Ok, couldn't this same perspective be applied to every single function preference? I mean, every function has it's good and bad moments/uses.
From what I understood of the function descriptions they listed both positive and negative aspects. Also, I think this is the same concept that typoloy has adapted on a whole already. It's a major part of typing, whether or not people admit it, to find weaknesses and strengths in types. That's all the descriptions do, basically. Of course, I think descriptions should also include the negative sides of types more so
This possibly would stop people from mistyping themselves as much and picking types they aspire to be like.
Then again, maybe you're just talking about the questionable distinction between function order labels, and which ones should be placed in which order. In that case, I would agree, it seems paradoxial. I guess it's difficult to say which functions are strengths and which are weaknesses. Of course, people are going to assume that their primary functions are their strengths and their PoLR is their weakness, simply because socnioncs presents it this way. The whole idea of ordering functions by rating is pretty misleading. I've even seen some people go as far as numbering lists to represent the strengths and weaknesses. Maybe it would be better to simply categorize them and give an explination of both sides, instead of instantly assuming it is a strength or weakness?
Added: And by this I mean giving an explination of both sides of every function for each type and how it manifests itself in each type positively and negatively without using hierarchy to determine it's effectiveness.
Would that solve the problem?