The underyling assumption of simulatedworld’s arguments on functions is that Jung’s original text on psychological types is the absolute truth. If someone makes a statement seeming to contradict something Jung originally wrote, sw pounds them with Jung quotes and paraphrases like a Christian fundamentalist quoting scripture. This goes against the grain of Jung, who wasn’t dogmatic about his theories like Freud was. Jung also believed individuals are too complex to fit perfectly into typologies. In other words, Jung saw his typology theory as an approximation, not a gospel. It’s also nearly a century old, and if he were alive writing about it today, Jung likely would have his own revisions to make.
Members posting on functions are usually referring to the revisions of Jung’s functions and overall system by Myers-Brigg (Gifts Differing) and Lenore Thomson (Pesonality Types: An Owner’s Manuel). I’m not saying simulatedworld is wrong to bring up Jung, who no doubt wrote some of the most profound and exotic function descriptions, especially compared to some of the generic mbti books, but to use Jung's original text like a fundamentalist is to engage in the selective literalism of a Christian fanatic with the Bible. Sw’s assumption is that because he knows Jung’s original text better than most people on this forum, and can split hairs with a fine razor over any word or phrase which seems to contradict it, his arguments are automatically correct.