There are only 4 bits of information. E v I, S v N, T v F, J v P.

So, if you are 'strongly' I and weakly P that does not change the order to show P is more dominate over J than I is over E. AKA, magnitude is literally not part of the test.

When I took the MBTI as part of a college psych course, our test results came back with magnitude scores: moderately I, very N, barely T (ie, almost X), and very P. (The actual scores were numeric, but I only remember the relative strength years later.)

When discussing the results as a class, the strength of a type seemed to correlate reasonably with behavior, and explain more than the clusters on their own, eg, all the strong NPs had similar epistemological views and styles, fading towards an SJ style as the scores people had changed.

What a lot of people seem to forget, though, is the MBTI doesn't account for effects from disorders only healthy variation and it's about who you are right now, not who you are permanently. People vary over time.

Notably, all the good secondary analysis of MBTI I've seen worries about magnitude. The RibbonFarm bit on it focuses almost exclusively on magnitude, discussing 'primary' traits rather than four-letter type clusters. A lot of the worst analysis, by contrast, insists on using non-magnitude, 16-case typing.

Which, of course, means that we're abandoning the actual test to get a substantive measurement.