If you hadn't noticed, it's my contention that people are not patchworks of paradoxes at all, and that their behavior is far more rationally consistent and predictably in their own self-interest than many people seem to realize. If you really reduce people's value systems to their most fundamental components, you'll find that most people are actually quite consistent with themselves--not a so-called "patchwork of paradoxes." This interpretation is the result of poor understanding of other people's values and the true motivations for them.Originally Posted by Nunki
On top of that, your reasoning doesn't follow at all. The fact that you find people to be "patchworks of paradoxes" (which I find questionable in the first place, but we'll get to that) doesn't serve as any indication that this particular paradox (having Ne and Ni as two primary functions, for instance) can actually exist.
I've written a good bit about this all over the rest of this thread; you can read that if you care enough.
I don't believe that MBTI's 16 function molds are the ONLY ones that actually exist in practice, just that they're the most useful combinations in theory.
What is "using a function", exactly? I'm afraid we don't have the same definition of this.
I think all surface behaviors are the end result of four functions working in concert and influencing a person together as one fluid unit...not as individual pieces that constantly switch in and out every second. Therefore, my functional definitions seek to explain root value systems, the most basic motivations for people's attitudes, beliefs and actions...not the surface actions themselves. I find that trivial.
My justification for saying that people can't switch between Xi and Xe is simply that I see these processes as deep-seated underlying value systems, not just as simple present-tense cognitive processes. They pervade everything about a person's outlook and approach to personality itself--and given that Xe and Xi have some very serious disagreements in terms of their most basic conceptions of everything, it's pretty difficult to switch from one to another, especially across P/J lines.
As for being borderline NTP and SFJ, I don't think that really happens much because the tertiary and inferior functions are, by their very nature, never able to develop to anywhere near the same level as the more natural dominant and auxiliary. Well-developed tertiary and inferior functions are still pretty poor when compared to people who perform those functions naturally as one of their top two. Personally, I don't think that anyone can truly balance the dom and aux, either, but that it's a good theoretical ideal to aim for because it represents total balance and harmony.
I've seen INFPs turn ENFP as they got older, but this doesn't involve any actual changing of functions, just the order of priority. I've also seen a Te-deficient INTJ grow from incredibly shy and depressed into a self-actualized and healthy human being because he learned how to use Te skills--he learned a new value system as a method of interacting effectively with the outer world that he wouldn't have had without a strong extroverted function.
But this kind of thing doesn't happen overnight. Functional attitudes are so deeply rooted in people's value systems...you can't just swap them out like changing clothes. "I feel like being an INTJ today, but I'll be ENTP tomorrow!" It doesn't work like that.
I seek to explain why, rather than how. It doesn't matter to me how we label the process of taking in sensory information or of considering it internally; it matters what deeper value systems using these methods primarily will lead to and how we can apply those to better identifying with other people's perspectives.