If you recall, I originally jumped into this thread to respond specifically to a post of yours where you asked how your issues worked out in function theory. Wandering said you don't seem to be using much Fe, and you asked what functions you are using. So I jumped in to explain that you are indeed using Fe but you're using it to screen out the world instead of incorporate the world into your Ni... (and the rest is history).
If you want to contest the theory, you'll have to go elsewhere.
And if you deliberately keep out the outer world and insist on maintaining your inner network pristine (or "filter" input from the world in such a way that you remain strictly in your comfort zone), then it's true that the theory says you'll become increasingly maladapted and incapable of dealing with the real world.
It's nothing personal. I've just found that my own development as an adult pretty much matched function theory in retrospect. And I see function theory being played out in my acquaintances around me. So I've reflected function theory in my own posts.
At this point your quarrel seems to be with the theory, and not with me personally. I suggest you investigate the theory in more detail and then write some papers for CAPT or some other official group refuting the theory.
Again, this website provides a good representation of current theory on use of functions: INFJ Personal Growth
In your discussion with Wandering, you asked how you were using your functions. So I answered your question using standard function theory. Labeling may have been an issue, but otherwise I correctly represented current function theory.
So you've decided that you don't like what function theory says and that you want to rewrite the theory? Fine. But that's really neither here nor there to me. I just answered your question as asked. There's no requirement that says I have to be "validating" (other than to agree that a certain amount of Fe "filtering" of input might be age-appropriate if you're of a young age).
I think I'll drop out of the thread at this point, as promised. Sounds like we're back to square one, and I don't like going around in circles.