is not such because there is an abstract pre-existing internal process of Si guiding that person, but because he is an Introvert who happens to use Sensing as the preferred mode of consciousness. It may seem like pointless distinction, but, please, think about it because it changes everything. If Si, like other cognitive functions, does not actually exist by itself, there can’t be a collection of traits inherently associated with that function.

Returning to Si example, what MBTI and Socionics consider to be Si is just a random cluster of traits, arbitrarily grouped together under one name. There is no inherent reason for why memory focus, meticulousness, conventionality, factuality, attention to internal organs etc. have to be grouped together. If they were, psychologists would’ve long time ago discerned them as statistically prevalent clusters, like OCEAN traits. What we see statistically, is that cognitive functions do not cluster in such a way.

There are of course individuals where such a collection of traits happens to cluster, but you may form an infinite number of clusters, depending on what traits you mix, and you would easily find individuals who fit the description. That’s why you may find people fitting MBTI descriptions of ISTJs, for example: meticulous, organized, past-oriented and so on. However, it is possible to meet and identify such stereotypical “ISTJs” not because it is a necessary psychological type to exist, but because the random distribution of human traits makes it possible for people with such collection of traits to exist. There are people with good memory who are not meticulous, there are those in tune with their internal sensations who are not organized and so on. They resemble “ISTJs”, but not fully, leading to confusion about the type. What actually goes on is that there is no inherent “ISTJness” in human psychology, just like how there is no inherent Si phenomena.

Conclusion

Grasping Jung’s ideas is hard. As Jung himself would probably admit that’s because his writing is that of Introverted Thinker, it is personal and unapproachable. So, it is understandable that there is a desire to simplify it, turn it into a readily apprehended model, which is what MBTI and Socionics do. However, in the process of simplifying, those models butchered what Jung tried to convey. No wonder there are so many problems with those models, leaving enthusiasts in the state of constant confusion, mistypes, mixed types and more. Read the original.