But shouldn't I logically show greater signs of Ne and Si than the OP considering my age?
I kind of feel like you're making up vague excuses to not look into things further.
I am saying that you identifying with the OP doesn't necessarily say much since you've yet to prove with concrete evidence how the OP cognitively fits the INxP type more than ENxP. It's one thing that I type as INxP because I'm making fun out of the systems but I think it's strange if the OP is Ji dominant, that neither preference is expressed towards Ti or Fi which it should.
Not necessarily. You're two different people with different situations, and the age difference isn't even great enough to demand “more signsâ€.
And neither your quiz, nor your other observations are absolute determinants anyway. (And neither are mine, so that's why I gave a guess and said I would have to read the OP more. Yet you're being very absolute about it, and it's not always that clear. This is not “concreteâ€, it's “abstractâ€.
Heck, the way you're debating, you seem to be TiNe yourself, which you admitted for MBTI. (I still don't see how it would be Fi in “Jungâ€).
It's not always simply about mining someone's writing/speech for “signs†of function “useâ€. You'll probably say i'm just looking at “personaâ€, but I believe that's another “sign†as well. I see a focus on critical debate.
That you identify with his processes could equally be you projecting. We don't know this but we do know that it happens often with say, those who are enneatype 9 which your thinking does strongly suggest at. The problem with the enneatype 9 is that they easily over-identify with anything other than themselves because they rather be something else than themselves. Not because I am saying you are a 9, but You noted this yourself with my questionnaire and what matters is the dominant, not auxiliary. Auxiliary plays a very little role in Jungian psychology.
I never identified with 9. It's always 4,5 and 6. 9 was in one of the possible trifixes, IIRC.
But you suggested this yourself in the other thread where you mention that a function appearing in the unconscious is more "immature" thus also suggesting that a function can equally be "mature". Differentiation in fact means development of a function because you tap into its actual potential.
You contradicted yourself. On the one hand you say it defaults to the opposite, but then you say the attitude is not differentiated. Can only be either one.
It technically falls into the opposite realm, because that's where everything that the ego rejects is collected. Since everything in this realm is undifferentiated, the line between the attitudes is also very unclear.
The problem, again, is treating these things like “concrete†objects that have hard boundaries. They aren't.
What I believe really sets the definite orientation and stacking order is the archetypal complexes, or basically, the IM's. So the anima will be associated with the opposite function, opposite attitude, and the Demonic Personality will associate with the even further repressed dominant attitude of the opposite function.
This is also the answer to the first part (regarding function “maturationâ€), which stemmed from your claim that if the inferior weren't differentiated, the dominant wouldn't be either. Also on that point, I acknowledge “developmentâ€, but the term can be overused, further causing the misconstruing of the functions into skills, which was my main concern there.