How about the obvious, which is people will develop their own variation, depending on a multitude of factors including environment, familial expectations, external demands and yet be a healthy, happy, functioning human being. Try that on for size. Deviating from a theory, yours or anyone's, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the person. But this forum is inundated with pathology-based thinking:
"Oh, no! Your "order" is wrong, wow, you must be one seriously fucked up person!"
I approve of individual comments, not people. Context matters.
Case in point:
Katharine D. Myers wrote:
What are you going to do now, Eric - accuse Myers of purposely shooting holes in her own family's theory for "no good reason"? She's advocating flexibility in the application of theory, which is an attitude I espouse. The point is, you have always used a rigid, paint-by-numbers, approach to typology and demand that every person fit into your little framework, or else. Everything has to fit, fit, fit, or the world will end. You'd take someone who needs a size 12 shoe, jam their foot into a size 9 shoe, and say Wow! Wooohooo! It fits!!" No, it doesn't fit.Developmental models imply there is one particular pattern to be followed for 'healthy' development. According to type theory, however, each person develops variations of the pattern whether through choice or adaptation. It is important not to apply any model, including this one, too rigidly to oneself and certainly not to others. A particular adaptation may be serving one well; another may have been useful in the past but is no longer productive.
And the point is, it doesn't have to.