Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
Doesn't this imply that, at the disjunctive functional level, types as a whole function like other types combined?
it can at times make sense to view them that way. i sense that i can "supervise" INFps at times. also on the topic of supervision, there are two ways to interpret supervision:

Accepting function supervises Creating function opposite in Internal/External (examples: Acc-Se -> Cre-Ne; Acc-Fi -> Cre-Ti)
Creating function supervises Accepting function equal in Interal/External (examples: Cre-Ti -> Acc-Ti; Cre-Ne -> Acc-Ne)

both yield the empirically justified conclusion that ESTps supervise INTjs, ENFps supervise ISFjs, etc.

now allowing for use of ID functions, this makes INTjs supervise INFps in multiple ways:
ID Cre-Ni -> ego Acc-Ni
ID Acc-Te -> ego Cre-Fe

this can probably also be expressed in terms of Taciturn/Narrator functions...

i think your presentation shows how the "switching" of the two types in each line yields the new way of interpreting supervision. normally you'd match J functions to J functions and P to P, but the Taciturn/Narrator view turns the whole thing on it's head... without breaking the logic behind the system.