- Type: SeTi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Directive
I would agree that any type is capable of introspection, but different types will introspect for different reasons and about different things, right? What I’m noticing is that my introspection (more accurately self exploration) doesn’t have an object-oriented (proactive) agenda, which I think one would expect from a proactive type. So I guess when I say object, I’m using it to contrast it with the subject, more like proactive vs. reactive or object-oriented vs. subject-oriented.
Based on this, I’m not entirely sure that I have made myself into an object. Also, if I have, then what would be left to be designated as the subject? Looking at the definitions of proactive vs. reactive I do see that a reactive or subjective-orientation denotes a focus on preexisting content. My proposal is that reactive functions focus on subjective content while proactive functions focus on objective content. This definition would include preexisting content under the umbrella of subjective content or anything with its origin within the subject. What I’m trying to do is understand the presence of my introspective, reactive or subject-oriented agenda and the relative absence of any proactive or object-oriented in the context of CT.
My hierarchical argument wasn’t quite that any introspection at all is only possible for Pi-Leads as much as that a P-Lead with an entirely subject-oriented focus and a relative lack of an object-oriented focus is likely a Pi-Lead.