http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56400&page=22&p=1941120&viewfull=1#post1941120
Here is my response to the points you've raised, greenfairy.
EDIT: Actually, I'm going to re-post my entire response on this thread, 'cause I don't understand why OP decided to answer my other post in THIS thread in her other thread. Besides, this post of mine does address some topics that are being discussed on this thread ATM. I have just skimmed over the forum FAQ page, and didn't find a rule that said I can't do this; please do inform me if that's not true. Thanks guys and here goes:
In what particular situation? You haven't specified one.
Really? REALLY?
Good grief, and I spent so much time trying to show you that you aren't a Ti user, with technical details. At this point I'm at a loss for words; you simply refuse to be convinced, no matter how many people persistantly point out how INTP simply wouldn't be the best fit for you. Wow. Just... wow.
I won't be able to get you to understand how it was meant to be taken before you stop making false assumptions about cognitive functions; I will address your false assumptions as I respond to the next part of your post.
A big fat no to both bolded statements.
The cognitive functions are NOT, repeat, NOT skill sets you can "improve." According to Jung, the functions are the way we relate to the world, the Dominant and Auxiliary are those ways of thinking that we relate to consciously, they are what psychologists call "ego-syntonic".
Let's take your definition/understanding of Ti - a set of 'skills' which includes "analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision; analyzing your options using principles like comfort or "Red is a power color.""
According to your definition, Te users would either not have those skills or not be naturally good at them. Don't try to tell me that our INTJ and ENTJ friends (and all other 6 types of Te users) are incapable of/not naturally competent in performing those 'skills' listed under Ti, for that's simply not true. Do you really think that only Ti users analyze, categorize information, clarify definitions, check for inconsistencies in their arguments etc. (with any degree of proficiency)? Do you really think that non-Ti users are not naturally capable of engaging in those skills and thus have to consciously strive to somehow learn or acquire them? I'm sorry, my INTJ best friend would scoff.
Cognitive functions are 'modes of processing and expressing information/feelings,' and cannot necessarily be categorized in terms of how they tend to 'manifest' in a person. A person who gives a suffering friend a hug isn't necessarily operating on Fe; a person who analyzes and categorizes information etc. isn't necessarily operating on Ti. Fe and Ti COULD manifest that way, but that's not the way to pinpoint which cognitive functions you're actually using.
My point being, the presence of "analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision; analyzing your options using principles" in your post doesn't necessarily indicate a preference for Ti. I'm not saying that they're not there - but everyone does those things regardless of type (with varying degrees of willingness/success, of course; you're not very successful IMO, if successfulness is to be taken as an indication of true preference at all).
I don't even know what to say to this. Emotional reasoning? I have a different name for it: illogicy.
That's all I've got for now; I'll check for clarity later, when I'm done with breakfast (it's 7:50AM in my time zone).
EDIT: I realized I haven't responded to this part of your argument:
No. That's like saying a cat can turn itself into a dog by somehow teaching itself how to bark and wag its tail.