hey sorry to all, I got "disconnected" from here for a while. I'm replying now
if anyone's still around
Wow, symmetry of the universe, you definitely went much further in thinking abstractly about this than me
I instead tended to stick with the original topic of MBTI.
I do think your thoughts make sense on abstract vs concrete. For me actually there's two kinds of abstract thought: first one is anything that can be expressed or structured in a logical manner - I like to use visual themes in my mind for that but I can also go the way of taking fully abstract forms. This kind does not need much concrete experience though it's definitely good to have the actual experience because it somehow makes me "feel" things/aspects of the topic a lot deeper or something. Like, it comes to me more effortlessly if also associated with experience*. The other kind of abstract thought I can have is the "intuitive" big picture thingies but that always comes/gets built from concrete details or experience, virtually never the other way around... well unless logical reasoning can jumpstart me on that. Of course a lot of my logic use does come from the details. Overall maybe this building from concrete detail and the deeper "feeling" of an experienced topic is/are what you meant by abstract being mostly subservient to concrete experience.
*: is this not the same way for N's then...?
It's okay
I'm not going to ask about the details now because the post that used the visual metaphor was very concise and clear to me.
(Yes if there wasn't that post, I would have asked about the missing steps as you still missed a lot of steps unless a lot of your numbers were just random fillers for fun... Let's use my preferring to have all that as further proof of my S-ness huh?
OTOH... I can't make myself bother with them now that I got the logic behind the whole idea. So does that just make me someone who's not into total OCD about having all details?
)
See my comments below to whatever's post about what I think about this "one X" thing.
Thanks this explanation is just fine. I get how the XXXX type would be represented by just one X. =P (Of course need to make the paper into a 3-dimensional cube to add another letter/function, etc, etc...) I would however say there's more than one X still. Not just the middle of everything. Say, X in S/N space but not X in F/T space... So this point that happens to be in the middle of S/N is not necessarily the middle of everything. Some X without perfect balance. That's not an XXXX type anymore, of course. Just a simpler ambivert e.g. me being XSTP ;P Or two X's XXTP, etc.
No, you don't have to be a balanced person as a result of being an XXXX type (full 4 of X's, or 8 if you wish lol).
No, you don't need infinite feed of energy. Take the available amount of energy and divide it into as many parts as many letters/functions/dichotomies are there and allocate the parts evenly. No difference in energy distribution thus no difference in preference and no noticing of difference in engaging any of these functions.
Doesn't follow that it *has to* be a perfect person or balanced person or balance of energy distribution or anything. If anything, the person may be just a jack of all trades and less efficient at things than if the person were to specialize in one dominant function.
Otoh just as the perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, this exactly equal distribution of energy in an actual psyche doesn't either. But that's nitpicking IMO.
In practice, we might as well say "X" instead of I/E, S/N or whatever because it's not going to make a real difference if you're 49,51% I or 50,00% I, ambivert in both cases.
So I will admit that the idea of a necessity of one or more generic overarching preference(s) in these personality theories is a bit ambivalent to me.
Interesting. =P Any news on that since then?
Your last line is what gets me thinking too
Highly likely what?
to wildcat though 
Thousand cheers to whatever. I thought of Wall Street in the morning. The devil lurks there .. in the details. 
