So for some reason you see Ti as having a personal self involved? Why?That sounds great and all, and in Ti's ideal form, that's how it would look, but, in practice, I think it's a load of bs.
The subjective factor is extremely inherent in much of Ti thinking.
In her words, "the midwife" is very much present.
Ti is subjective in terms of how the things it sees or makes up are not tangible, true. What it deals with is an intangible "map" that's not visible like an actual object is. But this doesn't mean that in this process of seeing it there would have to be a personal self.
It's really impersonal anyway, you know, repressing F and all that feely crap.
(Of course that map isn't necessarily perfect so then it should be perfected over time if possible. As long as one's not overly attached to their ideas.)
Btw in socionics the subjective factor is explained as a focus on interrelationships (fields). This then again doesn't have to involve a personal approach.
@Alea_iacta_est, when are you going to attempt a write up on Ti/Te (and of course Fi/Fe)? And what do you think about a need for consensus? And relying on some sort of evidence; e.g. making up a test that measures on many people how function aspects tend to go together. Etc. I'm not saying this approach would be hard science but perhaps more fruitful than just drawing up the umpteenth theory from speculation.