If the functions work as Garrot suggests - at a micro level, in complex combinations, they would likely be given varying priority. Eg an F may use F and T during a thought process, but put more weight on F for the conclusion, in most situations. It could be a butterfly effect leading to macro scale traits, which explains the dichotomies.
Bear in mind that most tests will ask a range of questions in different situations, so that an F may answer for F or T, but on balance weigh in favour of F.
There may also be a telling order of sequence, eg. some people use Fi before Ti and rely more on Ti, or vice versa.
There may also be functions we aren't seeing - so there are more than 8.
Example: Someone has strong Ti for politics and strong Fi/Fe in conversation. In a campaign they may privately work out the best course of action (using all functions, but weighing more on T). But when talking to voters, they may be swayed by what the person says too much, forgetting their logical reasons and kick themselves later. The precise order of functions during a conversation would use Ti and F, but the conclusions of Ti would keep getting overridden by F traits, causing them to appear very agreeable. They may say things to people, and then change their mind in private.
But again, it doesn't seem to me that you're talking about
personality types if what you're saying doesn't go beyond the idea that you've put together a list of what purport to be some
mental functions that go on in people's brains, and any particular individual might tend to favor one or more of them for any particular thing and/or at any particular time.
Can you give me an example that's along the lines of (1) people of X type and Y type have a shared tendency to exhibit some personality characteristic (including a shared tendency to use a particular kind of
mental function, if you wish) that other types (or some of the other types) don't,
and (2) that's a type grouping that either (A)
crosscuts the dichotomies (e.g., that says that INFPs and ESTJs have things in common that INFPs
don't share with INFJs, and/or that ESTJs don't share with ESTPs), or (B) is somehow otherwise inconsistent (or goes beyond) what can be explained/encompassed by the Real MBTI Model framing?
Or in other words, if the actual correspondences of type to aspects of personality — and I'm using "aspects of personality" uber-broadly, to include, for example, tendencies to favor certain "micro-level functions" (as you say Garrot suggests) — that Garrot's function theory describes just ends up lining up with the Real MBTI Model categories, then what I'd say is that if Garrot wants to speculate about some kind of deeper-level, underlying, micro-level, neuroscientific
reasons why NJs (for example) tend to exhibit a certain aspect of personality, then he's free to do that, buuuut (1) I don't see how he's doing anything that isn't appropriately described as
fanciful speculation at this point, and (2) I'd say most type aficionados (like me, for example) are interested in
what NJs are like (from a
descriptive standpoint), but not so much in
underlying "micro level" explanations that don't add to what's in the description.
So again, from a different angle, what I'm asking is if you can give me a couple examples of how X types and Y types are characteristically similar in some personality-related way, where using Garrot's approach leads to the inclusion of
aspects of personality in the
description of those types that are inconsistent with (or go beyond) what a Real MBTI Model description can encompass.
Here's an example that may help you understand what I'm asking for. If Garrot was a HaroldGrantian (and I don't know if he is or not), I would certainly acknowledge that there are aspects of the Harold Grant function framing (INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te) that go beyond, and are inconsistent with, the Real MBTI Model. The Harold Grant framing says that INFPs have MBTI personality-related things in common that they share with ESTJs and don't share with ENFJs, because when it comes to S-related stuff, INFPs and ESTJs tend to favor Si over Se, while ENFJs tend to favor Se over Si. The Real MBTI Model, on the other hand, says that INFPs and ESTJs have
no MBTI personality-related things in common, because they're opposites on all four dimensions, and therefore also opposites on every preference combination.
So the problem with the Harold Grant framing isn't that it doesn't potentially
add stuff (when it comes to
complete descriptions of what X type and Y type have in common) that the Real MBTI Model
misses. The problem is that the stuff it adds has no
validity — i.e., it doesn't line up with the real world. There is no respectable body of MBTI data pools whose correlational patterns demonstrate that INFPs have
anything in common with ESTJs.
But what I'm asking you is if, when it comes to what you understand Garrot's framing to be, we even get to the validity question. What I'm asking you is whether the Garrot framing
adds anything to the Real MBTI Model in the way that the Harold Grant function stack
adds the supposed "tertiary Si" of INFPs. And when I say "adds," I mean "adds" in the sense of potentially adding to the model at the level of
type descriptions and
type groupings — like the Harold Grant stack would do, if only it were valid.
