I'm glad there is at least some parallel. :3
I wasn't sure whether there would be any correlation. (btw, is it ok to assume that you use the socionics V.I. discipline for your typings, or is it a personal/experiential paradigm?)
I believe we (we as in not just my team but all typologists) can crack the code and parallel between cognition and expression. Instead of looking at things in terms of "schools", my philosophy on that is to let the data dictate what direction the model should take. It may resemble an existing model or none at all, but ultimately there is but one truth to the collective human psyche which I believe can be identified objectively.
Now, using Jungian
psychological theory alone does not allow for this to happen easily because one can dispute the nuances in any direction and any one person's interpertation is as valid as the next. But in presenting a (part) empirical element such as visual reading presents an opportunity to eliminate erroneous theoretical deductions.
For instance, if we only look at things from a psychological platform, we can't really disprove that a certain arrangement of functions is impossible, and the anecdote of a person who firmly believes their psyche operates via using Ti>Ni>Fi>Si
cannot be countered satisfactorily. But if each function has been visually identified -- first in those who have it as dominant and where it is clearest -- then it is possible to observe them to confirm whether or not they have that function in place. Having this double-checking system allows a solution to irregularities, and ultimately allows for a better refinement of the psychology of types as well.
Doing this, we can see the reality of how the functions are truly arranged and which "school" is more right. As an example of this, there are some things we've been able to confirm so far. I started out learning about the MBTI
model, but though sheer observation (both psychically and physically) I've come to realize that the rational/irrational dichotomy -- which socionics concurs with -- is very real and even visibly identifiable.
Another thing I've been able to confirm is that functions operate in pairings. That is to say, the signals of Ti are always accompanied with the signals for Fe, and the eyes of Ni will also move like the eyes of Se, et cetera. Visually they "toggle" as the user engages in either decision-making or data synthesis. This lead to further curiosity about what this may imply psychically, and I've come to realize that the same toggling happens there as well. So for example, Si and Ne are activated together in brainstorming, and the Ti process of data discrimination is followed by Fe emotive articulation meant to elicit impact.
Sorry for long ramble. <<
Basically, we're letting facts dictate theory, relying tentatively on the JCF model as a general direction to head.