At what point is it definitely a misapplication of functions?
For me personally? Not that it's necessarily being done in this thread, but just generally speaking: When people attribute specific behaviors to one and only one function (basically similar to the concept of going... oh, I'm INFJ because I am x, y, and z... when in reality, x, y, and z can be attributes of other types as well, under certain circumstances), and basically the tendency, which is easy on this forum to fall into, to try to explain every psychological phenomena and interpersonal situation by using function-speak and only function-speak.
This perspective appears to discount the notion of having categories of differences.
What I find interesting is that in spite of individuals each having individual traits that make each one unique, there are certain psychological categories such that an individual is either one or the other. That the individual, having chosen (for lack of a better word) one path over another (e.g., one function over another), becomes inherently different, in a categorical way, from those who chose the other path.
Or more plainly, there wouldn't be an endless generation of "Fe/Fi threads" if the differences were not observably real and categorical.
That said, yes, individuals are unique, and are best understood as individuals with unique traits. But the categorical differences remain useful: it quickly becomes obvious why person A readily understands an idea, and person B does not, or vice versa ... NOT because person A is so smart, or person B is so dumb, but that the thinking of each are in entirely different spaces. And that understanding is what allows one to explain an idea such that both people understand it.
Look, I am not trying to say there aren't observable categories of people. I mean, even without mbti, I think part of human nature is to categorize and observe trends/patterns. This has been going on for millenia. And without mbti, yeah, I could just as easily create my own categories of personality -- 'arrogant people', 'selfless people', 'materialistic people', 'timid people', 'drama-queens', 'stoic people', 'Republicans', 'Hipsters', 'Nascar people', 'Peta fanatics', whatever. And there will be commonalities among these varying groups, too.
So totally - there are general categories. I have fun with mbti and absolutely, the 'Blueprint'/caricature of an ESFJ is quite different from the blueprint of an INTP. Obviously. And yes, those differences in priority and approach to the world are real and noticeable. I really don't have a big problem with the categories when it comes to discussing them - and the functions - theoretically. I just don't think the functions and such allign seamlessly when it comes to the individual level, nor that people necessarily HAVE to fall definitively in one place or the other. The places are real/valid in terms of a framework and 'starting point', if you will - a framework of 16 varying possibilities/trends. And conceptually that's very cut and dry and pretty and nice. And useful for discussing differences in personality - absolutely. And certainly some people fall quite solidly in one place. I just think it's dangerous ground when it comes to *applying* all of this in real life -- applying these nice crisp theoretical differences to everyone in real life. That's all. And I think it's especially easy to forget that, again, there's a myriad of other things that impact human behavior and interaction - various neuroses, individual life experiences, etc. So what people may throw off as 'Fe' when trying to showcase what Fe is, theoretically, may instead be codependency due to various things, and have nothing to do with Fe. You know, stuff like that.
Edit: Explained another way, I DO when I zoom out notice/categorize group trends. And commonalities/definitions of those Group Entities are real/noticeable. That's how the groups differ. But zooming in, you can't necessarily apply the overarching group definitions to the individuals in the same way it defines/applies to the group. I've recently started thinking of mbti more in terms of Bell Curves -- that the majority of any type will fit in that middle section of the curve - and that middle section, if you will, 'defines' the group. But of course there are those on either side of the curve who deviate in some ways from the middle but still can fit into the overarching theme. What this means is that in Practice, applying the theory/cog functions to the Individual isn't a guarantee or even applicable in some cases.
Phew. Sorry.
