Is this type test accurate?

[XoX]

Doesn't reduced usage of Fe naturally lead to increased usage of Ti? As they are the opposite ends of same "axis". Like Se and Ni, Te and Fi, Ne and Si?

Edit:
So INFp (Ni), compared to average INFp should have...
increased usage of Ni, decreased usage of Se
decreased usage of Fe, increased usage of Ti
decreased usage of Fi (because Ti shuts down Fi), increased usage of Te
decreased usage of Si (because Ni shuts down Si), increased usage of Ne

I'm not sure about this. I don't think that less Fe necessarily leads to more Ti. I think it leads to more Te. Now if you say that more Ti leads to more Te -- no, I don't think so.

Well it would seem to follow quite naturally from the "functional relationship model". You can even travel two different paths of thinking (which are different only superficially though):
1) More Ti leads to less Fi (because of shut out effect) which leads to more Te (because Fi and Te are opposites)
2) More Ti leads to less Fe (because they are opposites) which leads to more Te (because of shut out effect)

So it is really based only on two reasonable assumptions. Assumption about certain functional pairs being opposites and certain functional pairs shutting out each other.

However, and this may be related to what you see as a problem, this does not take into account "valuing" a function over some other. According to these assumptions a Te-ENTj like yourself would have stronger ST functions and weaker NF functions compared to Ni-ENTj. A simplistic interpretation would mean you have "stronger Te" AND "stronger Ti" than a Ni-ENTj. I belivee this to be true. But at the same time a Te-ENTj supposedly moves towards Delta and Ni-ENTj towards Beta so technically Ni-ENTj should value Ti more than a Te-ENTj. This suggests (=confirms) that "having function as strong" and "valuing a function" are two different things (which is consistent with socionics model as ESTj is supposed to have strong but not-valued and ENFj is supposed to have weak but valued ).

I still claim the model is right but incomplete as it lacks the parts which explain the difference between having function as strong and valuing a function i.e. the parts which explain Quadras and type relations. It basically lacks the assumptions that model-A adds on top of strictly Jungian interpretation basically (or something like that, I'm starting to drift in my thought so I better stop now ).

[XoX]

I started a new thread on this:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...fad746cca593e7