This is kind of inspired by FineLine's post, but it's been running through my mind.
There is more variation within type than between type. Since ETJs and EFJs (or ITPs and IFPs) share the same dominant function, I think the differences are more apparent than between ENPs and ESPs (or ISJs and INJs).
I may be making a distinction that doesn't exist, but it seems to me that Fe and Te are conventional and Si is traditional.
Te and Fe use commonly agreed upon standards to make decisions and deduce logic. Si uses accumulated wisdom and experience to sift through information. Te/Fe look very different depending on what introverted perceiving function is fueling it. There is overlap in what is conventional and what is traditional. But convention is much more flexible and less ingrained than tradition. And when we speak of the traditional nature of Si, are we talking about culturally shared Si or are we talking about individually experienced Si? Any introverted function is highly subjective so how is Si any different?
It seems to me that ESJs get double damnation because they're supposedly so rigid because they have an extroverted judging function as their dominant and then get hit again because of tradition laced Si. When I see this played out IRL it just doesn't add up. Nor are ESJs given credit for any adept usage of tertiary Ne which also lends to more flexibility.
So I wonder if it's possible for extroverted judging functions to ever be completely separate from what typically is in the domain of Si. Can anyone give pure examples of Fe and Te without tinges of Si? Can they be completely separated?