Love all the controversy on this thread. reminds me of my skeptical approach to my own type, or my adventures imagining and assessing different types for myself. it had been very helpful identifying several ppl around me and using my perception of their types and our contrasts to help resolve my own. your writing at face value LOOKS like i think ne-dom looks. especially bc you seem to be mostly considering extroverted types. i think the ILE vs IEE proposal you made at the beginning of this thread is still appropriate. for myself that is still the dichotomy i'm most unsure about in myself.
i disagree with some of the line-by-line interpretations i've seen earlier in this thread. i think type-interpreting writing should more likely be done holístically.(at least, that's how i will do it bc i can hardly remember and keep track of point by point arguments)(erg i'm not gonna correct when my phone puts spanish accents on certain words--dont worry about it)
in my experience, using ti a lot doesn't necessarily mean being stiff/stodgy in adhering to specific ti findings. in fact, for ILE, the ti is getting regulated by ne so much that single ti findings are essentially useless most of the time--context makes all the difference in how and why to use ti, and context is what Ne keeps track of. so when i was a kid i thought the world would be better off if everyone used their own logic to conduct themselves (i didn't know about IM elements) and if all knowledge was freely flowing and everyone dedicated themselves to learning. with further development of my ne and ti, and with some more background knowledge, i now know that vision is a foolish child's fantasy for many reasons. notably, the way people in society form their worldviews and the factors influencing such, the ways they group themselves and wallow in intersubjective biases, these make it so that any search for universal truths or metanarratives is destined to fail in any cases outside of its context of origination. reading postmodernist philosophy has made me much more aware of the limits of my own cognition, the biases fundamental to human cognition (self, language, peer group, social hegemony, etc). in short, 3D or 4D ti can look simplistic due to disavowal of judgement or acceptance of diversity in the thought of other humans.
regarding your rhetoric, i think ILE can go back and forth between full ne riffing, which both types of ne dom can do, and that we see a lot of with you, and the systematic and detached analysis/self reflection that you do when you get into analysis mode, and that is also depicted in my intro statement. i think the actual word choice and level of technicality depends on the types of things you usually read and the education you pursued/didn't pursue. i studied science and i test philosophy and science stuff but also when aroundppl who don't want technical discourse i intentionally use more friendly and personal and non-jargon language. i'll even come off a bit country at times bc of past areas of residence. for now i need to get going, but i'll check back. i will also mention that working on fe or being somewhat fe fluent seems to be within the realm of possibility for us. My EII lover thinks i'm very emotionally fluent and caring, which is probably from decent fe but i also theorize ne-ti can approximate emotional sensitivity when you direct your observation powers upon the people in question.
Reply With Quote
