Okay, fair enough. You're young. You're still at the age where you implicitly trust the signals from your Dominant function and tend to experience input from your Auxiliary as painful or disconcerting. So it is perhaps age-appropriate for you to use your Auxiliary to screen out the world to protect your Dominant function from disconcerting ideas. It's probably wrong for me to label your use of your Auxiliary as "stunted."
You're not giving much ground here. This isn't validating. You're completely dismissing it as immaturity all over again, and taking away my right to choose my own path of development by saying "It will happen, you're just too young, so you just have to gain experience." Maybe I don't want it to happen that way? Maybe I want to take a different path than other people do? You're forcing your truth on me, and I don't like it one bit. I really don't agree with your idea that all people are somehow predestined to go through particular stages and feel particular things in fairly predictable ways, and they have no choice about what or how they do anything, and that there's little room for variation.
I don't think that discussing an idea and explaining what I disagree with and why rather than accepting it without question is immature. Accepting things without trying to understand them is not my idea of intelligence. Of course, neither is rejecting things without trying to understand them (which I think is your concern).
Here's what I think is happening. You see two extremes... one that doesn't let any information in at all because it screens too much, and another that accepts all information received. You consider the second one better, because it's closer to your approach as an xNxP. But what you don't realize is that it's different for J's, and we don't have the same kind of inner grounding regarding things. You don't seem to be aware that it is a reasonable approach to apply certain filters to information, in order to make sense of it and integrate it with what you already know in order to use it more effectively. Just because I choose not to place something into my way of dealing with things doesn't mean I don't recall or process it. It's just that I only acknowledge or use it in my judgments after I find more information that reconciles it with what I already know, or shows something I believed to be incomplete or false (which is something I usually seek out when confronted with such information, after having dismissed it for the moment). This doesn't involve discomfort. I don't appreciate your insistence that growing to a point where I unconditionally force the information in regardless of how it relates to what I've already perceived is the next step, hands down.
The separate mental structure you seem not to be as aware of is the one that holds information that is not applied to judgment, because it's deemed too incomplete. You seem to think that if I had been aware of the information and not dismissed it, I would use it in my judgments regarding what you think the information ought to be used for. In reality, I'm dismissing it right now because it doesn't seem valid in context of what I know, but will reevaluate it later if I get more information about that perception. In fact, I periodically reevaluate information I haven't accepted all the time, I just refuse to use it in my judgments until I can somehow reconcile the contradictions that exist between it and what I already believe is true. I probably couldn't do otherwise, although I might pretend to if I were concerned that someone else would be a threat if I didn't.
The thing you don't seem to get about my judgment is that it's always applied to
past information. In other words, I'm applying my judgment to the information you've already given me, as I have processed it. Not to what information you will give me. The underlying assumption here is that it's obvious to everyone that I can't apply judgment to information I don't have, so that if you give me other information, or tell me to process it a different way, my judgment will be different. It's like this:
(processes information) This is my judgment. (anticipates information intended to confirm or refute said judgment.)
But you somehow miss the first and last parts because they are understated. Come to think of it, it's almost as if many P's think (or believe that I think) that I can apply judgment to information I don't have, and assume that's what I've done.