I just don't like an unempirical approach to MBTI. Then it becomes all about boxes. I see it as a useful tool to understanding people, but not as a perfect theory with all the answers.
We don't disagree on that.
I just had trouble understanding what your criticisms have to do with the two posts preceding them. since the whole premise of what we were discussing involved the impact of the primary and secondary functions, which are the core of the MBTI personality theory (!).
(It's not like we were basing our opinions on some obscure fifth or sixth place function, right?)
Obviously your profile differs a bit and you do not easily fit into a box. People are all different, and some of us have been forced to develop functions earlier in life than expected. (For example, on the eight-function test, I ranked TiNe, but my Ni was close to my Ne score, and my Feeling functions seem more developed than expected.)
But if you're going to class yourself as an INTJ, it must mean that -- regardless of your scores -- you should exhibit NiTe traits as your primary working personality PLUS you happen to have a good Ti. You should still be perceived as INTJ at core... or you would not be INTJ, right? You'd be something else?
Same thing with ESFP vs ESFJ. It does not matter if they happen to show some additional function use, they still ultimately categorizable as ESFP or ESFJ... and generally speaking ESFP/ESFJ are discernable from each other.
And empirical proof would be to gather a bunch, put them in a room to interact with others, and see if we could sort them out without prior knowledge... and I'm betting we could within a few minutes.
My comments were based on that sort of "empirical" experience with people. I don't have any problem telling an ESFP from an ESFJ, and I've known ESFJs who were "out of control" and I've known ESFPs who had to be a little more organized than normal. They still look different.