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.



Reply With Quote
