IMPORTANT: I quoted some people not in the intention to involve them on the discussion but rather to just mention them for some reason.
The notion that the dichotomies only involve superficial stuff and the "functions" are about deeper stuff is just functionista nonsense.
There isn't a single valid thing that can be said about "Fe types" that can't just as well be said with a dichotomy-centric framing. Instead of saying "Fe types" are like this and "Fi types" are like that, the dichotomy-centric MBTI says FJs are like this, and FPs are like that.
And FJ-vs-FP differences don't involve two kinds of feeling to any greater extent than EF-vs-IF differences, or NF-vs-SF differences.
I dont know if you got what I said on my post ending. I meant someone tackling the 8 cognitive functions without any specific order stacking and dismissing concepts of "leading", "secondary" and "tertiary function"/ "4th function". Ill give a much longer explanation by using an example in order to be less abstract.
After your post I took a look at people results in the two tests that I consider the best ones that uses both cognitive functions and 4-letter code, but it looks like they do the typing using Gran Function Stack (GFS). Actually, I dont think there is a single test in the internet that uses ditchonomies (personality dimensions) and the cognitive functions in paralel or combined. Here it is the TypoC one, managed and created (I believe) by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]:
New Version of Forum Personality Test
And the Dario Nardi test:
Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test)
When I looked the results of several people tests, I saw GFS failing sometimes. More failing than succeding actually. I saw things like INTP with higher Ni´s than Ne (unusual but possible). I saw a lot of people which didnt seem to have any preference between Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fi or Fe, Se or Si, actually, thats seems to be common. And in that matter comes an interesting family of cases. Some INFPs displayed a huge preference for Fi over Fe, and, well that it is what it should happen since Fi goes for FP and Fe goes for FJ. But there was some INFPs which didnt seem to have a particular preference between Fi over Fe. And yet, they were still scoring as INFP in a stable manner. This pattern happens in several other types. I even found one INFP that scored preference for Fe over Fi [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION]). Link:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...on-forum-personality-test-22.html#post3112859
She should be INFJ by Fe-Fi FP-FJ conversion, but then you look a preference for Ne instead of Ni. Ne goes for NP while Ni goes for NJ. So far, you could say that Im actually stating that the cognitive functions are broke, but thats not the case. My point here in this example is this: The Fe-Fi FP-FJ, Ne-Ni-NP-NJ and other alikes conversions would only be valid if GFS was valid either. When you do these conversions (Fi=FP), you are assuming GFS as valid. And my second point here, is that there should be a big difference between the regular INFP which preferes Fi over Fe between the INFP with equal preference for Fi and Fe or the INFP that has a preference for Fe over Fi which is the present case. And yet, they still get the same codes: INFP. Thats what I meant by the potential to expand and make MBTI deeper, since cognitive functions could not only distinct different INFPs but to do the same in every personality type. Note that I am not saying that personality dimensions are wrong because of this, I am actually expanding them. I am giving one example where I am expanding and giving depth and variety for INFPs (I could do it with any type) using cognitive functions, so they arent useless nor direct conversions from the personality dimensions MBTI. But I am claiming that the Fi-->FP and all these kind of conversions are wrong if GFS is wrong, which is the case. Actually, I am already dismissing GFS entirely, because in GFS INFPs should have Fi preference over Fe. I am talking something new here, but this could not be new (am I the first to think and rephrase cognitive functions this way? I am asking because I usually never the one who came with ideas first).
Now, ideally it would be nice if we actually had an personality dimensions results either from her and from the other cases, but we dont. So, how the decision of INFP and not INFJ was made here? Well, only [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] could explain from his software side, but Im going to display you my hypothesis -
which is that the cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences. Remember, its an hypothesis, I never had the opportunity to test it. It is neither proven entirely/partially right or wrong, unless you could point me out someone which did the same and tested, which is exactly what I was asking last post. Continuing, these restrictions come from the simple equations I stated above. Just remembering: If someone has preference in Intuition over Sensing, then Ne+Ni>Se+Si. = sign (relatively close) if there is no clear preference. Same for thinking and feeling. For extraversion or introversion, we compare how extraverted functions are compared to introverted functions. In Judging or perceveing functions is what I think there is a possibility that I am wrong, but Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are judging functions while Se, Si, Ne, Ni are perceveing functions. In [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] case, I will explain why P and not J by using this principle. In her case, Se+Ne+Ni+Si=7 while Fi+Fe+Ti+Te=-3. So, since the sum or judging functions are -3 and the sum of perceveing funtions are 7 we have a clear preference for perceveing, and, yet we have high Fe over Fi (which should translate by being FJ but it doesnt). Also note that there is no dominant function on this case.
I used example so I hope you catch the concept. It doenst matter if she hard these results only that day or if the [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] test made mistakes, it matters the concept which I am trying to explain here. There are literally at least hundreds of possible cases with the same issue in INFP case. So I ask again: Is there anyone on the "functionista nonsense" that have ever thought of this? Wouldnt the "functionista nonsense school" always been tied by dominant and specific order of functions or anyone of them thought a function stack that doesnt follow specific tight patterns? Well, GFS doesnt work but that doesnt mean that it is impossible to make the cognitive functions work. Even if I dont actually dominate the concept between these functions since my sources about it should be poor, I think the system I described could not only bring the cognitive function usefullness but could expand the MBTI system, into something that not only categorizes you but describes your personality (even if it is kind of akward).
The reason James Reynierse concluded — in
that article I often link to (from the official MBTI journal) — that, stack considerations aside, the cognitive functions themselves are a "category mistake" isn't that "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions don't include aspects of personality that are validly associated with MBTI FJs and FPs, respectively. They often do!
(...)
As Reynierse rightly emphasizes, although there are multiple things that
functionistas have asserted over the past 30 years that purport to go
beyond what fits within the framework of what I call the Real MBTI Model, not a single, solitary one of those "type dynamics" assertions can point to any respectable empirical support. As part of that linked article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of
eight studies involving type dynamics — which Reynierse aptly summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."
I didnt noticed any parts where Reynierse stated that the cognitive functions themselves tested and failed. He states that type dynamics and the dynamical interpretation (Dominant and aux, as they appear in table 1) are a mistake, but I didnt see him stating that the functions themselves are a mistake (for example, that Si Sensing Introverted is a mistake in itself).