Basically, I'm not looking to make MBTI applicable to everyone, which means some people aren't going to have a type and some people might have a type but not fit it perfectly. This means that an MBTI type definition that I come up with isn't necessarily going to be based off of analyzing the behaviour of people in general, but analyzing the definitions of functions as left by certain people. The applicability of it matters less to me.
So, noting that, I'm free to use cognitive functions a fair bit more in my analysis, in particular (in my case) the function definitions left by Jung. Jung was pretty clear in defining Fe, as a function, as being about absorbing how society (or at least the part of society that the Fe user has interacted with) feels (in the sense of ethics and of taste) about certain things. For a dominant Fe user , this means making one's actions and ideas relatively similar to some version of what "people" feel (so, behaving in a way people consider to be ethical, preferring art considered to be good by most people, etc.). For an
auxillary Fe user (INFJ, ISFJ), this will mean something more like finding good what society thinks is good, but not necessarily feeling the same sense of obligation to be good themselves (I think there's something in the Ni description that would suggest that too--failure to apply the Ni images, which would form how one sees the world, to oneself or something like that).
Fe is usually tempered by Ti in "the system", Ti being something I understand a little bit less but could describe as taking information and ideas, comparing them to each other, and jettisoning certain ideas that don't jive with other, stronger/more preferred ideas (so, for instance, look at objectivists and other radical libertarians, who take the two ideas of "stealing is bad" and "the government should be able to take money to pay for certain things" find the two to not make sense together, and decide that no, the government shouldn't be able to take money to pay for things). For dominant Fe users, the user of Ti is lowest, and for dominant Ti users, obviously, it's highest--aux Fe users, being tert Ti users, are going to do at lest some analysis about whether values are consistent with each other, although they'll be more inclined to try and square the circle relative to more Ti-heavy types.
But, of course, I haven't mentioned Ni--that's what makes up the "constituent parts" I was talking about. Ni in this system is how NFJs see what the core values they want to emulate are, along with how they see how things work to a large extent. The difference between it and Si is basically that Ni isn't as faithful to the original image of something, seeing a celebrity performance and thinking of a literal star, perhaps, rather than thinking of other performances. So, while an Si type might be more inclined to emulate certain values by imitating the people they view as upholding those values, an Ni type will, based on the theory at least, hold more to the spirit of the values (or, on the flip side, hold to those values even after the people holding them have been shown to be massive hypocrites, but nonetheless)
Anyway, to tie this back to the underdog for a moment, I believe the underdog is
massively favored in media, and has been favored in larger culture for longer in some way (chivalrous knights defend the weak, Jesus Christ defends the weak, etc.) That means INFJs in this society will prefer people and things that defend the weak over things that don't. This should also mean a greater ability to see who's weak in a given situation (due to Ni flexibility about the exact image), but it can be a double-edged sword, because the weakness of the person's group to the society's group looks physically real to them.
I recognize my ideas probably are flawed at this point, and that's partially because I made a commitment not to focus too much on typology.
But, here they are.
Take what you like.
