Well, the inferior function is one of the most difficult parts of resolving Jungian typology unless you take it on faith. There seem to be conflicting views on how ego-opposed or not it is. The gist is that all sources agree the inferior and the dominant need to have some integration to achieve a totality/unity of Self -- because the ego and the unconscious represent the two halves of the psyche (in a way rather like the romantic ideal of your "other half" giving you a sense of completeness).
The precise point of difficulty is the sense in which an introverted dominant has an extraverted rather than introverted version of the opposite function. Empirically, people aren't a balance of libidinal tendencies, i.e. an introvert doesn't show extraverted tendencies to the extent they are introverted, and only because nobody is a pure type do said tendencies occur.
So one is forced to conclude that the sense in which an introvert has an extraverted inferior is in a more symbolic, less direct, scientific sense -- for example, their repressed dreams may show an extraverted character (rather than their actual daily motivational bents) in the form of extraverted characters appearing to symbolize their unlived life.
In some of the modern theories, the problem is it's almost treated as if the inferior function-attitude is MORE ego-synchronous than is its opposing one (e.g. Se supposedly is more ego-synchronous than Si, i.e. "INFJs just don't use Si").
This realistically just doesn't work with Jung's theory as far as I can tell. It can work, however, if one starts to take more of a cognitive bent towards the subject and less of a personality bent. Unlike Jung's functions, his 2 attitudes introvert/extravert were more personality-oriented and not as cognitive in nature, although they were a lot of both. A lot of people don't realize this -- they think "Ti" and "Te" were born as 2 separate mental processes, but no, there was just one mental process thinking, deployed by people of 2 different psychological bents, rendering certain peculiarities evident to how these two approached that process.
In terms of cognition one can indeed hypothesize different processes of justification based on the usual subject-object problem, and demand there's something of a balance of appeals to both necessary to avoid a nonsensical worldview. It's sort of like you don't need to be balanced on P/J, but you generally do in perception/judgment to some extent. Jung's original introversion-extraversion was more like these personality dichotomies funnily enough -- it wasn't all cognitive functions from the start (actually he only talked about function-attitudes in Chapter X of his treatise, which is the only chapter most who even bother to read him at all have seen).
In this worldview, the dominant and inferior are somehow more evidently connected.
So to answer the OP, I'd say the key is just healthy compensation -- a healthy view on perception (if you view "INFJ" as a perceiving type, which is untrue going by the MBTI instrument) requires some appeal to both subject and object. If we consider Ni/Se, you can interpret it as e.g. saying that Se says any perception of the physical as apart from the self involves an interaction with it (vs Si, where the personal sense of reality involves not a sense of interaction so much as a sense of continuity between subject and the physical reality). To "know" the reality as is, independent of the disturbance inherent to any interaction between subject and physical object, thus, the Ni type cannot allow such an interaction to determine their cognition and must intuit what lay behind the mental envisioning of the event as directly as possible.
Notice here I'm driving at the intuition some put forth that people's dominants are trying to "get at" the truth of their inferiors, but in a way they simply are unable to by directly engaging the inferior.
A key about how I see introverted-perception as you've no doubt seen is how it's sort of "fused" with the person's sense of self, i.e. their sense of the raw facts that make up reality, whether physical or intuitive, is quite continuously fused with their sense of self rather than something they feel "happens" to them -- I suppose some may map this to the NJ and SJ dichotomies because it may produce a certain stubbornness in their perspective that is hard to explain. But I find that connection weak and prefer to express the idea precisely as is.
The precise point of difficulty is the sense in which an introverted dominant has an extraverted rather than introverted version of the opposite function. Empirically, people aren't a balance of libidinal tendencies, i.e. an introvert doesn't show extraverted tendencies to the extent they are introverted, and only because nobody is a pure type do said tendencies occur.
So one is forced to conclude that the sense in which an introvert has an extraverted inferior is in a more symbolic, less direct, scientific sense -- for example, their repressed dreams may show an extraverted character (rather than their actual daily motivational bents) in the form of extraverted characters appearing to symbolize their unlived life.
In some of the modern theories, the problem is it's almost treated as if the inferior function-attitude is MORE ego-synchronous than is its opposing one (e.g. Se supposedly is more ego-synchronous than Si, i.e. "INFJs just don't use Si").
This realistically just doesn't work with Jung's theory as far as I can tell. It can work, however, if one starts to take more of a cognitive bent towards the subject and less of a personality bent. Unlike Jung's functions, his 2 attitudes introvert/extravert were more personality-oriented and not as cognitive in nature, although they were a lot of both. A lot of people don't realize this -- they think "Ti" and "Te" were born as 2 separate mental processes, but no, there was just one mental process thinking, deployed by people of 2 different psychological bents, rendering certain peculiarities evident to how these two approached that process.
In terms of cognition one can indeed hypothesize different processes of justification based on the usual subject-object problem, and demand there's something of a balance of appeals to both necessary to avoid a nonsensical worldview. It's sort of like you don't need to be balanced on P/J, but you generally do in perception/judgment to some extent. Jung's original introversion-extraversion was more like these personality dichotomies funnily enough -- it wasn't all cognitive functions from the start (actually he only talked about function-attitudes in Chapter X of his treatise, which is the only chapter most who even bother to read him at all have seen).
In this worldview, the dominant and inferior are somehow more evidently connected.
So to answer the OP, I'd say the key is just healthy compensation -- a healthy view on perception (if you view "INFJ" as a perceiving type, which is untrue going by the MBTI instrument) requires some appeal to both subject and object. If we consider Ni/Se, you can interpret it as e.g. saying that Se says any perception of the physical as apart from the self involves an interaction with it (vs Si, where the personal sense of reality involves not a sense of interaction so much as a sense of continuity between subject and the physical reality). To "know" the reality as is, independent of the disturbance inherent to any interaction between subject and physical object, thus, the Ni type cannot allow such an interaction to determine their cognition and must intuit what lay behind the mental envisioning of the event as directly as possible.
Notice here I'm driving at the intuition some put forth that people's dominants are trying to "get at" the truth of their inferiors, but in a way they simply are unable to by directly engaging the inferior.
A key about how I see introverted-perception as you've no doubt seen is how it's sort of "fused" with the person's sense of self, i.e. their sense of the raw facts that make up reality, whether physical or intuitive, is quite continuously fused with their sense of self rather than something they feel "happens" to them -- I suppose some may map this to the NJ and SJ dichotomies because it may produce a certain stubbornness in their perspective that is hard to explain. But I find that connection weak and prefer to express the idea precisely as is.
Last edited: