Form follows function - an equine analogy of good type development and differentiation.Some time ago, it became apparant to me through an association with horses, that there was some real analogical value to be gained from looking at equine conformation and psychological type.
The well known aphorism "form follows function" serves as pivotal in this respect, and central to our brief excursion into the developmental aspects of psychological type dynamics.
The following observations serve as the basis for the analogy.
A horse is born with an innate instinct to roam and run. That is what makes a horse a horse - and not a dog. It is hard wired.
Like a horse, we are born with preferences for perceiving, judging and directing our energy. It is what makes us unique as individuals and different to each other. Like horses, we live, work and operate within a defined environment that determines how we exercise our instincts and preferences.
A horse is a thing that is designed to roam and run, and roaming and running conforms a horse to be that which it essentially is designed to be. If a horse does not roam or run, then apart from its conformation suffering, it becomes something less than a true horse (i.e. a paradox - a thing that does not roam or run but which is supposedly a horse).
In a similar way, if we are designed to express certain psychological functions, then by not doing so, we too paradoxically become that which we're not, or at the very least, something less than that which we could be.
In order for a horse to roam and run (i.e. develop its essentially designed instincts), it must be given enough free reign and space to roam and run.
Similarly, if we want to develop our typological "essence", then we need enough "space" to do so. A horse cannot roam or run in a small paddock, and an INTP for example, cannot work with ideas if they're always compelled by concrete actualities.
If a horse roams and runs, then, when it is not roaming or running, it can do other "non essential" activities without sacrificing its essential nature; of being a horse. Its form is true to its function, and moreover it can become more than a roaming running thing.
Similarly, if we allow ourselves to form according to our functional essence, then we will create space and opportunity to do other activities that are "non essential", without sacrificing our essential nature of being. If our form is true to our function, we become more than our essential typological nature, and like a roaming running horse, our "non essential" activities can augment and complement our essential nature.
In contrast, if a horse does not roam or run, it will not form well, nor will it be good at doing the other "non essential" activities a horse might do (e.g. riding). Doubly, less than a horse.
Similarly, if we do not form well, then the "non essential" activities we do will be mediocre, and we will doubly cease to be that which we are, either essentially or "non essentially".
Moreover, if a horse is to be good at "non essential" activities like riding, then it must be conformed well. A lazy out-of-condition horse will not make for a good riding horse.
Similarly, a person with (for example) a preference for intuition and thinking that does not work with ideas will not be effective at attending to concrete actualities because the psychological function will be totally undeveloped.
If a horse does not roam or run, or do the other "non essential" activities horses do, then apart from being poorly formed, it will be confused and undirected by not knowing or doing what it should do or be. It will have no conception of its essential nature.
Similarly, if we do not do the things we are naturally, or "essentially", designed to do, or the "non essential" activities we might do, then we will be confused and undirected by not knowing or doing what we should do or be.
Summarily, you have to "be what you are" before you can "do what you're not". Then, paradoxically, you can become "more than you could hope to be".