- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
There’s so much to say about this, and I’m so glad you posted it @ladynerdsky ! As you know, the protocol in CT is that the profiles must change according to the samples which represent the vultology — and so (assuming the vultology is right) this will catalyze such a process because I agree that the current behavioral descriptions don’t account for what you’ve written. Especially considering that @elisaday (another Fi unseelie) resonate with you and your experience so closely.
Yes, when the Fi profile was first written the community members that were used as a scaffold were all seelie Fi’s (Tori, Frida, Pine, Aux, etc). I now see where exactly the bias is.
But there’s a lot more to unpack here. I also relate to a fair amount of what you wrote above. Bella (also TiNe) does as well, although we both see key differences too. There seems to be a growing congruence in CT overall with the notion that Ji/Je/Pi/Pe functions are more similar to each other than any, because they share the same root.
So for instance, Ti and Fi may be ~80% alike in their emergent traits/behaviors/preferences, and the final 20% represents the unique elements to Ti and Fi. This is congruent with the current hypothesis that the functions are genetic bifurcations of each other, and Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta differences are a later division of the human species.
Anyhow, what I mean to say is that not just yours, but other testimonies seem to point to a stronger similarity between Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se and Ni/Si than previously thought. So, many properties currently assigned to Ti are more appropriately Ji, and the profiles of Ti and Fi need to be adjusted accordingly. The Fi profile also needs to lose its seelie bias. But I’m getting ahead of myself…
Could it be a mistyping?
First we have to rule out the possibility of mistyping. I went through your original videos again, to see if I hadn’t mistyped you, and you still appear Fi/Te to me even by the newly refined standard. But I also revisited @cosmo and, oddly enough, I’m less sure about her. TiNe does seem plausible for her, vultologically. There’s something going on that I don’t understand and I feel I need more data.
The codifier has only just been completed, which now allows for any members to do readings by the same set of definitions — so I am wondering what they’d see? Cosmo, I’m really curious about how you relate to LadyNerd’s description above? Is it to all of it? Some of it?
And any other Ji-leads too, what do you guys think? If I can compare/contrast experiences, we may be able to develop more refined profiles from this.
- This reply was modified 8 months, 3 weeks ago by Auburn.