What do you mean by "creative function"?
Oh, I meant "auxiliary". Socionics uses "creative", I think. Word slip.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "blurring the lines between judging and perceiving, displaying JCF inaccurately." Can you provide an example? I think you tried to explain this but I'm not following you.
I don't know if I can provide an example, but there's a lot of stuff that doesn't mesh well that maybe I can use to explain what I mean.
In Jung, summarizing, Tx/Fx are rational functions, Nx/Sx are irrational functions, extroversion is objective, but only in the sense of what it "aims" to do - change/influence/titillate the external world, not that it has a completely objective understanding of reality as some believe, introversion is subjective in that it deals with and constructs an internal orientation about the world, but not that it is a completely subjective understanding of reality either as some believe (a lot of the abstract systems that govern our way of life are based on introversion, but they are very real, like government, money, economics, etc.), the inferior function has an unconscious influence over the dominant function, a second function is of lesser importance/use and is a slave of the rationality or irrationality of the dominant function, and the only temperaments are then NT, ST, SF, and NF and J/P really doesn't exist.
In MBTI, summarizing what surrounds it, rationality is whether or not you are a T (rational) or F (irrational); what is objective is T and what is subjective is F; F has to do then with subjective values, while T has to do with objective logic. Ne is possibilities and being open-minded, whereas Ni is knowing "the truth". Si is being a stupid traditionalist git and Se is almost the equivalent of being a self-indulgent whore or animalistic. Fe is being social and influencing people with ease, while Te is getting "shit done". J/P was added and it was applied to the less important auxiliary function, yet it remains an important defining line between your type and thus Jung's rationality and irrationality and what functions you use, either Ni+Te or Ti+Ne in the case of INTP and INTJ.
Folowing from the previous paragraph:
Someone who then sees their auxiliary function as important starts to explain their dominant function as relating to it, defining their dominant function hugely by their auxiliary. For example, someone who is Jungian Ni dominant may not see Te or Fe to be all that useful or important and may find their heavy introversion relates more to Ti+Ne, since Ne is explained away as considering possibilities despite that they aren't really extroverting Ne the way Jung outlined (and Ti is rational and critical and objective in MBTI, even though that has literally nothing to do with it, except being rational). The second function wasn't supposed to have so much weight. This is where MBTI screws up because even when people use JCF they often find it hard to get past all the bs and incorporate it in many ways into JCF, anyway. If they believe the second function holds a lot of weight, all efforts will go to that aim, even if it muddles the epistemological logical basis for Jung's types.
But let's say someone does use JCF
correctly. There's still a problem. Because the introverted functions aren't objective (in the Jungian sense), it then tends to be easy to misinterpret aspects of a type for an observer. More truthfully, it is usually the external observer not understanding the self-reporting of the internal observer that creates a problem in the first place. Given that there are four temperaments to Jung's types - SF, NF, NT, ST, would it be absurd to find them sometimes explained in terms of what the observer sees as rather dumbed down and negative qualities, sometimes forcing JCF to describe a type as if in a shadow state? At least this is what I've found, especially among the feeling type descriptions. The shittiest JCF descriptions seem to hinge on describing Beebe's Opposing and Witch shadow in describing the motivations and orientation of the type. It's ironic because it's still technically accurate and still talking about the type, although contradictory to what their functions really are supposed to be.
Of course, I can't really provide proof of this, since it would require hacking apart things people have said in various places, which you probably wouldn't find to be conclusive, but it is what I came to realize without any forethought about the idea, at some point. It's also why I think they are somewhat contradictory, but attempt to explain the same phenomenon.
What MBTI did do is take the functions identified by Jung and narrow it down to the 16 types based on a predetermined ordering of them. It's a derivation of Jung. I guess my question is what would a "JCF type" even be? Do I just say someone is an Ni dom and leave it at that or do I have 8 functions in order of preference with that ordering being random (or more than 16 variations)?
If you add another function, then there is another unconscious element to explain, one that has much less impact on someone than the dominant function would and one that would be more open to interpretation and contradiction over time because of this - too changeable to make general assumptions on. Considering a lot of thought is/was put into tertiary-dom loops and developing the tertiary and such and what it should all mean and whether it really makes any sense... well that's probably a sign, right?