Well to be fair...neither am I...whatever SJ-ish means. Is it to do with that notion of putting things in order and abiding by the rules?
I'm not a fan of Keirsey, so I look at SJ as shorthand for "conscious Si user." Of course, by Jung's text, all that really means is there's typically an instinctive disconnect between the object and our perception of it. Keirsey and others extrapolated on this and decided that we're all about memory, I guess. I really think he hated Si users, but he wouldn't be alone. Isabel Briggs-Myers was quoted as saying if she had known her husband was an ISTJ, she never would have married him. (what a cunt thing to say about one's spouse) Some of those later descriptions decided we're all strict and traditional and stuff too. *shrugs* In some ways I fit some parts of Keirsey's temperament, and in others I do not. I have at times wanted to label myself as an ISTJ in the NF temperament with NT interests. Oh freaking well.
I saw something once that said only a very small percentage of persons tested as having functions in the 'proper' order.
I'm glad you brought this up. There are a few schools of thought on this.
One is that function tests should only be used to guess at your dominant function, and the rest of the results ought to be ignored once you figure that out, and replaced with the traditional function order. Since tests are highly inaccurate, no matter how well written, they're only a finger pointing in a certain direction so you know where to start looking. I personally think they become less useful over time, since at some point you start recognizing why the questions in the tests are asking what they're asking, and then you may start interfering with the results due to your preconceptions. I took my first such tests with no understanding or knowledge of MBTI or function theory and came up very close: ESTJ, but then again, I was only a few points from coming up INTJ.
Another is that function order is so ambiguous and seemingly guessed at by those who came after Jung, building on his work, that there is no real reason to assume they must be in the order proposed in MBTI... which would mean maybe there is no "proper" order. And let's face it, MBTI's creators redefined some of the functions in order to make them better fit together for the typing instrument. To me, that's kind of like snipping tabs off of puzzle pieces so you can put it together faster. It looks like shit.
I really like Jung's cognitive function theory and his description of the functions. As a (self described) sensor he is also less likely to show the common bias against those preferences. This is borne out by the fact that he describes every type in very negative ways... unsurprising, considering the vast amount of personal data he drew on to form his theories came from his real world concrete observation of his patients, most of whom would have been somewhat unhealthy.
Even the ones he wasn't banging. (that would have been the dudes I guess)