Right I know you don't like me splitting posts but I'm going to go through this a little more piecemeal to see if I can find the divergence between our thinking.
It is simple to find a medial order in an empiric study. You just add. The upshot you then divide according to the number of the participants.
Take a sound look at the cognitive processes tests and their results.
Find the medial order. The average. You know how to do it.
Question #1 would be "Add what?" but I think that's irrelevant.
The average result of the functions is meaningless as the primary is divided sixteen ways, as is the secondary and so on. Unless you figure in the percentage portion of population with each type then you'd end up with a flat line on your graph showing nothing.
I am intuiting that perhaps a better word would be pattern or base pattern (okay that's a phrase but you know what I mean... I hope). The basic pattern as we were discussing those many moons ago on MBTIc as it was produced some of the most helpful thinking on processes I've encountered but it wasn't regarding numbers or what total you get if you add them all up (I presume that works for you to help you remember and/ or understand but to me it's just a number). My personal gem that I found during that conversation was the identifying of what "switches" existed.
Say you started with ESTJ you'd have
Te Si Ne Fi
okay now flick the E/I switch and go to ISTJ
Si Te Fi Ne
okay so flick the E/I switch back and flick the S/N switch instead, making ENTJ
Te Ni Se Fi
Now flick that back and flick the P/J switch making ESTP
Se Ti Fe Ni
That kinda shows how the whole system runs and so from a fixed starting position you can progress to any other types function order. However you have to know one function order first.
If we could work from that then we should be able to produce a concise method of working out function orders from types.
The number 9 does not have a place.
In the words of the famous ENTP "well you started it".
Why were you quoting 9 as the answer if it has no place?
You remember the analogy about the railway stations?
The stations stay put. The trains move.
Einstein suggested we do not know what moves. In the principle level, of course he is right.
Do the stretches between the stations correspond the number of the stations?
No.
The principle of the mistake is deeply rooted in our culture. Therefore we do not see it.
Okay you lost me there.
I believe your thinking that the whole thing about fence posts and fence panels is leading to the idea that the distance between two fence posts is relevant..it's not.
Count to 7.
1,2,3,4,5,6&7. 7 is the last number and there are 7 numbers there. However that would be counting the fence panels.
To count the fence posts, depending on your philosophy, it's 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7. That's still ending in seven but it counts eight numbers because it acknowledges your starting position and that you do touch on eight numbers when counting to seven.
Does this clear things up a little?