Jack, you're claiming that someone, like Emeinem (or however you spell it!) would fake Fi for a whole freaking career, build their life's work on something not natural to them. I admitted that they might do a special work every now and then but the body of their work would reflect their preference functions. I just don't buy that the body of their work would be based on a unconscious function.
I know you don't buy it, whatever "unconscious function" is supposed to mean, but it's viable.
When artists create art, they are often not their day to day selves. They go to a special place. I know because I do it.
What if I had written Hamlet? Would that make me an INFP?
The fact is that most of his work was made to appeal to broad audiences. This is... not what INFPs are famous for.
Ahhhhhhhhh, a Shakespeare hater!!!
Gah, some of his work is far from being awesome, I will give you that, and I do think that this was due to the pace in which he was constantly cranking out work but Hamlet,, Macbeth, Richard III, Othello?!?!?
These were masterpieces, to say the least, and *all* of these plays resonate with an Fi charge.
'Cause you can't handle me...
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens
"That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."
So, I must say, I feel no sympathy for those who deem Fi to be a grandiosely complex cognitive faculty. Those who judge for this to be the case are obviously suffering from a failure of rationality.
And those who ponder predictable ego-trips (I.e: "anything that is not ME is not right", or deemed as "primitive" or "uninteresting") are obviously suffering from a faillure of basic curiosity or necessary empathy.
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire