why nobody is actually borderline P/J

[Skyward]

I'm skipping basically all the posts to point out my view on this:

I believe in the shadow functions, thus, everyone has all the functions, but underneath each of your conscious functions is another one that works along with or against it, usually without your knowing.

An example is Fe and Fi. Fe seeks harmony around us and can be willign to laugh at something amoral just to make the group feel more close, but beneath it is Fi that sneaks in the feeling of: 'Ummm, wouldn't that make you an amoral person? That would be worse than NOT laughing at it.'

Really, believe what you want, I only use MBTI as a structure of my thoughts. The function order and descriptions are accurate enough for me. I don't need perfect quantitative information. I have crazy Ni and my subconscious.

 

[Eric B]

I completely disagree with this. It may be hard to tell in children who have not yet formed clear functional preferences, but once most people reach adulthood their value systems are very clearly defined and not really that difficult to discern. Xi and Xe are very, very opposed because they disagree completely on where the source of the decision should be--internally from the self, or externally from the environment.

In reality, functions/processes cannot "agree" or "disagree" at all, even though we often use that parlance. The ego is the only self-conscious entity, and the processes or functions are just that; processes and functions (actions) employed by the ego. The attitude is simply the location the actions are taken in, or standards derived from. I believe this is the way Jung originally framed his theory, though I have seen it said that it was later on that he reframed it so that introversion and extraversion were strictly "dominant function attitude". Hence, in practice, the functions become sort of virtual egos in themselves. I think his earlier conception was better and covers many people's anomalies more accurately.
So it's the ego that chooses one attitude and function and rejects others. But it is easy to see that it is possible for the ego to engage the rejected stuff, for whatever reason. (And the more he does it, the better at it he becomes, hence the ambiguity for some).

 

[redacted]

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.

The problem with that approach is that all you have access to is other people's surface level behavior. You can't see motivations at all. You can ask about them, but lots of times, people don't even understand their own motivations.

I don't even seek to explain how. I use definitions that split cognition up as labels, and use them to describe what I'm seeing. Over time, I try to observe function distributions and come up with a best-fit type.

My approach relies on observation and hypothesis testing. Your approach relies on unfalsifiable hypotheses.

The thing is, you can assume ANY type, and explain ANY behavior you see as some interaction of functions in that type's arsenal. That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.


Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely interested in other people's motivations and how they make sense of their actions and choose them. I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. Sometimes I can describe what I think people's motivations are in terms of MBTI functions, or at least use that vocabulary to account for part of their motivation structure. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.

The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.

 

[BlueScreen]

My reasoning for thinking that people can't be half Ni and half Ne, though, has absolutely nothing to do with MBTI's function molds. It has everything to do with the fundamentally opposing values of those functions.

Yeh, I was (in a way) alluding to the problem with this transition. I agree. In the model having a continuum running between J and P causes many problems. The mapping to Jungian is a problem in the sense that MBTi defines J/P to choose between the extroverted J or P function, so completely changes the function set either side of the divide. The point the function order must cross at half way brings functions that do not mix together as the dominant function.

If we stick to the four function idea, we can separate into four type groups (defined by function set).

1. [Ni Fe Ti Se] - INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP
2. [Ni Te Fi Se] - INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFP
3. [Ne Fi Te Si] - INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ
4. [Ne Ti Fe Si] - INTP, ENTP, ISFJ, ESFJ

When moving across the barriers on the axes the following happens:

- I/E switches the order of the Nx/Sx and Fy/Ty functions.
- F/T switches the e/i of the Fx and Ty functions and swaps their position.
- N/S switches the e/i of the Nx and Sy functions and swaps their position.
- J/P switches the e/i of all the functions and does the switch I/E does.

Looking at the transitions:

T/F axis: As you move from T to F the balance of the Tx function to the Fx function changes. At halfway both would be similar strengths I'd assume. So you would end up with Tx and Fx at a certain level, and Ty and Fy at a weaker level. ie. an ENxP would be something like Ne>Fi=Ti>Te=Fe>....>Si. The N/S axis is analogous to this.

I/E axis: As you move from I to E the relative strengths of the Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy functions change. At halfway you would end up with Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy at similar strengths. So an xNFP would be something like Ne=Fi>Te=Si>....

J/P axis: As you move from J to P the balance of the Nx to Fx, Sx to Fx, Nx to Tx, and Sx to Tx changes. At halfway you would end up with i/e of NF, NT, SF, or ST functions at one strength. An ENFx would be something like Ne=Fe>Ni=Fi>Te=Se>Ti=Si. Just to the P side of equilibrium it would be Ne>Fe=Fi>Ni=Te>Se>Ti>Si maybe.

Ne Fe is not an impossible leading combo. I Ne Te quite often. The occasional glimpse of Fi or Ni seems quite okay also. You just have a total thinkotard and sensotard. With Ni and Fi significantly weaker they will be more helpers for meeting the dominant function's needs, so should not conflict. I changed this from yesterday because I got the J/P function order wrong.

 

[Jaguar]

WHY would these necessarily be diametrically opposed, and WHY can't you have both?

And how can you explain Fe > Ne > Te > Se? Theoretically, I should not be able to have all these in the top four, but I definitely do.

Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis took on MBTI decades ago.
Anyone who knows typology, already knows who they are.

The difference between Singer and Loomis and MBTI is simple:
Singer and Loomis sought to identify the functions people are actually using.
MBTI does nothing of the sort, and merely spits out a "profile" based upon what you "prefer."

One of the reasons Singer and Loomis developed an alternative,
was the increasing number of people reporting the MBTI profile did not match their characteristics.

How insightful-or accurate- is a personality profile going to be,
when it's based on forcing you to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream?

MBTI is nothing but a tally of what you were forced to choose as a preference.
(Never mind the fact that the majority of the questions on any MBTI test have answers where BOTH are true, rather than just one.)

Singer and Loomis give 20 situations to a subject, followed by 8 possible reactions.
They are then asked to indicate how often they would make that response.
So what really shows up in the results are the functions people choose to use, in real-life situations.

It's not possible for MBTI to do anything like that.

Here is a Singer-Loomis sample profile of a team leader:

• 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

If people can't understand how the above is possible, there is something seriously wrong in their understanding of human nature.
Yet here we are in a forum where people argue an old theory, as if it's the SINGLE way to look at the human psyche.

If we, as a people, have to pretend to be a certain way just to fit into one of sixteen boxes,
it's no different than being told we have to wear shoes three sizes too small, while pretending they actually "fit."

 

[Tyrant]

Really, the deeper you go into MBTI, the more it doesn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense irrational types are apparently judging types. You should believe in "shadow functions" - having only four functions is stupid. It has no intertype relationships, function positions are pretty much nonexistant, every function manifests itself differently in every position (MBTI doesn't touch on that at all). This is why ..... socionics is superior.

 

[Totenkindly]

Fi says: I should draw my ethical principles from my own internal sense of what is ethical in a vacuum. Ethics would still exist as a fundamental property of the universe even if we were not here to think about them.

Fe says: I should draw my ethical principles from what my community surroundings hold as important values. Ethics exist only as a means of fostering emotional connection between people so that they can work toward external goals together.

yup, those are the purest theoretical definitions of both... although in reality every person is a mix, I'm not sure the functions realistically separate out that extremely... and we modify our behavior to some degree based on circumstance.

I really liked the next point you made:

The key is that to Fe, nothing is actually ethical until some external goal has been defined. If the goal is integrating into a given culture, then the methodology would clearly involve integration into that culture's moral and social norms. Fe's ethics change and adapt based on the emotional texture of its environment.

Fi, on the other hand, sees ethics as private, personal and non-negotiable. It neither seeks nor requires any external validation, because it knows what is ethical and what is not, end of story.

Yup.

Yes, Fi is completely outside of my personal value system. Since I use Ti for my internal judgments, I find use of Feeling for internal judgments to be inappropriate and selfish. Sometimes my internal logic and another person's internal feelings will reach the same conclusion, but for totally different reasons.

That's basically what I experience, although I can't say it's for "totally different reasons" because I think the functions -- while helpful -- are just one model of personality and thus aren't quite a perfect fit for real people. Hence, I think someone designated INFP and I can reach conclusions with some overlap, but the basic key is that we still do get there in our own particular ways.

It's pretty funny, actually, when I debate with my INFP coworker.

She's very quick to become indignant over a particular social situation: "That's just not the way it should be, everyone should be able to <be themselves, express themselves, whatever>." To her, that ideal should be a constant and people should just do it because it's right. Usually our conflict is my looking at it and saying, "Yes, I think that ideal is what should be in play... but just because you believe it should be so doesn't mean it will work or that the best way to go about it is just to tell people to do it."

The ideal might ideal but not realistic based on what I see about how people work... and it can also clash with external Fe-style goals that also should be met.

...Singer and Loomis sought to identify the functions people are actually using. MBTI does nothing of the sort, and merely spits out a "profile" based upon what you "prefer."
...
Singer and Loomis give 20 situations to a subject, followed by 8 possible reactions. They are then asked to indicate how often they would make that response. So what really shows up in the results are the functions people choose to use, in real-life situations. It's not possible for MBTI to do anything like that.

Nice.

And yup, again we have the "theory" predictive function order vs one that actually checks real-life data. The latter should trump the former every time, IMO, if the data is collected consistently. A theory is theory, it's a "best through line" approach to a bunch of sometimes disparate data... which means much of the data won't fall on the line anyway. Here we have an opportunity to check theory with hard data in terms of function order.

However, I still think the OP premise is realistic -- generally, ENFx really operate from different motivations and function use regardless of what data shows what functions are being used by a specific individual.

I think the idea of using an x for the J/P binary is pretty bogus, even if occasionally there could be a "true" ENFx.

 

[Wonkavision]

The answer is to develop the auxiliary. This is how to achieve balance between the internal and external worlds and create a healthy self-image and productive lifestyle.

Amen, Brotha.

Preach!

 

[simulatedworld]

The problem with that approach is that all you have access to is other people's surface level behavior. You can't see motivations at all. You can ask about them, but lots of times, people don't even understand their own motivations.

I don't agree with that. I think looking for underlying value systems provides a lot more depth than defining functions in terms of which single function is responsible for any given surface action. But I guess we're just not going to agree on this one.

I don't even seek to explain how. I use definitions that split cognition up as labels, and use them to describe what I'm seeing. Over time, I try to observe function distributions and come up with a best-fit type.

Well, I usually use the simpler surface behavior type of reads to get a first impression and decide what direction to go in dealing with a person, but after getting to know someone reasonably well I can piece together enough different situations to make a theoretical model of that person's value system, which I then revise if and when they do something to contradict it.

My approach relies on observation and hypothesis testing. Your approach relies on unfalsifiable hypotheses.

The thing is, you can assume ANY type, and explain ANY behavior you see as some interaction of functions in that type's arsenal. That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.

Ok, nobody's approach to typology is anything beyond a pure thought exercise. I "hypothesize" and "test" on people the same way you do, but the entire thing is inherently unscientific so let's not pretend anyone actually has any kind of objective approach here, ok?

The whole thing operates entirely upon personal interpretation anyway. You can't prove any typology hypotheses right or wrong because it's a field of philosophy, not psychology...there's nothing empirical or quantifiable here at all.

Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely interested in other people's motivations and how they make sense of their actions and choose them. I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. Sometimes I can describe what I think people's motivations are in terms of MBTI functions, or at least use that vocabulary to account for part of their motivation structure. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.

The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.

I don't think the four-dimensional dichotomies are all that great either, beyond a very quick surface analysis. It seems we do agree about that part.

But I've basically tried to compile Jungian functional theory and a number of ideas from different sources to come up with my own system for going beyond those basic surface MBTI reads to try and truly understand and identify with other people on a deeper basis.

I've appropriated Jung's functional labels and interpreted them as broader value systems rather than focusing on interpreting specific single actions as one function. I don't see why you'd want to do this anyway, since it seems intuitive to me that all four functions would combine into one fluid process, all having some influence on everything a person does.

So, in response to your last paragraph--I'm not using MBTI to form deeper character models for people; I'm using some conglomerate of ideas from a number of different schools of thought on this topic, part of which involves the belief that MBTI's 16 molds provide the most utility (but are NOT the only function orders that exist in practice.)

Everybody keeps responding to me to talk about how bad MBTI is, but I've never said anything to indicate that I accept the MBTI as gospel. In fact, I pretty constantly point out my belief that psychological type can't be tested or empirically verified in any way, which outright negates the entire MBTI "test" approach. If I think all "testing" of psychological type is inherently useless, how could I possibly have total faith in everything MBTI says?

I talk about functional orders a lot because I believe they are the most successful approaches. People approach life strategies in much the same way that they approach Chess, for instance--there are millions upon millions of possible combinations, but most of them are ultimately meaningless because they perform poorly in practice.

You guys keep getting hung up on whether non-standard function orders exist, but that's not my point and never has been. I freely admit that they do exist, in fact, just that they're rather uncommon compared to the standard molds because they lack balance and symmetry.

So please, please stop telling me how bad MBTI is. I get it; I've acknowledged the flaws in MBTI quite a few times, but there are a few valuable ideas in it, and I will continue to use them. I'm not automatically throwing out every idea Myers and Briggs had just because some of them were flawed. (I reject Christianity but still believe Christ had a number of good ideas--if it has to be all or nothing on any given theory, how could this viewpoint be possible?)

But hey, if Jaguar wants to burn straw men until the cows come home, be my guest. I just get bored repeating myself over and over to someone who's absolutely determined not to listen and would rather stuff the same bullshit words in my mouth again and again and again.

 

[simulatedworld]

If we, as a people, have to pretend to be a certain way just to fit into one of sixteen boxes,
it's no different than being told we have to wear shoes three sizes too small, while pretending they actually "fit."

The point isn't forcing people into conformity or stifling individuality or whatever other conspiracy theories your angry gut reactions seem to believe.

The point is that many functional orders simply perform poorly in practice for reasons I've outlined many times. There are 20 possible opening moves in Chess but only 5 of them are ever actually used in practice because the others are just plain inefficient.

Does that mean that the others are never used in practice? No, I never said it was illegal or impossible for you to open with pawn to a3, just that it's a generally poor approach that rarely yields any successful result. That's why most non-standard function orders are uncommon; they have fundamental structural problems that steer most people away from wanting to use them.

It doesn't mean they're never used! I never said that, nor did I ever embrace MBTI as some kind of perfect gospel truth. I told you--I see its 16 molds as the most successful "styles" or approaches in most cases, not the only possible priority orders that real people ever have. I've seen several people open with pawn to a3--and they all lost.

I'd even agree with you that Singer-Loomis are much closer to having it right than MBTI, but they're still making a fundamental mistake by trying to empirically test an inherently untestable proposition. There's no evidence to indicate that their test questions actually align realistically with functional uses, and yet you seem to have glossed over this problem.

 

[Eric B]

Really, the deeper you go into MBTI, the more it doesn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense irrational types are apparently judging types. You should believe in "shadow functions" - having only four functions is stupid. It has no intertype relationships, function positions are pretty much nonexistant, every function manifests itself differently in every position (MBTI doesn't touch on that at all). This is why ..... socionics is superior.

John Beebe's model provides that for MBTI; however, there does not seem to be any single publication on the complete model; just individual articles and some information in type books.

 

[Jaguar]

That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.

I do both. It just depends on the situation.

Years ago I set out to prove something important, wrong.
In the process, I proved it was right.

I have a habit of saying, "What the hell is wrong with this picture?"
Some might see what I do as a negative.
Fortunately for me, it has proven to be a great strength.
People have always called me up, asking me to "shred" their ideas.
If I can't shred the idea, they run with it.

I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.

The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.

Agreed.

Choosing to use something that is slower and complex doesn't phase me.
I prefer depth over breadth.

 

[simulatedworld]

In reality, functions/processes cannot "agree" or "disagree" at all, even though we often use that parlance. The ego is the only self-conscious entity, and the processes or functions are just that; processes and functions (actions) employed by the ego. The attitude is simply the location the actions are taken in, or standards derived from. I believe this is the way Jung originally framed his theory, though I have seen it said that it was later on that he reframed it so that introversion and extraversion were strictly "dominant function attitude". Hence, in practice, the functions become sort of virtual egos in themselves. I think his earlier conception was better and covers many people's anomalies more accurately.
So it's the ego that chooses one attitude and function and rejects others. But it is easy to see that it is possible for the ego to engage the rejected stuff, for whatever reason. (And the more he does it, the better at it he becomes, hence the ambiguity for some).

Well, the part about the functions becoming virtual egos is kind of a big part of my theory here. Influences from all four value systems blend together in varying concentrations to produce an infinite number of unique individuals. My theory does not force people into boxes; it simply argues that certain general approaches (which still contain room for near-infinite variety in terms of which functions are applied to which situations and in what concentrations) tend to be more successful than others.

Choosing to use something that is slower and complex doesn't phase me.
I prefer depth over breadth.

Yup, that's why I've tried to rework these theories together into my own combination so that I can do both depending on the situation. MBTI works for the quick surface analysis based on very little info; Jungian functions work better to dig deeper and describe underlying value systems. If you'd actually read what I've written on this instead of imagining your own reality about what I think, you'd understand that I don't think MBTI accurately describes reality, but rather an idealized version of what reality could be. (This is very characteristically Ne of me, now that I think about it.)

I am still working on refining my personal function theory, and I always will be. That's how learning works. I don't understand why you think you've proven anything by pointing out that what I think today is not necessarily what I thought yesterday. How on earth is that a bad thing? I'd be much more worried if my positions never changed!

 

[Jaguar]

The point isn't forcing people into conformity or stifling individuality or whatever other conspiracy theories your angry gut reactions seem to believe.

As usual your opening sentence blows it, and I hit the delete key without even reading the rest of your post.

Send INTJ123 a PM. You have us confused.

 

[simulatedworld]

As usual your opening sentence blows it, and I hit the delete key without even reading the rest of your post.

Send INTJ123 a PM. You have us confused.

Honestly I'd appreciate it if you'd actually make an attempt at intelligent discourse here. The whole "I'm too lazy to read your threads"+"I'll just invent my own conception of what you think and stick to it like crazy glue" approach is getting awfully tiring.

 

[VagrantFarce]

do you two know each other in real-life or something?

 

[Eric B]

Well, the part about the functions becoming virtual egos is kind of a big part of my theory here. Influences from all four value systems blend together in varying concentrations to produce an infinite number of unique individuals. My theory does not force people into boxes; it simply argues that certain general approaches (which still contain room for near-infinite variety in terms of which functions are applied to which situations and in what concentrations) tend to be more successful than others.

It still makes more sense to focus on the ego (the conscious part of the larger Self) as the one posessing consciousness. Then, the functions are called "kinds of consciousness", but the near infinite number of individuals consists of Selves choosing different functions and orientations.

Yeh, I was (in a way) alluding to the problem with this transition. I agree. In the model having a continuum running between J and P causes many problems. The mapping to Jungian is a problem in the sense that MBTi defines J/P to choose between the extroverted J or P function, so completely changes the function set either side of the divide. The point the function order must cross at half way brings functions that do not mix together as the dominant function.

If we stick to the four function idea, we can separate into four type groups (defined by function set).

1. [Ni Fe Ti Se] - INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP
2. [Ni Te Fi Se] - INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFP
3. [Ne Fi Te Si] - INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ
4. [Ne Ti Fe Si] - INTP, ENTP, ISFJ, ESFJ

When moving across the barriers on the axes the following happens:

- I/E switches the order of the Nx/Sx and Fy/Ty functions.
- F/T switches the e/i of the Fx and Ty functions and swaps their position.
- N/S switches the e/i of the Nx and Sy functions and swaps their position.
- J/P switches the e/i of all the functions and does the switch I/E does.

Looking at the transitions:

T/F axis: As you move from T to F the balance of the Tx function to the Fx function changes. At halfway both would be similar strengths I'd assume. So you would end up with Tx and Fx at a certain level, and Ty and Fy at a weaker level. ie. an ENxP would be something like Ne>Fi=Ti>Te=Fe>....>Si. The N/S axis is analogous to this.

I/E axis: As you move from I to E the relative strengths of the Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy functions change. At halfway you would end up with Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy at similar strengths. So an xNFP would be something like Ne=Fi>Te=Si>....

J/P axis: As you move from J to P the balance of the Tx to Ty, Fx to Fy, Nx to Ny, and Sx to Sy changes. The Nx/Sx to Ty/Fy ratios also change. At halfway you would end up with NF, NT, SF, or ST functions all at one strength. An ENFx would be something like Ne=Ni=Fe=Fi>Te=Ti=Se=Si. Just to the P side of equilibrium it would be Ne>Ni>Fi>Fe>Te>Ti>Se>Si maybe.

I'm undecided on whether these combinations are plausible. What would it mean to lead equally with Ne, Ni, Fe and Fi. Looking at the contrast between ENFP and INFJ, you'd think you would go insane. But the conflict might be in what functions the other doesn't use, not what function they do. An INFJ will say I'm disordered, inconsistent, socially ignorant. The question is, am I these things because I am something that requires me to be ie. Ne dominant and Fi focused on the personal, or am I these things because I lack in Ni and Fe. If Ne really does need possibilities, and Ni does need closure, could I happily switch between them as an ENFx or do they cause too much long term conflict to co-exist as leaders.

The whole system was completely done with the moderate scales here:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...lity-matrices/16815-76-personality-types.html

I'm looking into trying it again using the Jack Flak system (Just I, E, and add A (ambiversion), and just a "dominant" function replacing the "extraverted" one, along with a support, and no function attitudes). Then, maybe Sensing, iNtuition, [ambidextrous perception]; Thinking, Feeling, Birational

 

[Jaguar]

do you two know each other in real-life or something?

He's my pizza delivery boy.

 

[BlueScreen]

Well, the part about the functions becoming virtual egos is kind of a big part of my theory here. Influences from all four value systems blend together in varying concentrations to produce an infinite number of unique individuals. My theory does not force people into boxes; it simply argues that certain general approaches (which still contain room for near-infinite variety in terms of which functions are applied to which situations and in what concentrations) tend to be more successful than others.

I notice the dominant function normally sets the pace for the others. You are in it most of the time, so it and a little of the auxiliary shape your habits and world view. This can make lower functions slaves to achieving the goals of the strong functions. ie. you avoid using them purely or as means to their own end. Sometimes this extends to the auxiliary being a slave even, but most MBTi sites call this a bad habit rather than the healthy way. I agree with your earlier note that some functions are very difficult to use truly. As an ENTP, Fi will be very alien. I know Ti is crazily hard work for me. To tell the truth, I don't see the point of using Ti. It feels limiting. Which is probably how you see Fi. It conflicts with my normal style of thinking.

 

[sculpting]

The black and white part is the functional combination, not the particular order of the functions in any given combination. Each person uses one Ji attitude, one Je, one Pi and one Pe--but never two of the same cognitive process, and never two different directions of the same process. (e.g., you might see someone who uses Ni+Fi as the top two functions, but never Ni+Si or Ni+Ne.)

Now as for the orders of those functions--some people have them in different orders than what MBTI suggests, but it's my contention that these people virtually always suffer from personality imbalances and could generally improve their results in life by working to balance out their priorities so that their top two functions contain an E, an I, a P and a J. This is most conducive to self-actualization, balance and happiness.

first part makes sense. Second part-mlitterall suggested this might be biochemical at one point. I could see this being a result of genetic variation in energy supply to various portions of neural circuitry. However in both ENXPs I see the tert function in moderate to strong development to be very beneficial at times. Few of my ENFP males seem sensitive. They all use Te strongly and can be quite direct and even confrontational as needed.

I agree.

Children, up to a certain age, should not be expected to have strongly developed preferences or value systems.

I disagree about the preferences in children. I can see both aux and tert functions playing out weakly in my IXTJ toddler. Funny, he has Fi weeks, then Te weeks. In retrospect i could see them in my ENFP when he was small-expressed as episodes of Te rage. he was kicked out of four daycares for anger problems. Just now at 13 is his Fi able to control his frustration. He has become annoyingly nice honestly.

Ew, shape shifters, they exist, and they're terrifying.

My utter most favorite ENTP is fascinating. He is not cleanly NeTiFe at all. You can see those pieces at work but you can also see Fi in particular at times (15 years married to an ISFP). It spikes though and will knock him off track. He also spends a lot of time meditating and after a few minutes of that will feel very Ni grounding. Interesting there are times you can see his innate Fe actually conflicting with his other learned functions. The looks on his face at this point are very conflicted. He insists he is not an ENTP-and he really isnt anymore. NeTiFe with NiFi moments all strewn throughout. Yet everyone admires his integrity and he is well loved. Shapeshifter I'd say, yet beneficially so.

However his nemesis, my other favorite ENTP, is self identified as NeFeTi. He is profoundly self centered and uses Fe to manipulate his way in social settings. He can appear polite but is very strange at times as Fe dominates his life. He is detested but respected for his knowledge. He is very moody and lost much of the time. He can be what is considered evil.