- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Directive
Ooh, this is interesting. Especially this:
If Ti wants to subjectively arrive at the objective truth, while distrusting its own emotional register from the first-person perspective, it ends up still trusting that emotional register in the third-person (i.e. Je object-to-object interactions, with people being the objects). It then comes to rely on a pragmatic view of the emotional register’s insights.
*Thinks* Does a Ti lead trust the Fe as an objective emotional register in the same way an Fe lead would? Wouldn’t the Ti lead be more wary as to transcend the contextually bound nature of Fe dynamics?
You mentioned homosexuality as an example, so let’s use that. Let’s take two theoretical scenarios. In one, science discovers it to be a distortion of some kind, and objectively destructive to society. In the other, science discovers it to be normative and beneficial for humanity at large.
Would a Ti lead reject the truth in the second scenario in the case that society still finds it aberrant because of Fe, despite a possible internal dissonance within the Ti user? Would an Fi lead choose in the first case scenario, to align itself with that truth or reject it as it feels misaligned to the Fi’s nature – from a sense that what feels aligned must also be true verses what feels “off” ethically must be false? Or perhaps – each would find their personal way of reconciling the tension that would be created?
I think, unlike an Fe lead, the Ti lead is more likely to stick with what is perceived to be evidenced as true regardless of Fe/society standards. And the Fi lead is more likely to stick with what aligns with their compass..
It seems as though Ti is an essentialist function – being that it’s introverted and seeks the core principles that underlie reality — it seeks a timeless truth that is transcends contextual properties, in some sense. Yet, it is untrusting of the truth intuited by one’s personal emotional register, as it wants to know everything ‘objectively’ (with the bias that such a thing must ‘exists’).
So maybe something like..?
Fi: I am part of reality, and if something aligns with my compass, this is indicative that the information that my emotional register has calculated is pointing at an objective truth within this reality.
Ti: I am part of reality, and if something aligns with my compass, this is indicative that my emotional register has calculated some partial information which may or may not be pointing at an objective truth outside of my personal reality.
I agree with your last (Hegelian 😉 )paragraph — we are all biased in different ways, as we are each tapping into different facets of reality — on our path to an ever-evolving synthesis.
(Clarification: what I meant by a lack of rigorousness above is not in the thought process itself or in the search for truth, but towards poking the very bias of *personal alignment is equal to or is indicative of truth*)