I briefly read a little bit of those links you gave me last time when I prodded you about the step III. However, THIS stuff (the quoted stuff) is what really intrigues me the most. I would say that almost 90% of the online profiles paint the types as being very proficient at their first two functions and if anything, "you're too proficient with those first two, you need to develop your inferior and tertiary right away!".
Do you really think that most extraverted types who are under 25 have spent enough time alone, in conscious reflection, to really develop conscious use of their auxiliary? Do you really think most Introverts under 25 have been in situations that honor their reflective style of processing enough that they have developed their auxiliary? Many, many E's and I's have, but many have not. If you doubt me, look at the level of consumer debt, the attrition rate at colleges, the rate of divorce...or Wall Street or Congress or Toyota or...(and I still like my Prius, now that the brakes are fixed...).
Maybe you have to get old and look back on those years to sigh and wish you'd spent more time in that opposite attitude to develop the first two functions in balance...or before you realize how much effort it took to use that second one well.
A ton of the online resources are full of stereotypes. Do any help you analyze whether you're using the first two well? Somewhere here I mentioned rethinking decisions to see how well you used each function...
The idea that you could be a really "shitty" INTP or a "shitty" ESFJ because of a lack of ability with
the dominant is fascinating. Would these be INTPs who struggle with thinking logically and ESFJs who struggle at playing the loyalties game? Or would it be like 90% of online sites who say, "you might be too rational mr INTP!" or "your not logical enough mrs esfj!"???
Using a function well means that you have conscious control, trust it, and would be judged by others to use it effectively. I guess I'd consider an ESFJ immature if he/she uses Fe to step into the shoes of others and figure out how to best wound them. Or, how to manipulate a room for some purpose not healthy to all. Because I view maturity as realizing that we're all in this together on this planet (even Spock, the connsumate INTP, knew that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)
For INTP, they may not have learned to question their models sufficiently. Maybe they've spent their Ti time trying to win Zelda rather than building their own models, so you get immature use of the function...
Or, perhaps they've grown up in environments where they aren't allowed to use one of the functions. An ENFP who grows up with rigid (as opposed to mature) SJ parents and siblings may have a really hard time learning to value their Ne since it's squashed every time with, "Keep your feet on the ground and head out of the clouds. No son/daughter of mine is going to be a musician/artist/teacher with a low salary/etc."
Do you understand the distinction Im making? Online always points out overuse of dominant problems, while I think you're pointing out under use of dominant auxiliary problems? I wish there were written examples of these "under use" people.
Both can get you into trouble, so you won't suffer by trying to recognize when your dominant is out of control. In fact our research showed that the point of collapse in crisis is when the dominant is simply not helpful. It's like the rug is pulled out from under you. Examples: INTJs carefully execute a plan and it has no success whatsoever. ENFPs search for every option under the sun only to realize that there is no solution (I watched a friend collapse this way in dealing with a schitzophrenic daughter...believing he could solve it all until the girl nearly knifed his wife...) ESTPs suddenly realize that there is nothing to enjoy in the present moment. Etc.
Not to brag, but I intuitively noticed this a while ago
[/QUOTE]
To roughly quote Naomi Quenk, who holds to the tertiary in the opposite attitude to the dominant, preference for a function includes a preference for its orientation, but doesn't preclude use of that preference in the other attitude. Hence the lack of need for eight functions in a row or at least in apparent order...