From a behaviorist view, the functions definitively do not apply to all people equally and nor would they have to be in a rigid hierarchy as is seen with Beebe's Model and the like.
From a psychodynamic view (the view that I believe Jung originally took with his psychological types), however, a rigid hierarchy becomes rather prominent, due to the fact that the functions are no longer presented as explanations to specific behaviors but as forms of cognition that people rely on to interpret and participate in the world. Due to psychodynamic theory being often associated with pseudoscience and a lack of empiricism, most people are eager to throw out this perspective and misconstrue the functions by placing them in the behaviorist realm, as that field of psychology is more easily testable through experimentation and standardized testing, such as Isabella Meyer's MBTI. However, due to the fact that Jung intended psychological types to be more in league with the psychodynamic approach, and thus more in league with other concepts like unconscious archetypes, the possibility of having uniform behaviors for each function in each person's psyche suddenly becomes very unlikely, from the simple fact that the psyche's unconscious and conscious fluctuations are entirely subjective and dependent on an incalculable amount of variables that would produce wildly different behaviors under even the simplest of circumstances. Thus, it is easy to see how, say, a
type might find themselves typing as anywhere from ISTJ to INFP due to the sheer amount of ways
's perspective can manifest in that person's psyche and information processing.
In the psychodynamic approach, as aforementioned, the functions do not produce uniform behaviors for every individual valuing the same type. However, what the
information elements do is allow individuals to group and associate different behaviors, objects, and environments that they perceive into groups known as
information aspects. In this, you'll see the formation of cognitive schema based on the eight information elements, with the various objects classifying themselves into the psyche under fields that the psyche have decided are appropriate. Here, you might find war, belligerence, and barbarism associated with
in one mind, while at the same time finding willpower, drive, and determination as
in another, along with yet another mind that might associate all six of those objects within the category of
. All of this variability ultimately means that there will never really be a test that will perfectly determine everyone's actual psychological type, as everyone, even those within the same types, is vastly intricate and different, which, in turn, means that Jungian theory will probably never be empirical until we further understand how the brain (or, rather, different brains) works, and thus will probably remain a pseudoscience for a very long time, if not forever. What we can do, however, is try to better understand people's information hierarchy from their perspective by assessing things like temperament and attention-states through a sort of empathy that dissociates ourselves from our own individual perspectives and information hierarchies. Ultimately however, all attempts at understanding are entirely subjective and lacking empiricism at this time.
