You're assuming such a thing as temperament has to exist! How do we know/provide evidence that we have that? The data in people so far suggests traits lies within a continuum. Unless you can prove people have discrete temperaments, such can only remain as a theory, not truth.
We can make enough cogent observations in their personalities that could be linked to the way we've supposed temperament to be. Generally all of this about how we cant systemize human personality, or how Jung's typology is not acceptable rarely tends to be supported with good argument. Those are pure suppositions. Or in others words just thoughtless talk of those who harbor nothing but shallow words under their thin foreheads. I'd love to see one day a good argument for this that is devoid of anecdote, unfounded suppositions or wild appeas to authority.
To revolt against systematic thought means to rebel against reason in itself.
If typology has nothing to do with people, then temperaments is nothing more than a model... *blinks* if one model have flaws with it... you try to come up with a better one.
Of course type is nothing other than a model... what the hell did you think it was?
Personality is slave to its whims..
Models dont have flaws with it, our perceptions of them do. This is where the inconsistencies come from. Not the models in themselves but our perceptions of them. And of course our perceptions of them will be flawed as we can only observe personality and not the impeccable temperament.
A good model of personality (in terms of MBTI for the moment) is that the person, or subject, is a glass sphere. On the perimeter is the 8 functions and around them associated "bits" commonly incorperated beneath their banner.
Right now imagine one of those 3 dimensional graphs. It looks like there's a whole bunch of red within the sphere. It stretches closer to those things on the perimeter which it has competance and confidence in. That would be a complete model of the subject/ person according to MBTI.
Also it nicely underlines that the more developed the person, the more "complex" their likely to be.
Where's Mac with that Walt Whitman quote? It fits so well but I can't recall it
Realising I could be answering a derailment instead of the origional question (sorry).
The variations between types which I've witnessed I see more as people either developing from their type or lacking it. I've seen more than a few people have their own preferential crutches within their type and stubbornly refuse to walk by themselves. I knew an ENFJ who refused to admit the reality infront of her because it meant she had to compromise her values daily. Eventually something happened where she was stripped of power and could do nothing but accept the reality intruding. She did at one point swear she was going to give up and throw herself from a building or some such. Of course once I'd wound her up the same fiery resistance came through and I told her "don't be stupid, I've never seen you give up once. Not ever". Now it's like a new person almost. She's still just a fesity as before but now only when it's needed. She's context sensitive and much more introspective. Where as previously were you to question her she'd immediately get defensive and try to blow you through all obstacles into next week, she now will admit her failings and reflect.
Anyhow basically she's gone from what was described as "dictatorial" (which is a facet of any ExxJ I'd guess) to a more peaceful person. She's balanced her F & T better and is far less EJ than before. I now don't even go deaf whilst on the phone to her which is a major turn around!!