...the corollary being that if the message is NOT brought across and understood correctly, then that function was used incorrectly?
First of all, I really don't think personality systems are meant to be used in that kind of normative way.
Second, how would you be able to diagnose mis-communications? Is it the sender's fault (was the function that he used unhealthy) if the other person doesn't understand? Or is it the receiver's fault? Moreover, what about different types of communication that involve functions but don't conform to the standard sender-receiver model, such as artistic expressions? Functions obviously have other uses than strict verbal communication.
Third, how do you know which behaviors are the result of which functions? If you can't even know that, then what is the point of trying to categorize specific behaviors as good or bad uses of a function? It's all bullshit.
Hm, those are good points. I would say that when it comes to the miscommunication and where it is occuring it could be either persons fault. Variables that get in the way are things such as the thoughts complexity, the vocabulary that one has to describe the thought (though complexity of thought might be limited to do this in the beginning), the person who's listening capacity for understanding. If we look at art, I suppose it's best to say that if the person explaining their idea to a person who asked them their motivations for creating it and what it's supposed to express, and the person speaking is trying to describe his feelings behind it, and they aren't congruent with the art itself, perhaps the person painting misperceived, barring the above variables are met. Of course, how we perceive certain things is different too, so the person listening may not be able to perceive what is being explained, and the person painting may be correct in their own right, but if we go with this logic then technically we're all right, concepts like that don't usually tend to work out so well with humans. Hm, actually, it might not be completely out of our grasp if we look at it from the perspective that we're all right. Let's say someone painted a piece of paper red, that's it, and another looks at it and says this makes me feel hot. The painter looks at it and says I was trying to make you feel cold. With this knowledge the person who was judging misjudged and the person painting misperceived. That example leads me to the concept that both could be wrong.
I am unable to answer your first and third question mainly because I don't know. I think it has to do with trusting the person to describe, or show what they feel, or thought in the best way they know how, but we can never really know this for sure.
Why? Just curious on your thoughts.
no. typology is all about how we perceive and think(make judgments of thoughts and perceptions). that does reflect on our natural communication styles in some levels, but communication is half learned and half about natural tendencies on particular ways to communicate
I guess my reasoning was that eventually we all try to express what we see and so eventually we would need to make that communication clear to those who are watching and if it doesn't make sense... Well, I talked about that in Orangey's part.