Article on "F" - (Draft)

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hi guys. Upon request, I am attempting to expedite the learning curve of newcomers coming into CT. I have a plan of making a set of articles that directly address misconceptions from MBTI-immigrants, so that newcomers can get up to speed with what exactly CT means on a given topic. This one's a draft on "F." Please let me know your thoughts/feedback, thanks!

Redefining "F"

This is part of a series on Transitioning from MBTI to CT. The CT model is not a four-letter-code system, but a cognitive architecture described by the relationships between Je-Ji-Pe-Pi. As such, letters such as F, T, N & S are not the primary means by which the system operates. The most important aspects of type in CT are knowing if you are Je, Ji, Pe or Pi lead, and if you're Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta -- but not whether you're F/T/N/S-lead.
These four letters are also not conceptualized the same way as they are in MBTI. This can create issues in translating over from one system to another, which this article aims to address. So, what is "F" in CT? We're going to go through several possible definitions below, and compare them against what CT means by F.

Definition 1: Emotionality.

• Feeling strongly
• Having powerful highs and lows
• Being very reactive to situations
• Crying easily
• Feeling strong love toward people
• Feeling other's pain easily
• Feeling strong anger toward people

CT Answer: No. In CT, F has nothing to do with emotionality. A person's level of emotional sensitivity & level of emotional affect are not related to F. Emotionality falls outside of the metabolism of cognition - as cognitive processes are non-emotional. Emotion may result from the inevitable net participation of our cognitive processing with our limbic system, but the cognitive processing itself is a separate phenomenon than emotion.
If there is any aspect in CT that relates to a stronger tendency toward emotionality, it's the presence of fallen affect. Fallen affect correlates with higher levels of neuroticism, and thus higher emotional sensitivity and emotional volatility. However, in general emotions or feelings fall outside of the domain of cognition, and all 8 functions can cause emotions to fire from the limbic system as a result of their activity.

Definition 2: Aspiration for Harmony.

• Wanting to prioritize harmony in human interactions
• Wanting to do good, and be of help
• Politeness and compassion
• Sacrificing oneself for others
• Thinking about how others are doing and addressing needs
• Being inclined toward wanting to be a good person overall
• Being merciful rather than tough and unyielding

CT Answer: No. In CT, F is unrelated to a person's desire for harmony. An F orientation does not mean one avoids conflict. And a T orientation does not mean one is thick-skinned and tough-minded. This harmony-focus dichotomy is more appropriately captured by the Big Five's Agreeableness/Disagreeableness trait and corresponds to adaptive/seelie versus directive/unseelie attitudes.
In CT, a "T" orientation does not make one opposed to harmony, and an F orientation does not incline one towards it. But a disagreeable (directive/unseelie) orientation, which is independent of type, does correspond to a tendency to defend oneself at the expense of harmony. An agreeable (adaptive/seelie) orientation corresponds to a tendency to seek social harmony at the expense of oneself.

Definition 3: Making Decisions based on Feelings.

• Deciding based on doing no harm
• Deciding based on social considerations
• Deciding based on group harmony
• Deciding based on what is emotionally right/true for the parties involved

CT Answer. No. This definition attempts to move F away from being directly synonymous with feelings/emotions and instead defines F as a decision-making process that prioritizes feelings in the calculation and conclusion. But this is still false-- or not what CT means by F. F in CT does not necessarily see the feelings in a situation as the most important criteria to prioritize in decision-making.
While the move away from treating F as emotions, but instead as a decision-making process, comes closer to the proper description of J, it is still relying on the same incorrect emotional criteria for F that we see in Definitions 1 & 2. This is simply not the criteria used by CT for F. More on what CT's criteria is down below.

Definition 4: Making Decisions based on a Value System.

• Having a set of values and relying on that for decisions
• Developing a personal value system through which all life choices are measured
• Making a herarchical system of what matters more and less
• Operating through this self-built value system as often as possible

CT Answer: No. The word "value" here is not synonymous with F. Hierarchies of values are an intrinsic part of every cognitive hierarchy. The T-lead type values the criteria of T the most, and gives it ontological priority over the rest. The N-lead type values the criteria of N the most, and gives it ontological priority. To be any type is to have certain implicit values that supersede others and which are prioritized in our cognitive registration of reality. It is impossible to exist as a human without a value structure, but this value structure isn't F. In CT F is just one specific form of value.
Each function can be said to have values. Te values clear and causal abiotic processes, Ne values novel associations, Ni values isomorphic associations overlapping across multiple phenomenon. And each of these functions can trigger emotions from the limbic system when that value is not upheld in life. A Te type can become upset when order is not being sustained. An Ne type may experience frustration when their value for branching potentialities is cut short by a practical demand to choose just one thing. An Se type may value immersive focus and can feel irritated by disturbances to their flow. The Se's value for immersion may lead them to channel all their energy into their personal niche and forego all other areas of life because of how much they value this one dimension. The F functions are not unique in creating personal value systems. What matters is what types of values F is geared towards.

Definition 5: Making Decisions based on Ethics.

• Becoming immersed in the politics of human actions and rights
• Developing a system of moral rights/wrongs
• Deciding positions on topics based on whether they complement or violate that rational system
• Taking actions based on how a situation measures up to that ethical system
• Contending with the question of what's most conducive to life
• Changing one's ethical system based on finding principles more conducive to life

CT Answer: Mostly yes. Ethics is a domain of reason that deals with how to best frame/solve problems among living beings. However, this itself is not what F is, at the cognitive level. Other processes, like T, can make arguments for how we might organize our politics and societies, based on certain principles. F cannot be synonymous with the domain of Ethics because other functions are capable of also having discourse in this domain. Nevertheless, ethics as a whole is primarily the production of people exercising their F process, whose definition will be explained in the last section below:

Definition 6: An implicit mental recognition of biotic & cognitive agents.

• The treatment of something as a 'subject' instead of an 'object'
• The difference between an 'it' and a 'they'
• The assigning of a 'living' quality to a thing/being.
• The treatment of an object as warranting an examination of its ethics/morality.
• The treatment of an object as warranting a consideration of their living needs.
• Interfacing with something by understanding it as having qualia/experience.
• The tendency to anthropomorphize.

CT Answer: Yes. This question comes before the ethical one, because questions of ethics presuppose the registration of things as beings. The domain of ethics arises when one begins to contend with what needs to be done about these living objects. But the F orientation in CT is that very thing that is capable of identifying and assigning qualia-status to objects. The F orientation implicitly understands that there are objects that are alive, and that this is a self-existent and irreducible class of objects. Thus, while ethics is a very common outcome of F, it is not the definition of F at the cognitive level. Cognitively F is a mode of object-definition, or of object property assignment.
This F a priori category needs to operate, and identify agents, before questions of ethics can arise in the first place. And it also doesn't necessarily lead to an ethical fixation or politics. F can exist as an awareness. Reality can be experienced and looked at as populated by living beings and that is F working in the brain, whether or not we decide to dive headlong into activism or political debates.
The complete negation of F would by psychopathy, or the inability to identify living agents by some anomaly of brain functioning. However, T types are not psychopathic, as all T types can also identify living agents by virtue of their F process. If a T type, or any type, is psychopathic it's not because of T, but because of an anomaly in brain functioning.
Lastly, it's important to keep in mind that CT does not see F as a standalone metabolic process. Instead, F is an aspect of either Ji and Je and their metabolism. The question is never whether we are an F type or not -- we all are. We all have a process that joins F to it, but the question is whether that is joined at Ji to make Fi or joined at Je to make Fe. Both of these have different variants of the implicit recognition of biotic agents (F).

Compatibility?

If any of the definitions 1-4 are being used for F by another system, that system is incompatible with CT. If you have come from MBTI and either relate or don't relate to F because of something in definitions 1-4, please bear in mind we are not talking about the same thing here and typings will not translate over. If definition 5 is being used, there may be potential compatibility with CT, but no system is properly compatible with CT unless they share definition 6.

Why use "F" if it's not about feeling?

CT's concept of F is considerably removed from others that have come before it, prompting the question of why use the letter "F" when it is not about feeling? For a full explanation of why Jungian nomenclature is still used in parallel with CT's own terms, see this article. (<-- err, this article doesn't exist yet but I hope to link to it when it does. Hi saf, I'll reply to you eventually. 🙂 )

[fayest42]

I’ve been wanting to respond to this, but I wanted to mull it over a bit first. And I’m still mulling it over now, but I think if I don’t respond soon, it’ll probably fall by the wayside, and I’ll never respond. So here are some of my half-formed thoughts.
First of all, I’m really glad you wrote this article because understanding the distinction between being a “feeler” and a “thinker” (and more specifically Fi and Ti) has been my biggest struggle in understanding CT and how I fit into it. The definition I used for “feelers” before finding CT was #3 (Makes decisions based on feelings), which led me to believe I wasn’t a feeler. So I was glad to see it clearly explained that that definition is not used in CT. As I went down the list, I was quite curious to see what definition CT would agree with. When I got to Definition #5 (Making Decisions based on Ethics) and saw that CT mostly agrees with this, my first reaction was disappointment. The connection people sometimes make people the feeling functions and ethics has never seemed right to me - I always thought it had more to do with values and that ethics was an overly specific narrowing of that concept. As for how it fits me, while I could imagine myself as someone who makes decisions based on my values, perhaps, I have never seen myself as someone who makes decisions primarily based on ethics. I don’t even consider myself to be a particularly ethical person (not that I’m horribly unethical, but just that I don’t consider ethics a top priority for me, and I also recognize that I have a tendency to be pretty selfish). I recall that one of the descriptions of Fi said something about how an Fi-lead sees what is true and what is ethical as being the same, and this was one of the things that didn’t make any sense to me since I see them as being completely unrelated. But since this was just “mostly” in agreement with CT, I let it go for the moment and moved onto definition #6, the true CT definition: “An implicit mental recognition of biotic and cognitive agents.” The abstractness of this definition makes it hard to have an immediate feeling of either relating to it or not. I certainly sometimes do things like assign “a ‘living’ quality to a thing/being” or treat “an object as warranting a consideration of their living needs,” but I also sometimes don’t do those things. And as you point out, a “thinker” will also sometimes do these things because everyone has a feeling function. So it’s hard to really judge whether I’m a T or an F type based on that definition.
One of the interesting results of mulling this over for a while was that I realized that ethics might play a bigger role in my life than I thought they did. I recently had a conversation with some friends in which we recounted any times in our lives when we “broke up” with a friend, and I realized that in both of the two cases in my own life, I “broke up” with a friend because they had done something I considered unethical, even though it had no impact on me directly. I also realized that even though I have an intellectual belief in moral nihilism, I still have an internal “feeling” about what is ethical that can be quite strong at times - sometimes annoyingly so. But while that feeling can be very strong about certain types of ethical dilemmas, it can be pretty much absent about other types. And oftentimes my decision to act “ethically” is based more on a fear of authority than on a personal sense of ethics.
I still think that ethics don’t play a big role in the majority of my decision-making. Oftentimes this is because I just don’t see an ethical component to the decision (e.g. “Should I take a walk or ride my bike today?” I’m sure you could find an ethical component to that decision if you really tried, but it’s not glaringly obvious to me). Other times a decision does have a clear ethical component, but it’s not my top priority. For example, in deciding whether or not to send my son to daycare this fall, there’s an obvious ethical component because sending him might mean increasing the spread of covid in the community. While that component is part of what I thought about when making the decision, it was a smaller part than the potential effect it would have on my own life and the lives of my family members.
Another thing that occurred to me when mulling this over is that the term “ethics” tends to conjure up for me a concept of imposed ethics from the outside, which I may or may not agree with. But I might have my own personal ethics which don’t necessarily agree with the ethics of the outside world, and therefore I don’t necessarily think of them as being “ethics.” But perhaps that’s essentially what they are (but then again perhaps those would be better called “values.” What exactly is the difference between ethics and values?).
I also wonder how my behavior in regards to ethics has been affected by my development of Ne and partial development of Te (I've definitely noticed that just in the last few years I've started doing this thing when I'm making a decision where I remind myself to approach it by just thinking through what the results of those decisions would be and then picking whichever decision would work out for the best, which I'm guessing is the influence of Te). Perhaps if I thought back to a time in my life when I only had Fi developed, I would find a stronger focus on ethics (I did choose to become a vegetarian at age 16 for ethical reasons, which seems to be very stereotypical of Fi-leads). It's hard to say for sure though because I'm not sure at what age I developed Ne, and I don't have a great memory for things I thought as a child/teenager.
Anyway, sorry for the very unorganized and incomplete nature of these thoughts. I hope there might be some useful nuggets in there regardless.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Heya Fayest! So I want to reply properly to this cuz I think it's important -- but as I started writing I realized there's so much to cover ...<.<... that it kindof expanded into various topics, some of which you didn't specifically ask about but which I think are important to the overall discussion. So I might use this post to also move the thread forward in the process. I'm quite sorry for the rambling. Here goes..

"F types"

So, this thread is about defining "F", not F-leads. In other words, this isn't an article on things that exclusively belong to F-leads but it is defining what F means in all hierarchies and types-- in the abstract, yes. It's like describing what a certain gear is, or car part, but the gear always works in a machine. Decontextualized, it doesn't mean much.
Arguably, there also aren't really "F-leads" in CT. I mean, yes but not really. It's about as untrue as saying TiNe's are INT's and FiNe's are INF's, which is false. The letter code doesn't exist in CT. CT isn't defining types as N/S/T/F-lead, as I said at the top, so trying to look at the qualities of F (by itself) and looking to see if they're the defining attribute of oneself is a false direction to take, at least in CT. I think you probably agree with this and have more specific points yet to be addressed, but I wanted to get the "Fness" aspect out of the way by saying type isn't defined by Fness or Tness in CT. I know we still gotta talk about Ti vs Fi further down, but I need to take a little detour.

Competing Notation 1: [energetic + quadra]

As Safsom pointed out in this thread, a legitimate case can be made for moving away from the existing notation to something more like Ji-Alpha and Ji-Delta, for what we currently call TiNe and FiNe respectively. This is so tempting to me that there's a good chance that this renaming happens in the followup book. However, before I can do that I need to be able to address other questions that it poses related to the 1-2-3-4 function order system.
But anyways, it's evident that what matters in CT is being Ji-Je-Pe-Pi lead and the function quadrant, not whether you're F-lead or T-lead. The most technically correct CT viewpoint (the kind that I hope gets presented to the scientific community eventually) would be one that defines three things: P axis, J axis, and energetic-lead process. These are the three 'discoveries' that constitute the backbone of CT -- the quantifiable existence of M/V, EDA/ALE, and Pe-Pi-Je-Ji.
So N/S/T/F-lead is not part of these discoveries, and it seems to be a kind of metaphor we're using for now to describe the relationships of the processes inside of types like a Ji-Delta or Ji-Alpha.

Competing Notation 2: [1st Oscillation, 2nd Oscillation + I/E]

The other tempting viewpoint that I have in my mind is the one presented in the first book as being the most technically true -- that of type being composed of the 1st Oscillation, then the 2nd Oscillation -- and a difference in energetic polarity defining the introversion or extroversion aspect.
This is the notation used for the spiritual names of the types, such as Edamin for FiNe (which when broken down is Eda+m+in). In this view, a type like the FiNe is actually [Fi/Te-first][Ne/Si-second][I-oriented]. For now, we talk about F-leads as not also being T-leads (as if they were separable), but that isn't really the case if we properly define type as [axis1]-lead, [axis2]-secondary.
This is also why the original name of Edamin (FiNe) and Edamer (TeSi) both start with Eda as one entire oscillation without making a distinction between F or T lead. An Edamin and an Alemin are both "T/F leads" by this sort of thinking. The spiritual notation was my attempt to create a naming scheme that most perfectly reflects the reality of what a type appeared to me to be -- back in 2016 -- and that's what I came up with. In this sense, you are absolutely an Edamin and Delta, because we never mean by Edamin that you're F-lead at the exclusion of being T-lead. We just mean you are [Fi/Te] > [Ne/Si] + I-oriented.

But... is there no sense in the terms "Ti" or "Fi"?

Now I'd like to circle back around to your post. Even if we say you're an EDA-primary + M-secondary, eliminating the letter-code thinking and not saying you're "F-lead" anymore than you're "T-lead", does it still mean anything to say that you are "Fi-lead"? Does it mean anything for someone to be "Fe-lead", or any other lead process?
The answer is yes, (which is why I somewhat hesitate to fully abandon the existing notation), but in the purest sense it's an abstract cognitive (almost mathematical) definition that has to be understood first very technically. The oscillation pair is one thing, that is polarized across an axis, so that all the traits of the oscillation belong to both ends -- yet the ends express themselves differently as Ji vs Je, or as Pi vs Pe. This is why in the new book Fi is renamed EDA- and Te is renamed EDA+.
Having said that, EDA- ("Fi") does have a reality to it that we could, for the sake of compartmentalization, treat as its own unit away from the holistic pair. In this case the proper definition of EDA-/Fi would be something like this:
~ ~ ~

EDA-

• The assigning of a living thing's unique properties to its single body/'subject' not to its interpersonal reality as an object within a greater macro-subject (ALE+).
• The treatment of a subject's ontological properties to be discretely contingent on itself, rather than dispersed across many subject-vector-collusions as the net effect of those vectors.
• The tendency to take as self-evident the realities of subjects from the inside-out, rather than inferred from collective generalization to specifics (outside-in).

(and at the same time to see... (Ji))

• The definition of an object as being something that is the most pure and irreducible version of its formulation.
• The tendency to aim to reach a sort of 'platonic' formulation of ideas, and to treat that understanding as the most precise and true one.

~ ~ ~
Now, by contrast we can describe the abstract metabolic conception of ALE- ("Ti") as being:
~ ~ ~

ALE-

• The definition of an object as being something that is the most pure and irreducible version of its formulation.
• The tendency to aim to reach a sort of 'platonic' formulation of ideas, and to treat that understanding as the most precise and true one.

(and at the same time to see...(Fe))

• The treatment of a subject's ontological properties as being contingent on the interpersonal interactions that result from its collision with other subjects.
• The tendency to define an object's (subject's) properties by how they manifest as vectors in reality, rather than as discrete units.
• The treatment of single bodies/subjects as having interpersonal reality primarily as an object within a greater macro-subject ('society'/'human-nature'/'human-consciousness').

~ ~ ~
In most cases, the two sub-lists of each function come together. In the EDA- type sub-list 1 & 2 combine to create a focus in finding the essential properties of subjects from a discrete analysis of the person in question (self or other). A common emergence of this is a focus on the attributes of people that distinctly make them 'them', and then the emotional register gets involved in defending their is-ness. However, from a strictly cognitive perspective these emergences are not necessarily the only manifestation possible, and EDA- can exist as someone who cognitively operates through both of these sub-lists side by side. That's the key requirement.
Inversely, in the ALE- type sub-lists 1 & 2 commonly combine to create a focus in finding the essential properties of subjects via the evaluation of universal human nature (often by modelling consciousness), since the biotic-izing is done at the objects ("subjects") level. This is what leads to "generalizations about human beings, which we are all just specific examples of" being the baseline from which individual subjects are lens-filtered/seen through -- in the investigation of who they are (i.e. outside-in).
~ ~ ~

Fayest herself? (:

Now I have to admit that you're rather irregular for an Edamin or Ji-Delta type, in that you seem to fit outside of any of the common "emergent" (downstream) statistical effects of EDA- types. Yet, at the cognitive level there doesn't appear to be, to me, any root discrepancy. It's just the common downstream effects that don't apply to you, but these are never necessary.
And when I ask myself how it seems to me that you view biotic agents (even though they're not often your personal concern), it is either as discrete biotic subjects with a self-evident ontology (EDA-), or as mathematical object-vectors in an objective causality (EDA+). And the combination of EDA- and EDA+ philosophy is the backbone of your cognition, as an EDA-primary type.
The amount of involvement one chooses to have in the topics most statistically allied to a given function, is not itself evidence of a priority of that function. You're not involved in many "Fi interests" but the category of "Fi interests" is itself a sort of statistical approximation. A content-less metabolic processing architecture like Edamin can manifest as someone like you --as a super sciencey, politically/ethically uninvolved individual who nonetheless is Ji-lead and also sees the world by attaching the biotic to the subjects and the abiotic to objective-causality. Alemin's do the opposite.
I hope this covers most of my view on the matter. It does mean that the personal reason for the peculiarities of your interest/disinterest in certain matters (of your quadra) falls outside the range of CT. Why it might be that most Edamin/Edavin take a fancy for defending the personal ontologies of subjects, while that isn't your specific lifepath (and instead you go for more abstracted Te interests), is a matter that has more to do with enneagram or some other/better emotional-fixation system that doesn't yet exist.
edit: If CT is right about your cognition, then we could potentially make predictions. For example, each one of us is, at any given time, expressing one part of the 'range' of who we are (i.e. the complete self). However, we manifest more of who we are across time/years/decades.
I would make a prediction about you, and would bet money on it , that if your lifepath switches in any big way -- it would do so towards the rest of the manifestations of who you are (as a "totality-of-potential"), that can also be seen in others of your type that are already expressing that range. We would see your personal rendition expressing itself in greater similarity to others of your kin, with their emergent outputs, even though you may not look a lot like them right now. I personally believe the potential is in you for that. 🙂

[fayest42]

Your "rambling" is so much more organized than my "rambling" lol. But there’s a lot to digest here. Thank you for going into these details, and thank you for clarifying that the original post is not really meant to describe F-leads but rather just what the F functions do. That makes a big difference. I will admit that it is somewhat surprising/confusing to me. Like…if the Fi function is concerned with ethics, and Fi is my lead function, shouldn’t that manifest in my behavior somehow? The idea of describing an FiNe as a Ji-lead Delta instead is an interesting one, and that would probably fit me personally better than FiNe does, although you also mention that it’s not wholly accurate to leave out the idea of an Fi-lead entirely. Though I gather from what you’re saying that the difference between just talking about a “Ji-lead Delta” and an “FiNe” is one that exists at an abstract cognitive level that may or may not be evident in behavior. For many/most FiNe’s, it does manifest in behavior, but for me it doesn’t for some reason.
I find this satisfying enough for the moment 🙂 I wish we had more data so I could better understand why I seem to be unusual (though not totally unique, as we have seen some other FiNe’s who might be similar to me. LadyNerdSky and Randall Munroe come to mind. And it's been interesting to see that even the Fi-leads who might be more stereotypical in their behavior than I am often have an interest in math/science too - like Toby Hendy and the new member Amy, who is in grad school for astronomy, I believe), but I do think this explanation makes about as much sense as it can given our current limitations in data. And for the purposes of keeping our data accurate, I want to add that those emergent behaviors that often show up in Fi-leads are not completely absent from my life. They do not make up the majority of my time or thoughts, but I can see them poking out in certain places and times. I really wish I had kept journals or something as a kid so that I could see if that is something that shifted over time. I will say that I remember being aware of the fact that I was selfish from quite a young age, and I didn't treat my mother very well as a child. But I was also very defensive of animals and their rights as a child (and that actually continues today as well, though perhaps not with as much passion). And if I am talking to someone who is criticizing someone else, I can sometimes become extremely defensive of the person being criticized if I feel that their point of view is not being taken into account. Anyhow, now I'm rambling...
As for your prediction, if I ever make any big changes in my life path, I'll let you know 🙂

[a.k.a.Janie]

This strikes me as very good, informative, and also perhaps a healthier way of viewing types. This and related posts have challenged me to try to reach levels of understanding with others, which before I wouldn't have bothered, and just been like, "well, that's the difference between Fi and Fe", for example, as if it were insurmountable. The view of typology outlined here--while I am not knowledgeable enough to really comment on its factual accuracy, I will just say that it seems more geared towards growth and what all humans have in common, as opposed to focusing on differences, which in some cases, aren't really even there, after all is said and done.
I found @fayest42 to be an interesting case, too. Kind of forces you to strip down everything that Fi isn't, in order to see how someone can still be Fi if they're not x, y, and z. Meanwhile other people do fit the stereotypes very well. I'm still grappling a bit with how fallen affect can be correlated with high emotional sensitivity and volatility, but I know there was a whole thread dedicated to that. I'm mostly just imagining the case of someone who is highly emotionally sensitive (e.g. HSP) and also at a high level of emotional and psychological heath. Maybe it's not that such people don't exist, it's just that they're the exception, and not common enough to undo the correlation.
I'll be interested in the Se and Ne articles, since for me personally, that's the axis where I tend to not match up with the stereotypes. So it'll be interesting what's left when you strip down Se, in particular. I have an idea, but idk.
I'm still using the old terminology out of familiarity/habit, but I have started using the spiritual nomenclature in my head somewhat.
 
Oh yeah, and I really like how this

And when I ask myself how it seems to me that you view biotic agents (even though they’re not often your personal concern), it is either as discrete biotic subjects with a self-evident ontology (EDA-), or as mathematical object-vectors in an objective causality (EDA+). And the combination of EDA- and EDA+ philosophy is the backbone of your cognition, as an EDA-primary type.

 
encapsulates the application of your (@auburn ) definitions of the distinction between Fi and Ti to Fayest's behavior.
Before I read that paragraph, in my head I was going, "well, I still get a EDA 'vibe' from her writing". lol I was unable to put it any better than that. Sometimes I really appreciate people who are better than I at articulating things.

[fayest42]

@janie Thanks for your comment 🙂 I agree with what you're saying. I also wanted to respond to what you said here:

I’m still grappling a bit with how fallen affect can be correlated with high emotional sensitivity and volatility, but I know there was a whole thread dedicated to that. I’m mostly just imagining the case of someone who is highly emotionally sensitive (e.g. HSP) and also at a high level of emotional and psychological heath. Maybe it’s not that such people don’t exist, it’s just that they’re the exception, and not common enough to undo the correlation.

I don't think I could necessarily say that I'm at a high level of emotional and psychological health because I have experienced some bouts of depression in my life, but I don't have the fallen affect signal, and I would consider myself an HSP. So it is possible to be one without the other.

[safsom]

Introduction
Some interesting discussion happening here. In my eyes at least this seems to be all the more reason for CT to stop using Jungian notation as a whole (especially after the metabolic process explication Auburn made in the post above, which I will attempt to address later on this post - both theoretically and in terms of practical and logistical applicability) . First, however, I would like to augment some of the points (and outline some of the implications in terms of observable traits)  made by both parties above, as I believe that they are quite essential to understand the differences between "F" and "T" in CT - and why, as Auburn says (and as I say), it is not the domain or assignment of information-categories that is fundamental to understanding CT, but rather, the energetics being core to understanding the operational aspects of the model.
To begin, it is important to note that I agree with all of the points outlined by Auburn above in his definition of the "F" functions. "F" does indeed endow biotic components unto all of what it processes; however, I think it is important to elaborate in more detail on how exactly the attitude of Ji or Je differentiates the operation of the two "F" processes. In order to understand this, I will have to go on a brief detour about how I (personally) see the differences between Ji and Je (which is largely also compatible with Auburn's interpretation of the same concept, but perhaps deduced or explained a little bit differently).
The structure of a J function
Both J energetics, Ji and Je, are concerned at arriving at truths about certain objects. What is the operational definition of a "truth" being employed here? Is it a general tendency that we can induce holds true most of the time, and thus declare as "true" overall, or is it of a different nature? It is easy to assert that general tendencies are in the realm of P functions - P functions readily also recognize that these are tendencies and not truths, and thus do not lay claim to these patterns of perceptions as hard-and-fast rules. However, the J functions have a rather different operational modality. It is safe to say that the J and P functions operate within different universes (where universe here means a set of base premises from which conclusions are derived). The universe of the P functions is largely rooted outside sets of specific axioms; by and large, the P functions encompass what most people might call the "real world", leading to their extrapolations being inherently limited (as very few people have perceptual access to the entire "real world", and thus asserting a global-scale truth is something outside of the scope). On the other hand, the universe of a J function could best be described are idealized. That is to say, the axioms of a J function aren't usually based on observations of any kind; they are formulated as imperatives about how an ideal state of things should be. Thus the property that arises here is that the metabolism of the J functions is inherently more abstract - not abstract in the sense that those who have J functions conscious are more to intellectualization or examination, but that they are more prone to generative abstraction in a plane completely independent of any perceptual input - where each step of the generative process is controlled in a rigorous and structural progression. This emphasis on clear structural delineation means that J's generations also have clear boundaries. Now, is when the introvert/extrovert designation becomes appropriate, and as do the assignations of the various attitudes of each function Auburn outlined above. We can extrapolate that Je is concerned with constructing ideal universes that concern the interactions between things-outside-the-self (objects), whereas Ji is concerned with constructing ideal universes that do not concern interactions but the structure of things-in-themselves.
The Thingness Dissonance
This means that naturally, Je-leads and Ji-leads will have very different ideas of Thingness (the ontological designation of a given entity, whether that be an external object or an internal abstraction, as a thing), and their ontological views in isolation can be considered imbalanced (which gives rise to the core epistemic dilemma that you see in types that are J-leads, both Je and Ji). That is to say, a Je-lead without Ji development (or Ji ego influence, which seems less cognitively influential but also important to consider here as a contingency) will have their object-idealizations confined to an interactive domain; they may be highly competent at considering the way things interact (hence leading to their reputation as famous economists, physicists, mathematicians, etc...) but they may be severely inhibited in their ability to zoom in on one of those things and attempt to elucidate the essential properties of the Thingness or the composition of that specific thing. In contrast; the Ji-leads, with their focus on perfection, often find that they can't come to a perfect view regarding the way Things interact (as there are too many Things to account for, and that Thingness can be lost with too much expansiveness of scope), and so they prefer to focus on perhaps one thing at a time (which is why Ji has the proclivity for obsessiveness and perfectionism). This means that most of the time, rather than concerning itself with the etiological relations between the externally observable (some might say "mechanical") components of objects, Ji is more about their deontological structural composition (i.e regardless of perspective, context, or any sort of spatio-temporal constraint, what is true about the object as an independent thing).
The Polar Function
We have established that Je is primarily etiological; and Ji primary deontological, but we quickly reach a problem here. Despite being able to peer into etiology effortlessly, if Je were to focus, it would lose its wide scope. Ji, if it were to attempt to widen its scope, would lose its deontological capacity. This is where the differences between the actual definitions come into play, Fe considers energetic etiology (or biotic etiology, the etiology of various objects interacting with each other) whereas Ti considers delineated deontology (the most crisp, clear, flawless characterization deontologically of a specific object selected by the subject). Te considers object etiology (or the interactions between the Things in the external world irrespective of biotic assignation) whereas Fi considers energetic deontology (or a resonance-oriented characterization of a specific object selected by the subject). This means that prior to polarization, a type should (if we are to adopt Jungian standards) focus more on the aspect of cognition which they have conscious access to, and repress that which they don't have conscious access to.
However, we know that while Carl Jung was a genius who developed many of the psychoanalytic foundations of typology today, one thing that's apparent to anyone who has studied him is that he had a bit of an attachment to philosophical dualism. He conceptualized the psyche as a structure perpetually torn in half, slated for a sort of inevitable reunion. Anyone who has studied modern psychology (and indeed, even modern philosophy and modern physics) knows that this sort of deterministic outlook is practically unviable; and that it is much more convenient to examine each individual case discretely, viewing them as a system to be studied (rather than skewing them to fit an extrinsic abstract taxonomical system). What CT has found is that ego-fixation is not only on the dominant function (as Jung thought), but can be oriented around the polar function. Though the causality of this observation is a question that's more ambiguous (and perhaps should be explicated in more detailed), I am inclined to think that this is because of the inherent imbalance of the dominant attitude.
Manifestation
This allows us to draw a sharp distinction between a polarized type and one who is not polarized. The process of the integration of a function into consciousness (which Auburn has outlined quite elegantly in another post which I can't quite find the link to) has various stages; one of which is fetishization (which would be congruent with the observation that I am about to make in my next point), but for most people with a conscious function, it is a state that is somewhat isomorphic to a gentle indifference. That is to say, the process of integration for a function is in itself viewed as an arduous and difficult task, but posterior to this process, the function has established for itself a "home" in the psyche and is such usually regarded somewhat passively by the individual's psyche. One could draw an analogy between this process and immigrants moving into a conservative neighborhood; though the inhabitants might be shocked and have mixed feelings for some time; usually, they tend towards neutralization in attitude after a few generations (this is a scenario that is meant to apply to most cases, but not be deontological, and please do not take it as such). This also seems to be empirically supported; phenomenologically, I can say that I have integrated Se to the point where it no longer allures me for its own sake. Auburn seems to have reached the same state with his Pe.
However, in the process of coming to consciousness, or even in a state of unconsciousness, the psychic state of a function is not so well-defined and can thus be rather ambiguous and multidirectional. Often, circumstances serve as stimuli for bringing functions into consciousness but the process may not reach completion because of other circumstances, so one could say that the function is left in a state of confined stasis, that is to say its scope is limited to a certain psychic area or range it fixates unto before stimuli that facilitate its growth re-enter the psyche and retroact to a process of growth. I have a suspicion that during the process of function-integration; in the intermediate stages, there is an unconscious rejection of the function into consciousness (meaning that it does not manifest at the vultological level) but a conscious identification with traits that the psyche has come to associate with that specific function. This is what gives rise to types that seem paradoxically focused on their polar function; the FiNe and NeFi "xNTPs" were in the process of Te integration prior to stasis; and so they chase fantasies related to those. So far, this seems to  be the most observable in the Delta quadra (with the numerous TeSi fantasy writers and FiNe "nerds") but I am sure this manifests for other quadras too.  Applying this specifically to the J functions, there is often a deontological approach to a specific etiological interest (hence why you see Fi-leads who hyperfocus on scientific or rationalistic topics, or Ti-leads who hyperfocus on social hierarchies) as a result of this statis. Those who actually have a polar function conscious are able to synthesize the etiological and deontological approaches; a chilling example of this would be TeSi Ayn Rand, whose philosophy comes off as startlingly Ti-ish.
Conclusion
What this means is that polarization can often resolve the psychic tension and make one focus on tendencies that might be indicative of an oppositional function axis. A polarized Fi/Te lead has transcended their ontological "Eda" side confinement, and is able to employ it with full skill and integration; meaning that at times they can imitate a process somewhat analogous to "Ale" or Ti. More often though; people are stuck in a state of stasis and fetishization; and thus focus on their polar agenda, despite making it come no closer to consciousness.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

^ I just wanted to say that I really love your post here, and it very much echoes a lot of my own thoughts, especially about the J functions being 'idealistic' and how they treat reality. I find it wonderful that you can put the right words to some of these ideas.
I also wanted to say that I'm working on an elaboration of the interplay between the poles of an oscillation pair, and how they produce intermediary effects. (This'll come in the form of some 2-3 articles that I hope to finish together in the next few days.)

[Author]

Posts