I hope you're joking; there's mountains of information out there running counter to your refining of the function orders here. The odds of you being right and 95% of the other expert MBTI-analysts being wrong is so enormously low, that considering it as a possibility would be like going out into the pasture and counting the beans, or picking every single hair out of the haystack one by one to find the needle.
I hope
you're joking. As further discussed in my posts in
this thread, I'd say the OP reflects Jung's view. And FYI, there's really no respectable body of empirical support for
anybody's functions model.
The MBTI dichotomies, which substantially line up with four of the Big Five dimensions, now have decades of studies in support of their validity and reliability, while the "cognitive functions" — which James Reynierse (in the 2009 article linked below) refers to as a "category mistake" — have barely been studied. And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. Going all the way back to 1985, the MBTI Manual described or referred to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 MBTI studies and, as I understand it,
not one of the many study-based correlations reported in the manual were framed in terms of the functions. And many more dichotomy-based studies have been done in the years since. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, as Reynierse notes in the linked article, it cited a grand total of
eight studies involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support."
Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as I'm sure you know), and
his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in
this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores
and high Ne scores (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores
and high Ti scores (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.
As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.
And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
If you're interested, you can find out quite a bit more about the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history — and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — in
this long INTJforum post.
Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:
The Reynierse article also talks about the attitude of the auxiliary function, and quotes Carl Alfred Meier — Jung's longtime assistant and the first president of the Jung Institute in Zürich — explaining that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as having the same attitude as the dominant.
