Exactly; my view is that it's possible that this assumption is a product of the need for maintaining a study of a system of typology at all. After all, you can't describe the infinitely many ways development can happen, but you can try to describe and build on the likely foundations/innateness behind that development. Jung's type diagnosis was subjective enough and allowing enough for changes of type pattern that he probably never was motivated to write down a full on static classification system (nor was that his kind of thing).Originally Posted by point
Unfortunately I think it's hardly reality that there's a clear, obvious reason why someone's IE remain solely explainable from the standpoint of one block or function. You can argue it and argue it and spin it so it works, but I happen to think with development comes not just more nuance and more experience, but also a potential opening up of the person to employ functions from the mindset of a different block, i.e. develop new fundamental patterns resembling other TIM. It's possible some of this is speculated about in the Gulenko multiple types theory, which never seems to have been resolved entirely (?!). As the persona type represents the individual's concrete adaptations to reality's conditions, and as in the original Jungian standpoint, the ego would likely identify at least in part with a healthy persona, with the difference not being between persona=mask and ego=real but rather ego=conscious sense of self vs Self=full sense of self, including the iceberg beneath the ego, it's actually quite likely one develops pretty clear, well-defined type patterns over time.