At first it seems inconceivable that Richard Dawkins, of all people, has conscious Fi but it makes sense if you consider it is conscious and unseelie. Unseelie Fi, after all, is quite moralistic, disgust-prone, and defensive. Dawkins is famous for his heated disapproval of religion and he takes very personal offense to the indoctrination of children with unscientific information. Dawkins is a kind of Fi advocate here — of a similar sort who might advocate against physical child-abuse. Dawkins considers it a form of child-abuse that defenseless minds are told what to believe, especially when it is untrue. Dawkins, unlike his other TeSi businessman counterparts, is not driven by financial gains but instead by a compounded Te-Fi agenda of truth-seeking and moralistic proclamation.
Richard Dawkins, Ayn Rand and Germaine Greer (when older) have very similar vultologies characterized by a Je-lead commanding and accentuating vultology, but also a poised and receding posture. Their head nods are exceptionally jittery and concise.
Psychologically, what differentiates these three from other TeSi’s is a very axiomatically airtight ideology which one might mistake for Ti in some areas. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not a commentary on modern politics (re: TeSi l—), but a timeless principle-based paradigm. And this is the key psychological feature that is added by the conscious presence of Fi. The TeSi l–l is concerned, much like the Ji-leads, with arriving at the “right” universal positions in respect to philosophy, morality, and logic/reason.
Ayn Rand perhaps embodies this even stronger than Richard Dawkins, developing her philosophy of objectivism. And yet just like Dawkins (and unlike Ti-leads) she comes to a sort of principle-based conclusion that the way to live one’s life is to rely on nothing that isn’t supported by evidence. Like Dawkins she is deeply offended when people choose to act on whims and has her own grievances with love, sentimentality and the like. The effect we see here is as though a Ti-lead had arrived at the axiomatic conclusion that materialism is the philosopher’s stone. But the conclusion comes from a Te-Fi hybrid.
Like with the TeSi ll–, the TeSi l–l is somewhat ambiverted in their energy. Their Ji holds them back somewhat, while their Je pushes them forward. But unlike Ji-leads, there is no exerted push present. One does not get the sense that they’re Reviser types struggling to get their words out, but instead they are Je-lead types who have natural and easy articulations/gesticulations…. that are being clamped down by heavy Ji.