@bologna, I appreciate your clarification, and see where you're coming from now.
As far as I'm concerned, while personality is without question fluid, typology and the definitions that constitute it are not. There is a fixed range as to what charecteristics an individual may exhibit and still be said to fit a certain type or to have preference for a certain function. This is without question a flaw in the system as you're trying to use something discreet to capture something that actually exists along more of a continuum. Are people always going to fit neatly into one category or another? No. But that's why the types are based on a preponderance of charecteristics. The types are distinct enough and the categories are well enough defined that that works out.The average of a set says jack shit about an individual in that set if there's a lot of variance within that set. And there's a much larger variance than we act like there is.
Thus, we have to be open to redefining what it means to be such-and-such a type, from the perspective of those from that type. Because that's how we understand the individual
Now, going back to my example of me playing dress-up as an ENFJ. Regardless of how much I might want to be an ENFJ, or how much I might feel I have in common with ENFJs, that particular descriptor is not the one with the greatest explanatory power in terms of my behavior. If you redefine "ENFJ" in order to suit me, there's going to come a point where you're going to wander out of the ENFJ set into a more suitable one, but you're still no longer talking about the type ENFJ. So my point is that while, yeah, there's some variance across type, there's not so much that you can have some meaningful "redefinition" without ultimately corrupting the original idea.
I'm intrigued, though, by what you've said about creating type definition from the perspective of each respective type. Because in spite of what I said to Lark about not jiving too much with most ENTJ descriptions, I do very strongly relate to other actual ENTJs that I've encountered both on the site and irl. But the fact of the matter is that we are so strongly similar that I feel that it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to come in and say, "Ok, these group of people share these core similarities in terms of how they see the world. We can extrapolate that these core similarities are most likely to be true for some percentage of the population as well. They are probably all the same type."
Based on what you've just said, we understand typology just fine, but are getting away from a clear understanding of the actual psychology that drives it. I don't really care about that, because I feel it's not the core issue here. The problem is that the typological categories, rather than being neutral constructs, have been utterly bogged down with bullshit connotations. So the result is that rather than an individual accepting themselves for what they are, they have to contort themselves into a box that has nothing to do with them.On this forum, we always approach from the other direction--we mash people into categories rather than forming categories around people. Long and short, that creates a culture wherein
This is a very bad thing, because we're actively forcing away this sort of input. So we're getting further away from actually understanding typology.
Again, to go back to the first post of mine that you quoted, my point had nothing to do with whether or not a Feeler is capable of logic or objectivity about their feelings. It was more to do with the fact that the system is what it is. Calling Fi Ti because it makes you feel better doesn't make it so. Fi and Ti are very different things, and someone who knows the difference is gonna look at that IFP whose labeled themselves ITP and say, "Hey, ITP, that argument you're puttin out there right now sounds a lot more like your internal value system, and a lot less like a analytical assessment of the variables at work here. You sure you aren't IFP?" Am I saying that they're incapable of the latter if they typically prefer the former? Not at all. (We do technically have use of all 8 functions, afterall.) But T's are going to be a helluva lot less willing than F's are to bend the system to accomadate someone, and F's get called out more as a result. Contributing to this is the cultural stuff which makes the T label appear to be more valuable, and F's (who are more sensitive to those kinds of signals anyways) just end up getting caught out more often.
And I feel like that's where our views converge. To me, the system itself is valuable. People ladening it with bullshit subjective judgements about x-type being "better" than y-type is what fucks things up for everyone, because then people start reporting inaccurately and the whole thing becomes useless. So, yeah, ignorance and prejudice within the culture of this site are definitely to blame for making typology less useful than it ought to be.
What annoys me about this whole exchange is the insistance that saying that Feelers assess things in a way different from Thinkers (aka one that's not strictly based on logic), or that they tend to take things personally more often is being construed as a put down. I honestly could give a fuck if there's some small segment of the Feeling population for whom that's not true, because it's true both to theory and to my own experience that most are. So in terms of practice, I'm not going to approach most Feelers as if they're that magical small percentage who have balanced their F out with their T. I'm going to do my best to meet them where they are until they've shown that they're coming from somewhere different. It lacks pragmatism to do otherwise.