Narrating perceptions vs Narrating judgments

[anndelise]

an idea recently entered my head.....like less than 5 minutes ago.
regarding narrators vs taciturns and subtypes
something along the lines of

would a narrating p narrate perceptions and question judgements?
would that be normal or would that be a p subtype of a p?
would a j subtype of a p narrate judgements more than perceptions?
or would that be a j narrator?
would a taciturn p question perceptions and narrate judgements?
would that be normal or would that be a p subtype?
etc.

i don't remember which types are said to be taciturn and which are narrators, i'll have to look that up before i can go much further.
(Looked it up just now, if mcnew's chart in the article section is correct (joy's chart confirms), then
Interrogative = Alpha NT, Beta NF , Gamma SF, Delta ST
Declarative = Alpha SF, Beta ST, Gamma NT, Delta NF )

but i just wanted to toss this idea out to see if anyone was interested in discussing the possibilities of this

[anndelise]

ok, an ever so slightly clearer attempt at what's running through my head....(muhahahahaha)

imo, each person (and thus each type) uses both interrogatives and declaratives.
But is there a way of differentiating a type by differentiating what types of info are asked about and which types of info are declared?

ENFps tend to narrate their perceptions and question judgements.
But some ENFps move easier into judging functions than others do.
When an ENFp narrates their judgements, they are often considered at that time (by others) as being possible ENFjs (who happen to have an accepting judging function).
Is narration often confused with accepting?
If an ENFp narrates p and questions j, then what would an ENFj do? (and what do ENFjs tend to question and what do they tend to narrate?
Or could this be more likely connected to subtypes instead? Such as an ENFp who narrates his/her judgements more often/easier being a j subtype rather than a p subtype.