I've read a few people mention a link between Te and unseeliness. So I decided to take a look at the database to see just how much of a link there was. If you want to see all the numbers, I've shared the link to the google sheet where I recorded them at the bottom of this post. Here's what I found:
Fi-leads are more likely to be seelie (71%) than unseelie (29%). It is not clear from the numbers whether or how much this is affected by whether or not Te is conscious.
Among those who have Fi as their second function, NeFi's are slightly more likely to be seelie (59%) than unseelie, while SeFi's are significantly less likely to be seelie (17%) than unseelie. Here are the development types listed in order of most to least likely to be seelie: Fi conscious and Te unconscious, both Fi and Te conscious, neither Fi nor Te conscious, Te conscious and Fi unconscious
Among those who have Te as their second function, SiTe's are about 50/50 seelie and unseelie, while NiTe's appear to be quite unlikely to be seelie given that of the 23 in the database, none are seelie. SiTe's have increased rates of seeliness when Fi is conscious and Te is unconscious, a very small increase in the rate when neither is conscious, and a decreased rate when Te is conscious but Fi is unconscious (no data on having both conscious).
Te-leads are more likely to be unseelie (79%) than seelie. Having Fi conscious significantly increased rates of seeliness (from 21% to 53%), while not having Fi conscious slightly decreased rates of seeliness (from 21% to 15%).
So, this data is definitely consistent with the idea that Fi is linked to seeliness and Te is linked to unseeliness. A few disclaimers should be made though. First of all, I am not a statistician and I haven't done any calculations on the statistical significance of these numbers. In some cases the number of cases I was working with were pretty small, which makes the numbers less reliable. Also, the database is not really a representative sample because of the various ways people are chosen to add to the database.
Here are my questions at this point:
I like this, and I feel like more could be done with it. I am not a statistician either, but I have had a fair bit of training, so I hope my input can be of some use here.
The way I see this thread (and some recent discussions on the chat), people are interested in what causes someone to be seelie or unseelie. I had a look at your spreadsheet, and it seems like, as you said in your post, you are interested in exploring potential links between Unseeliness and Te. OK, so you ran some basic statistics on proportions of Seelie and Unseelie among different type groups. Good effort. I get the feeling you are treating levels of Fi and Te as explanatory variables, and seelie vs unseelie as the response variable. I would advise you, however, to be careful about making statements implying causality, such as "Fi being conscious significantly increased the likelihood of Seelie." The reason being, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, as the old axiom goes. Could there not be, for instance, another factor at play, which increases both Fi consciousness, as well as seeliness?
I suspect there might be. I had an idea when I checked my email this morning. I get a reminder every month to participate in a survey on potential links between attachment styles and levels of happiness, etc. At least a few people here have suspected that attachment styles (in early life to primary caregivers) impact the attitudes of the heart. The difficult part is surveying people on this. Questions similar to the survey I participate in might work, though.
In the meantime, I might try making a few plots from the data you collected from the database, if I have time. It would make it easier to get the gist of, than just tabular form.
@janie, Yes, thank you for pointing this out! I did think about that as I was compiling the data, but I didn't really talk about it in my post, and I should have. And I definitely wasn't as careful as I should have been about the way I worded the conclusions. I decided to look at the data with the question "Does developing Te influence seeliness?" in mind, but I could have looked at it in lots of other ways. I actually started out by thinking about it in the other direction (Does being unseelie affect the likelihood of developing Te or having Te be higher in your "stack"?), but I decided that the way people talked about type and seeliness suggested that people thought that your type was fixed (though not development) and that seeliness was changeable. But I don't think we actually know that to be true. And as you said, correlation doesn't imply causation, so even if there is a statistical relationship between Te and unseeliness, it could be a result of some third unknown variable and not because one is causing the other. Definitely important things to keep in mind when looking at this data!
That would be awesome if you made some charts 🙂
That's a pretty awesome correlation.
I wonder if there's similar link between adaptive and Fe!
This would totally work for the Fe-Ti axis as well.
Here is a basic one, of just the types and heartitudes. It doesn't take development levels into account.
I could move the legend, but it was getting too annoying. hehe.