Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
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.
I was actually looking for where you and FDG stated this, before I made the post. I'm confused about the two kinds of "supervision" involved. Like what does "supervision" mean for each case? One thing that seems right is Smilingeyes stating that the Creating function "pushes" the Accepting version around.


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.
It seems pretty straightforward, but I don't see any potential from the knowledge. I only see that typing is much more easier and accurate with it, and that types are like legos.

I still don't understand the Focal/Diffuse stuff.