You're still mistaken, it gets even more confusing than that. INTP is a Perceiving type, but the dominant function is Ti which is rational, so they're a rational, and rational means judgment, so they're judgers. But a different definition of judger than is meant by J in the type code. And of course INTP is an NT, which is a rational, but INTJ is also an NT, and thus a rational, but the dominant function is a perception function, so they're irrational, but with a different definition, thus they're perceivers, but they're also judgers by a different definition.
Are you referring to the Grant/Beebe function stack? I was agnostic about that until I learnt to identify function sequences, and that is the support I use for it. Likely there is other support as well, but I just go by whatever is sufficient for me to make up my mind, rather than collating all the evidence together, so it's hard for me to convince others, apart from saying "just look for it in the way I'm referring to, you might be able to see it too!".
Sequences, sequences. The functions just tend to go in an order. If you look for it you'll see it. Dario Nardi used an analogy in his thread about anatomy. It's possible for the human anatomy to be totally different than what it is, but it just so happens that it tends to be the same for everyone, because that's what evolved based on functionality.
So certain orderings of functions (I mean sequential ordering, as well as distance from the "seat of consciousness") just happen to be functional, while others, while possible, are less functional.
Though, there are other contexts you can look at where the functions don't manifest in a set order, but can be used in any order. And there are plenty of variations to the function order even when it does appear in a sequence. But there are regularities to how it manifests, and that's why the Grant/Beebe function order is a useful approximation (and even the word "approximation" sells it short, given that we're talking about essentially discrete processes here).
If these specific function stacks order were a good approximation they would be passed the empirical tests.
Well I already said everything I could, at least you are aware of the strong reasons for not using them. Although your vibe seems conceptual, its a lot sentimental. What I have been discussing about reckful althought is that the functions alone themselves (Se, Fe, Ni, etc...) were not been invalidated. So, these concepts of Fe, Fi... all still follows on a sense. What dont follow is a the constrained rule that any type needs to have a specific Dom and Aux, you dont need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ.
I wont grasp the details, but behind the equations I had "created" most INFJs on the sea of INFJ possibilites are Ni-doms, and there is a tendency for Fe too. INFJs tends to be Ni-doms and have very high preference for Ni, but thats a tendency, not a law, and for the moment thats the most reasonable point of view I can adopt now. I thought about that for the 2nd function, but as [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] stated there were analysis (that did not proceeded empirically) saying that with two functions that doesnt follow (and the same goes to the tertiary and others). I wonder how that translates in terms of real world statistics since not all my possibilites are sunstainable and some of them should be very rare and others more common. What I noticed is that even websites that ignores cognitive functions creates descriptions using the Dom and sometimes the auxiliary, but maybe thats only the parts that the Fe-->FJ and etc.. translation that actually works. Being an INFP shouldnt necessarily translate by being lead by values, but 16P have partial descriptions that are written like they were using cognitive functions. "Mediator [INFP] personalities are true idealists" thats the first line in their INFPs description that actually describe a Fi-dom characteristic. However, you dont really find Fi directly in their basic ISFP description, but it quite pops in the INFP description. So I am suspecting that there are Fi-doms traits that showed up in statistics of INFPs that were included on INFP description (they may have found that the majority of INFPs marked "very me" in the phrase "I am a true idealist").
The simple answer is I changed it to be more dichotomy based. It evaluates functions and it heavily weights introversion vs extraversion in determining type. The reason I did this is to improve accuracy. Evaluating temperament turned out to be more harm than benefit and relying on cognitive function order alone was far too unreliable. That's what the data told me anyway.
So, although it doesnt shows you have numbers for the letters (example: 55% introversion, 45% extroversion)?
The answer which types are more ambiverted and which types are more introverted or extroverted is actually quite foundable by people who create and run tests. I am telling this because its a suggestion I am doing to you for data gathering: Supposing you are counting the numbers in the I-E, S-N, F-T, P-J axis, you can count the average of extraversion in any type. So, you could count the average of extraversion in ENTP, INTP, etc... In that same subject, you could even count which types has the most % of ambiversions. If we define ambiversion as being 45-55% in the axis, you could count, for example, how many people from ENFP, ESFJ, etc.. has 51-55% of extraversion in the axis and compare to the total of ENFP, ESFJs, etc.. You could also do the same to highly extroverteds and highly introverteds (for example, taking as 80% or more of extraversion as highly extroverted and 20% or less of extraversion as highly introverted) and compare to the total. With all these data you could actually build a rank that I would enjoy to see. And there is even a bonus: You can do the same in the S-N, T-F and P-J types. From my very long term "web surfing" the community suspects/thinks these: ENFPs, ENTPs are the less extroverted Es, with some people putting ENTJs on the list in ambiversion. People think the most extroverted types are ESFP and ESFJ; In the other side, I support the not-much popular that ISTJ and ISFJ are the most ambiverted, and some say its INFJ and INTJ. INTPs and ISTPs are supposed as the most introverted, with some people supporting that INTJ is too (there are many people disagreeing about INTJ in this matter). ISFPs and ISTPs are known as the more intuitive S types. Also, in the forum statistics - % of MBTI types, which is "dominated" by intuitives, ISFPs and ISTPs are the first two sensors types that shows up first, and maybe because they are the less S types. As the most concrete Ns, which is barely discussed, its considered ENTJ. In T/F matter, there is no discussion I remember about which F is more like a thinker, but some say the most sentimental thinker are INTJs. In the J/P there is zero discussion on this matter.
Also, as I have been discussing with [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] the functions themselves are not category mistakes and all of that, only the function stacks and concepts as we now Dom, aux, tertiary, etc.. are observed as mistakes as mistakes. That happens even considering only Dom and aux, but, as I stated to [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] in this same post the concept of Dom shouldnt be out of the table because the category mistakes article only works with the tight function stacks that required, at minimum, specific 1st and 2nd functions for each type.
