Thanks for replying, Von Hase.
How are the archetypes "simply a measure of our most common order of cognitive preference"?
Let's take INFJs as an example, are you saying that INFJs will have the function order of "Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si" most of the time or that, among the INFJs, that order is the most common (while another order, even though still valid for or found among INFJs, isn't as common?)?
All the above.
What I'm saying is that a person's inherent (aka most common or most comfortable) cognitive function order is unique to the person. That person's unique function order will be more like one type than another, and therefore it is grouped as such. If someone has a function preference that is closest to "Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si" then they are classified as an INFJ, even though among the INFJs there is a lot of variance. Jungian Archetypes are a "Best Fit" classification.
Also, the same person can develop different orders. So, an INFJ is likely to have an ENFP, ENFJ, INFP, or even INTP, ISTP mode - likely even several. What makes a person fit the INFJ type more than the others is that "Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si" is their most natural, comfortable, or basic state.
A good analogy might be that of shapeshifters, because it is a physical illustration of how adaptive the mind is. The base preference order would be like the human form - who you inherently are. Each of the additional types would be animal forms that someone could shapeshift into, like Wolf, Bird, Fish, Snake, etc. Most people would have at least one animal form they could take advantage of. Other people have several, and would use them based on the situation. If you could turn into a Wolf, you would use that form to run fast and track things, maybe even bite someone. You would use Fish to swim and breathe water. But, you wouldn't use Wolf to swim or Fish to run fast. Meanwhile, you wouldn't use Snake to do either, but you wouldn't use Wolf or Fish to slip through tight little spaces, and you wouldn't use any of them to fly except Bird. Each of the cognitive function preferences serve a utilitarian purpose that the base human form isn't as well equipped to handle. You'd do most things in your human form, but you would use an animal form when you needed an advantage that your human form didn't have like running fast, breathing water, slipping through cracks, or flying.
To take this analogy a step further, let's say that all INFJs are human forms. However, there are a lot of different kinds of humans. No two are identical, and each has their own aptitudes and failings, but they're all still human. No two INFJs have the exact same cognitive capacities, but they have the same basic traits. Now, let's call the running form ENFP mode. Here's where the differences become more apparent. Some people would shift into a Wolf, while others a Deer, or a Cheetah, or even a Kangaroo. It would still serve the same purpose, but each person has a unique take on the same function. Some can run for very long distances, some have amazing burst speed, while others have unique ways of getting around, yet they all end up falling into the same grouping of function - which is running. That's how Jungian archetypes work. They're very encompassing, and not very specific, classifying by function, but ignoring the individual differences. We could then group INFP as the swimming mode. Some INFJs would turn into Fish, others Otters, some into Dolphins, and others into Alligators. Again, the function is served, but the individual remains unique. Most importantly, whether in running mode or swimming mode, the INFJ is still at their base a human, and only takes advantage of these forms when needed.
I hope that explains my wacky theory a little better, because I'm about to take one last leap of analogy logic that may make everything either more clear or more confusing...
Now, imagine that as a person keeps using them, these forms stop looking like actual animals, but rather sort of beastial creatures that simply have traits to allow them to perform their functions. For example, in running mode, a person only shifts their arms and legs to resemble a quadraped so they can run like one, but otherwise look human. In swimming mode, they shift their arms and legs into flipper like things and grow gills, but otherwise look human. In flying mode, they simply shift their arms into wings. That's essentially what your mind is doing when it shifts modes. It's taking advantage of the other modes without actually turning you into the form you're imitating. Now here's where it gets interesting. Eventually, your mind learns how to encorporate any or all of the forms you've mastered at any given time. You could grow wings, flippers, and running legs all at once, having them ready at a moment's notice, and putting more emphasis on whichever set you're using without losing all of the utility of the others. This creature still retains a lot of your human form's traits, but can run fast, leap into the air, and dive into the water effortlessly. And that is what it is like when the mind has mastered the art of cognitive function modes. Your brain becomes a mental all terrain vehicle.
Here's how the development pattern works with this analogy... Let's say your mind needs the equivalent of running legs (to adapt to something like a job or school that isn't well suited for your inherent function set). At first you have to stop everything and adapt a new form. Your running legs aren't going to be very well formed, and are likely not even going to be as fast as your human legs. But, over time as you use them, they get better and better, more and more able to perform as needed. But, as you use them, you need less and less time to shift into them, until it is absolutely reflexive. Next you do the same thing with a swimming form, and then a flight form. And then you learn how to shift from one to the other without going back to human form, until you're so fluid with all of them that they're essentially a part of you. And that is how people become unable to decide which single type they actually are, because at that point, they don't really resemble their inherent function any longer.
