A person's dominant function is all you really need. This is consistent with a theory of four (functions only), or eight (functions and attitudes) types. I believe the functions and attitudes were identified through Jung's study of types, not the other way around.
It depends on your factorization tree of typology. Do you begin with a base dichotomy of I/E (as in MBTI) or irrational/rational (as in Types)??
If irrational and rational is a base dichotomy of typology then we immediately see divergence between INTP and INTJ.
The next differentiation made by Jung at this point is I/E so we now have four types (introverted rationals, introverted irrationals, ..., ....)
At this point in the study we begin to see the emergence of functions in typology. Rationals seem to be divided into either thinking or feeling types which characteristically/by definition repress the function (as there is only ONE) of the other type into unconsciousness. At this point we now have eight types (two introverted rationals, two introverted irrationals, two extraverted rationals, two extraverted irrationals).
BG this seems to be okay. I wouldn't quarrel with it, not having examined every detail. What I would like to say new is we can arrive at temperament either from top/down OR bottom up.
It is not exactly like saying electrons and protons are part of the atom, as they may exist freely in space, unbound by nuclear forces. However, I do not dismiss the idea altogether; I believe that in a sense, electrons and protons are defined by the atom.
Top/down: We look at the atom, analyze it and find its constituent parts. Bottom/up: we start with electrons and protons, find them wherever, and construct an atoms by putting electrons and protons together in a special relationship.
Look at what can happen in each case. Top/down: We looks at the atom and fail to discover all its parts. Yet we still have the atom. Bottom/up: We take parts and try to construct an atom and find we can't do it because something is missing.
I was simply giving an alternative explanation ...
Terrific. We are closer to agreement.
I could see one of two things happening as you try to bring out your unconscious type:
1. Introverted thinking and introverted feeling are so contradictory ...
You are using some terms* I haven't taken in properly and would have to look at later. It may be a problem in language where I say one thing and you another and we don't read each other properly. For example I don't see introverted thinking and introverted feeling as contradictory at all. They operate in parallel. Thinking observes; feeling evaluates. One can't do both at exactly the same time. If one is conscious the other has to remain unconscious. One could rapidly alternate but that usually doesn't happen ... for the sake of integrity of purpose.
X. You, however, had suggested that you are acting "like an INTJ" which I would suggest is largely impossible as it violates the primary/base distinction in the model (i.e. rational vs. irrational types).
I don't quite recall the context where I said that, but we are getting into language details here. If we had more room, pages and pages, we might be able to resolve it with more detailed analysis.
________________
*terms like R/IR. I have glossed over that finding them at the moment extraneous to one particular model. If I reread how you've used them, I might do better at getting what you're saying.
