Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

[The Ineffable]

Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is

[krieger]

Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.

LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is

there you go again, agreeing with things that are patently untrue.

[Ave]

no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.

...

it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.

[krieger]

for INTj, the function we currently know as the 4th is Se, which is empirically vulnerable, not "role". what Jason suggested:

3. Role: Se.

any more questions? apologies maybe?

[Ave]

I dont think you understood Jason. Not that I care, really.

[The Ineffable]

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?

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 .

[krieger]

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.

[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.