p2 - yeah that's exactly right, but how or why can't someone like to use two Ji functions? Imagine if the second was only used when say, something like music grabs their Fi's interest (for example, on some INFP career thing it explains something like 'once an INFP is devoted to a career, they will do their best to cover the details' or somethn), so they would use Ti in favour of Fi to understand how theory works and apply it, then it sounds good and inspires the INFP to use Ti more, etc. I was just wondering if anyone has odd strengths for a type, like an ISTP with developed Fe
Because when they are mentioned as 'preferences' it isn't meant in the sense of you consciously choose the function and then that becomes your dominant or aux or whatever. The preference refers to an inherency in thought processing and information gathering....although you can consciously try to enage in acts that could be associated with a certain function.....but this is not the same as developing your weaker than weak shadow functions into something of use.
As for the example you used to explain Fi being shunted off in favour of Ti.....just...no. Afterall Fi is the dominant, of all the functions for a type the dominant is the least mutable since it is almost the definer through which the others are filtered. So for example the way Fi appears in an INFP may be different than the way Fi appears in an ENFP. Because with one it is the defining framework of all the other processes and with the other it is playing second fiddle to the perceptions of dominant Ne.
This doesn't mean that an ENFP and INFP will not share some similarities in terms of values, (although of course we are still individuals regardless of type), but there will be differences.
As for the Ti side of this, since it was used as an example, i'll mention that Ti doesn't really work with details so much that it breaks things down and then builds them up again all the time allowing a person to pick apart the inconsistancies of something using subjective logic, this helps with classification and sub-classifications of principals and whatnot, it also allows for a preciseness and accuracy in the evaluation and construction of frameworks.
In any case, even if there were such an odd person as an INFP who favours Ti over Fi....they most likely would not be able to keep this up for any length of time without causing themselves stress and tiring themselves out. Eventually they would find themselves reverting back to Fi because it is a more established and well developed preference.
However I do agree somewhat with one aspect of function theory when it comes to developing some over others and that is this idea that you can develop tertiary over auxiliary or even inferior over something, (excepting the dominant which is like the bottom set of a house of cards), because of some sort of life experience that an individual might have been subject to.
Of course whether or not there is any real evidence for this is unclear, but then again evidence is often hard to find when concerning theories such as these, at least non-heuristic evidence.
Actually ive thought of something else since you asked about using two Ji functions. Within the way the theory was constructed using Jung's work it is put forth that if extraversion or introversion is the attitude of the dominant, then as a balance so must the auxiliary be the opposite.
This is because as Jung observed a person possesses a capacity for both introversion and extraversion even though they usually have a clear preference for one over the other. This does not mean, however, that they are incapable of playing into the opposite field.
If a person were to have two leading introverted functions, let's use judging ones since that is the example you used, then such a person would theoretically be incapable of outward expression and vice versa that a person with two extraverted judging functions would find him/herself unable to introspect to any useful degree and therefore lack an internal anchor to themselves.
It makes more sense that there is a balance of attitudes than that there isn't. But this doesnt mean I am not open to new evidence and a good argument towards the other side of this; if someone can present one.
ps: You aren't allowed to use those with brain damage or some other form of neurological impairment, that would be cheating. We're talking so called 'healthy' people here.
