Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
To expand on @reckful, people like Wilde have come up with quantitative approach for generating something like functions from preference strength (of course this only works for dominant and auxiliary). And "dichotomy" (really a preference pair) really indicates a continuous—not dichotomous—strength of preference, with people tending toward middling prefernences.

So, while this tends to rule out tertiary and inferior functions as meaningless (despite many efforts in support for finding them), it does open the door to other preference pairs (and triads) as being meaningful. It rescues the validity of the Keirsey temperaments (with non-functional pairs like "NF" and "NT") and others preference combinations as well (like "IJ" and "IP").

All that being said, I personally like Thomson... partially because she has good "function" (actually preference pair or triad) descriptions and breaks away from traditional type dynamics. I would rank her significantly less silly than Beebe (who I think is smoking crack beyond the dominant and auxiliary function preference pairs), since she has some non-traditional-type-dynamics insights to offer and some keen observations.

I wouldn't take her "lasagna" approach too seriously (although lasagna is delicious), but I think for people with middling T/F and/or S/N preference, her model is closer to accurate that the traditional four functions models (far more so than Beebe's).
I will admit, her descriptions are better than most I've read. My wife doesn't seem to mind the function talk too much in her book, whereas usually any technical "functionese" turns her off from typology.

I find the "right/left brain alternatives" theory intriguing, but the problem is that she only cites one obscure source yet mentions it as if extensive research and study existed.

However, there still might be something to it, assuming the functions are real to begin with (which I'm not entirely certain).