no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!
there you go again, agreeing with things that are patently untrue.LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is
for INTj, the function we currently know as the 4th is Se, which is empirically vulnerable, not "role". what Jason suggested:
any more questions? apologies maybe?3. Role: Se.
I dont think you understood Jason. Not that I care, really.
Not from me. That is because you reason formally, in labels, missing the point.
In the context, it was actually: Jason kept the numbering and naming of the functions, placing Fi as Vulnerable, on the presumption that Fi is contradictory to Ti of the Base. We know that 4th function is *PoLR/Vulnerable*, not Se. Being Se in the LII is a different matter and there is a reason for it, reason which Jason argues about.
If you can't get over you LSI limitations, let Typhon help you, for he is your Dual .
look, Se is vulnerable in INTj, Fi is not. this is an empirical certainty. Jason claimed otherwise. there is no room for misunderstanding here except on the part of stubborn jokers like you that are catatonically immune to reason.