I'm unsure whether these have been already resolved and/or extensively discussed by the community—if so, then consider this post a question regarding those topics, because I haven't been able to find information on them.
This is very rudimentary and possibly irrational; it's not polished by Ti as I couldn't be fucked lately. First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves—that is to say, whether they change form based on influence from other functions. Socionics takes into account the influence their position may have, and the influence the individual's relation to them has on them, but I haven't been able to find information on possible inter-function relations. An example of this is Si and how it differs when more of its content is generated by Ti than by Fi, or vice versa. I may have an esoteric view on Si, but it seems to me the conceptual frameworks are built entirely differently when Ti is used as opposed to when Fi is. This division I would call the dichotomy of "connotative/denotative" Si: connotative Si is built by Fi by associating together concepts based on ethical evaluation and universal moral standards, giving rise to a kind of "it's true because it should be true" mode of epistemology (also predisposing the individual to cults of various kinds), whereas denotative Si is built by Ti by logical connectivity to certain axioms (also predisposing the individual to a risk of building a doll-house model of reality that works with perfect logic as long as you don't question the axioms).
This may be understood by many Socionists and inferred by knowledgeable people themselves, but I do not see it written and systematized clearly anywhere. Inter-function relations, once they are conceptualized, may provide additional discoveries on the particular natures of different types. Again, if this has already been questioned, consider this simply a question on where I could find additional information on the subject.
The second observation I have made has to do with how the dominant functions are defined. It is assumed that a person's strongest function is also one that the person values, or moreover values
most, when this seems to go contrary to the principle of dissatisfaction: we seem to value that which we can't quite master, that which challenges us. This would imply that the strongest function is indeed one that is often treated with a certain indifference. This would also explain the phenomenon I've witnessed time and again, where those who are absolutely dominating in a given competitive field (say, Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker) are also seemingly rather indifferent about the field: it does not engage them, it does not force them to act. If this is correct, then a great portion of tests are asking the testee to manifest a complement of their real type. For example, the test is asking whether the individual "tries to maintain a state of harmony between them and others," to which an individual with this attribute
truly as the dominant responds with a mediocre score because they have no idea they are constantly doing it—it comes naturally, and they are indifferent to it, they do not "
try" to do it. Similarly an individual who is asked whether they "are always paying extra attention to the logic of an argument" and truly has introverted logic as the strongest attribute, they will again score this badly because they do not pay attention to it, it reveals itself automatically.
Perhaps this only applies to some functions. I'm not sure what else there is to this, I have to think about it. But it seems to me that in all cases where someone is experiencing a sort of stagnating neurosis it's due to them ignoring the strengths they truly have because they have self-perpetually gone deeper and deeper into an obsession on correcting their flaws and becoming "what they should be;" and they may have the conviction that they are "good at nothing, everything is impossible," and when one points out the strength they truly have they go
"oh that, that's nothing, I don't even care about that"
and the cycle keeps perpetuating itself. They are not grounding themselves in what they truly excel at in order to sort of
through and alongside that find challenges that intrigue them.
Anyway, I think that true strengths aren't points of pride but simple obvious facts and tests should take this into account or else people keep mistyping themselves through Super-id or whatever. Maybe this has larger implications, perhaps 7 and 8 are always stronger or tend to be stronger due to a kind of over-clocking or obsessiveness (Ti with me, I'm quite sure) which makes them uncomfortable and thus rarely used. However it is, this is simply a share on these two points of speculation, maybe a conversation can be had about these.
And if I'm completely off-road here, please direct me to some links where I can clear my possible misconceptions, thank you.