The reason I find function theory - no matter what the theory - in the end kind of silly is kind of illustrated by your first statement I quoted above. X number of people might relate very well to Andy's theory, but Andy's theory will break apart or be inapplicable to another set of individuals who won't identify one bit. Whereas a different cognitive function theory might resonate strongly with the experiences of Y number of people, and the original X plus another category of Z people won't identify with it.Originally Posted by highlander
So, yes, I do in the end scrap function theory (to the depth of labeling each of the 8 and dilineating a set order by type) because I know no matter what the theory, at the very least a minority of people will not relate, thus the 20% (or whatever) of INFJ's who don't relate to the other 80% of INFJ's in terms of 'shadow' responses, or inferior, or 'trickster' functions (lol), or whatever theory is being discussed, will be left scratching their heads saying.. I don't do that at all, I do this instead.
Your INTP example is interesting. It's another reason I prefer more general psychological things, rather than typology when it comes to personal growth or devolution (ha!), because there are a LOT of traits that are outside of cognitive theory which influence behavior, perception, and whatnot, to a significant degree and function theory simply doesn't account for them.
I'm sorry, I realize you're interested in discussing function theory so I promise I'll back out of this thread now; had you excluded bullet point 1, I would never have stepped in.