My approach is exactly like that of Singer and Loomis.
All MBTI assumptions are thrown out, and then test each function with true independence.
An unbiased test will allow a person to answer a question, without it affecting any other component.
That means if someone answers a question indicating a preference for Se,
it will not reduce the score of the person's Ni, at the same time.
Here is one example of a team leaderís type mode profile.
The double-dominant is not a mistake.
This is from the (SL-TDI) Singer and Loomis Type Deployment Inventory:
- Extraverted Sensation Dominant
- Extraverted Thinking Dominant
- Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
- Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
- Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
- Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
- Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
- Introverted Intuition Least Developed
Clearly, you can see this demands a complete break with what MBTI has claimed for decades.
Singer and Loomis-both Jungian analysts- not only set out to challenge MBTI, but to also challenge Jung's long-held assumptions.
In the end, they found the majority of the assumptions did not hold up.
My biggest problem with MBTI is simple:
They never ran a check to see if the function orders they claim to be true, are actually true.
People have always just assumed they were true.
The way I define types is to look for the first most used function. The tiebreaker is the first most used opposite direction function of the opposite J/P. For example, if Ti is the most used function, the difference between ISTP and INTP is whether Ne is used more or Se is used more. That doesn't mean some other function can't be used more than both of them.
You are then making an assumption there is only one leading function.
I don't see it that way.
I contend our brain has flexibility and plasticity.
I do not believe we have to lead with one function 100% of the time,
or even the same function 100% of the time.
I will ask you to look back at the Singer-Loomis type profile I posted.
There are two dominant functions listed for that particular person.
Notice I said: "particular."
I refuse to make an all-encompassing claim about ALL human beings. Each person is unique.
I have no problem accepting the possibility that one person could have a SINGLE dominant function,
while another person has more.
No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.
The bottom line for me is: What is possible and what is true.
I'm not looking for a "convenient" result.
I'm going to digress here, and bring up one of your other quotes:
There are many people who appear to have both Ne and Ni well-developed.Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to all the information it gets. Ni attaches more meaning to things that are relevant to the current thought process, potentially missing out on assigning meaning to all data.