I'm importing a few Discord snippets here for future reference. "Chuntina Pai" is Jelle. ;p
This is just a casual conversation, not a debate, and Jelle doesn't wish to be dragged onto the forum about it - and I intend to respect that. But I asked if it's okay if I post it here because she often shares great insights that end up getting buried in Discord logs.
Yeah Fi girls can def be mean lol. While never realizing it because they don’t identify with the bad intent and the intent isn’t truly there...it’s more just expecting everyone to be okay with the depth/breadth and layers of emotions. The changes etc. I find it confusing at times for sure. It’s just not that meta for me
I don’t think this means Fi is “emotion” btw it’s just very meta about the visceral aspects of reasoning. I also think Fi is axiomatically plenitudinous and Ti is generally not (some Ti heavy Ne people don’t even believe they have axioms like others or they might even believe axioms are logically deduced.)
So Fi to me has very multilayered conceptions and understanding of the “why” of all their beliefs and it transcends just the usual reasons we usually look for or point to. It’s full of life and experience, experience of others, senses, intuitions (in the regular sense of sense/intuition). Even concepts themselves have content like this and are experienced in this way. And axioms are easily adopted and felt. Reasoning logic and ethos emerge from there naturally. It has so many places to sprout from. That’s how I imagine Fi is. Ti doesn’t have that plenitude. At least mine doesn’t. I just try to choose axioms that cover a lot, and people can’t deny without sounding absurd. They are quite few and depend almost wholly on others/agreement (‘agreement’ and ‘others’ inability to deny’ is the same here)
My Ji stuff emerges from just a few smol axioms (smol but important)
Even more than Fi
this goes back to an old conversation i had with faeruss and you, where there was disagreement with the idea of Fe/Ti needing to have logic come from the Ti part of it. I think that is indeed incorrect, but the axiomatic implicits (imo biotic) come from a Je metabolic route in Fe/Ti users, however, the entire Ji-Je circuit collaborates to try to figure out what that is, leading Ti to be a sort of assistant in the process of figuring out what those Je biotic axioms are.
the way i am seeing it right now is that-- the entire axis operates around the 'goal' of what the axioms (of both Ji/Je) assume to be true. but in the case of Te > Fi and Ti > Fe ...it's not as 'plentitudinous'. this can lead to more focus on the raw principles of operationalization (Je) or the raw principles of essential understanding (Ji)... in themselves. so that Te w/o Fi (technically this never actually happens) is more like raw Je without a clear "what for", and Ti w/o Fe (technically this never actually happens) is raw Ji essentialism without a robust "what for". This can lead Te and Ti to appear semi-agnostic to life (at the behavioral level), insofar as their activity isn't being utilized towards a certain value/ideal.
anyhow, i agree that all four processes have axioms and that's already evident in the computational metaphor thread, as both Ji and Je, even at the base level (without T/F differentiation) have implicit assumptions in them, which i called "mono" and "order." but with Fi and Fe i think the "plentitudiousness" is because there is some additional metric in them. there's an [x] factor there, and maybe it's not a "tie to the emotional register", as i've stated it before, but it's this extra criteria for axiom-formation. and now im thinking that the emotional register of the person simply responds [contingent on ennegram-stuff/etc/something-else] to the conclusions of these axiom-sets in a person, just as it does to anything else we think (i.e. Pe activity causes the emotional register to respond as well, with excitement/etc). and the emotional register is not a part of Fi or Fe. but that [x] variable is. wonder what your thoughts are on this? [brb again]
I need to stress further, that I see no reason to believe that this linear logic of CT Fe is actually coming from Ti metabolism. The main reason is simple: none of Ti leads here are especially good at clear concise linear logical justification/analysis, or clear concise efficacious description. And sure, maybe its just that I can’t truly recognize linear reasoning at the Epic Complexity God Level of Ti. But most argumentation “logic” at least is concise, clear, efficacious and elegant. Parsimony is a logical aesthetic. It’s pretty easy to recognize because its very purpose is to be recognized. It is deploying a shared objective understanding — interpretation is the entire point of being clear and going step by step in a straight line. This is very different from Ti — Ti will do every single conceivable step, and all possible peripheral steps, just in case. (Kinda like how I’m doing now. I am trying to cover bases and responses. Oh Oh, now I reallyreally think Ti heavies are more disclaimer heavy and that also points to Ti being adaptive. Haha!)
I do agree Ti definitely checks Fe. I do it to Fe all the time. But they check me just as much. Axiomatic checking for Ti works... I would say “Ti culls Fe axioms”. Culling axioms and selecting universally applicable ones helps Fe reasoning to stick together and to align coherently. Ti can also be sorely mistaken. This affects the linear logic that emerges from Fe, by constraining it, or alternatively, opening it up from limiting/unquestioned inherited axioms. So that works well, Aub.
A lot may just be me
This pretty much isn’t in contradiction with most of what you say IMO @Auburn | TiNe. I just don’t know if Ji is great at all the whys of Je... it helps in a specific way. And I don’t think Ji will give Je better reasons necessarily. More reasons to live with and personal certitude/fortitude possibly.
I think Je (and Pi) takes the contents of a Ji Perfectly Curated Chest of Revisor Beliefs, and makes them usable, intelligible, connected by clearly justified relations. These are meticulously catalogued yes (be those virtues, databases of objects of interests, philosophers and philosophies, characters, art, whatever...) which gives a clear sense about what stuff is like, what must be true about certain things, what is universal or not (maybe “Nothing is Absolute” for some...)
Ji seems to slow Je’s roll
I just try to choose axioms that cover a lot, and people can’t deny without sounding absurd.
That does sound like it could be a lot of fun especially with the kind of cognition use to run such an operation. But I'm not sure about the place could be coming from. I think as a SeTi that makes me want to brake through it in a truthful non-denying way that makes me suffer maximum absurdity just to show I could handle it.
I would go on about "just act in way that is true to your heart" but I don't know if that way of being is compatible with you, non-SeTi, non-SeJi, non-Beta, or non-me.
Yet, if you think it comes from a good enough place, I trust your judgement (especially if other alpha's happen to agreed), if not then take your time finding way of axiom generation that feels good to you.
PS: I have yet to finish reading topic post... I'm always excited to see what came into realization between Jelle and you?
This is very interesting and enlightening!
Just a casual observation - I've noticed that word choice seems to be important to both of the people in this conversation. Specifically, it's something I've noticed in Auburn for quite some time. Could this be a Ti effect? It seems the priority lies in conveying an idea with extreme accuracy, even if the words used are somewhat obscure or difficult to understand. Perfection of information transmission over universality of information transmission.
I almost wrote ease instead of universality, but then I realized that, to the Ti user, processing words with highly specific and accurate meanings may be seen as easier than a clumsily put together phrase that anyone could understand. Could this be Ti priority over Fe? Or is this more of a Ji effect? I personally agonize over if my ideas are comprehensible or not, but that's because I am highly disorganized and am not good at conveying ideas.
@Alice This may be worthy of a thread split because I'm not sure how related it is to the OP, but I have noticed this "precision of language" thing as well. It's interesting because before coming to CT, I would have thought of myself as being like that, but after interacting with some high-Ti folks here, I realize I am not like them at all in this way. Honestly, I find half of what they say unintelligible, including the OP here (no offense meant!). I guess the way it works for me personally is that when I'm in the process of communicating, I am not super hung up on being exactly precise in my language, but I am very conscious of the precision and accuracy of other people's word choices and I will (in my own head or out loud depending on the person) correct them if they use a word incorrectly. And I just find precision in language very interesting as a fun puzzle or exercise. I wrote about this in the discord, so I'll just copy and paste what I wrote there:
"When I think back to all the people I studied math with in grad school, there is one thing that really stood out to me about us as a group. We were all very interested in precision and accuracy in language. Not necessarily that everyone felt like they had to be super precise and accurate in their language at all times, but moreso that we just found it interesting and satisfying to try to be as precise as possible as an exercise. This still plays out between me and my husband (we were in the same math program in grad school) where occasionally one of us will nitpick about the accuracy of the other's word choice and then we will launch into a long conversation where we're trying to figure out the most accurate way to say what they were trying to say. Outside observers often view it as being like an argument caused by one of us being overly critical of the other. Meanwhile we're just off in our own world completely having forgotten about the original conversation and just having fun trying to figure out this puzzle."
I want to comment on the OP too, but I'm still processing it at the moment, so I'll come back to it later.
I like the gem of a quote you chose to open this with @auburn. I have a need to improve my social skills, and I always appreciate chances to hear perspectives of people who are different from me in ways that help me see my blind spots. With this comment in particular, it's rare to hear the other side (a non-Fi user on expressing difficult emotions and the meanness or niceness of it) explained objectively and rationally, instead of while in a state of anger or disgust. For a long time, I had just assumed that everyone thought that expressing emotions was just a part of human life. And that sometimes the truth (factual or emotional) makes you uncomfortable, but it is important nonetheless, if you want to gain clarity and get to the bottom of a situation. That hiding one's true feelings is a red flag, and can often be sensed. Since to me, the potential reasons to *not* express the depth and breadth of my emotions include the following: I am trying to pull one over on you, I am trying to manipulate you emotionally, I do not trust you enough to open up, I perceive you as unstable and needing to be walked around on eggshells, I don't like you and am mocking your inability to see through my fake happy-happiness, or I do not believe you are worth the trouble (or are capable) of coming to an understanding with, so I decided to give up on our relationship and just be placid and allow us to continue never seeing eye-to-eye. And since none of those is good, I did expect everyone to be ok with expressing emotions, even when it's temporarily uncomfortable, as a necessary condition of being honest and aboveboard. Quite the opposite of having bad intentions or being mean. Only when I started learning about typology, I learned that emotional expression means something very different to very many people, something which I am still working on understanding better, in order to coexist better with more people and be on each other's good side.
Funnily enough, the observation you first mentioned @Alice, while it could potentially be its own thread, I also see as related in a way.
It has been observed before that high Ti users are very particular about word choice, and that every detail of what is said is factually accurate. In another group there was a debate between Ti and Fi users on this, and I noted one of the reasons give by Ti users for doing this, even if it is annoying to some (such as when they are interrupted with technical corrections), is because they care about the other person, and therefore do not want to let them keep going with incorrect information, because it could potentially lead them down a wrong path and cause problems for them. It's really kind of analogous to the Fi scenario above. In both cases, people, when they care about someone, want them to have as much access to the truth as they are able to help them get. They do it in different ways though, relating to where/how they believe the most important truths to be arrived at: by way of rational thinking, or in more emotional ways. With the head or with the heart.
As for the rest of this thread, tbh I didn't even get through all of it! But I am looking forward to "Discussions with Jelle on P axes" 🙂