Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

[Ave]

look, Se is vulnerable in INTj, Fi is not. this is an empirical certainty. Jason claimed otherwise.

This is empirical certainty? No, none of this theory is empirical or certain, nor is there such a thing as an empirical certainy, thats an oxymoron since all things falsifiable through empircal means are uncertain. This is scientific method as we use it today, ditch that and stop calling yourself a scientist.

catatonically immune to reason.

[The Ineffable]

labcoat, you have to see the reasons behind these definitions, this is the only way you can correct a system you relate to if it is wrong. My recommendation is to stop sticking literally to the establishment like a stubborn donkey. I agree with you that Se as Vulnerable had empirical support and that's the only thing we can call "real", however you misunderstand the *hypothetical* case of the OP, when that is the only way you can see things.

Edit: true, I misjudged you when I said above you think in labels.

[krieger]

please link me to this mound of undiscovered stories about INTjs proclaiming to have vulnerable Fi rather than Se and I'll concede on the issue.

[The Ineffable]

This is empirical certainty? No, none of this theory is empirical or certain, nor is there such a thing as an empirical certainy, thats an oxymoron since all things falsifiable through empircal means are uncertain. This is scientific method as we use it today, ditch that and stop calling yourself a scientist.

Yes, sociotypes and functions, although empirically induced, are not matter-of-fact, as he suggests. The abstract reasoning and modeling involved bring up a lot of potential sources of error. If we take them as pure indisputable facts [1], we may carry these errors indefinitely. This is the other implication of my point, besides the one relating to understanding hypothetical premises that other people may forward, this thread being a good example.

please link me to this mound of undiscovered stories about INTjs proclaiming to have vulnerable Fi rather than Se and I'll concede on the issue.

That is not the point. The point is that the OP suggested something else: the Base Ti of the LII, the contrary nature of Ti and Fi [2], and the fact that Se is considered as the most problematic IE of this type are, together, an apparent contradiction.
---

[1] - say like "Obama is the president of the USA".
[2] - let alone the validity of Ti and Se blocked together.

[krieger]

read this post again. this exchange is over.