+/- Intertypes

[Igxfl]

I've noticed that many of the DS & POLR tweaking relations appear significantly better or worse than the other relation that has the same "tweaking" function in the same slot. For example, Benefactors don't seem nearly as Fe-helpful to me (LII) as Activities, who also have creative Fi, and Supervisors are far less Se-irritating than Conflictors, though both have base Se.
Labcoat posted a paragraph elsewhere about Taciturn/Narrator, (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...123#post762123) and, although it didn't initially make sense to me to think of things in terms of of shared accepting/creating functions, the idea appears to have the same structural implications as treating (Xe+/Xi-) and (Xi+/Xe-) as linked, (an idea I recall seeing a line or two on somewhere), and rethinking intertypes while taking into account this connection.
For example, the POLR has the polarity of a type's opposing quadra. The Supervisor has the same function, but of opposite polarity, which, apparently, would actually be somewhat related to the Supervisee's HA (as Ni+ is related to Ne- or what have you). Same for Benefactor and Semi-Dual, in which case their helpful function slightly resembles your Role in addition to your DS and therefore inferior to that of Activity or Dual. This also means that Look-Alikes scratch each other's DS a bit because the Base of one is linked +/- style to the DS of the other's.

[krieger]

the idea appears to have the same structural implications as treating (Xe+/Xi-) and (Xi+/Xe-) as linked, (an idea I recall seeing a line or two on somewhere), and rethinking intertypes while taking into account this connection.

exactly; this is the crucial thing to realize when it comes to seeing the link between this "Model B" claim and taciturn/narrator theory. Xe+/Xi- is taciturn and Xi+/Xe- is narrator.

notice also:
supervisor's Creating function can be said to supervise the supervisee's Accepting function. The difference in taciturn/narrator between the functions is what creates the mismatch of values between the two.

i regularly come across INFps whose Fe is a total turn-off to me. it took me a long, long time to figure out that these people were in fact Fe types despite my not appreciating their brand of emotivity. it even confused me into thinking i might be non-Fe valuing. but as far as i'm concerned there was no way to resolve the problems other than to introduce a new postulate.