show us why you're trying to do what you're doing. that's it. because we are attached to other whys and don't see yours, so we lose our ability to adjust our filters for your intention. we rely on intention so much. we filter based on the expectation-prediction framework we set out given a set of whys that help us focus on and generate priorities of worth. we're already always in the midst of orienting toward something. sometimes we need you to show us where you're facing, to show us what's off in the distance. then the whys snap into place and we will work to blend the purposes together.
i might give that tip a spin at some point baring the need/opportunity.
altho i don't think "suppressing" is the right word.
i tend to disagree - for Ti - and i've gotten feedback from others TPs - the moment of noticing these sort of fallacies tends to blip bright red, for lack of a better wording... i am not sure how else to describe it, "system error", "theory is crashing down", "all thoughts evacuate to the nearest lifeboat". it is essentially a very bittersweet/anxious experience, that your Fe statement is somehow able to disregard completely. you are essentially dis-engaging Ti when you do it - you would have too, the ground would crumble under your assertion's feet if you wouldn't.
to turn the coin & ilustrate to you how this looks, when you see xxTPs being brash, prodding without consideration, asking inappropriate questions, etc', and doing many of the things your Fe would withhold you from doing, you can very safely assume that we are repressing Fe at that very moment - that we are dis-engaging it, we are breaking layers upon layers of social contract, we are breaking the rules of the communication game. likewise, when you are stating that something isn't true for reasons that have nothing to do with the nature of that something, you are breaking the rules of the truth seeking game.
we're trying to organize shit in a different way, which relies on and performs different kinds of information testing. it may seem like Ti parsing and testing is the best way to know something, but it also leads to harsh light when a soft focus would be better to get a glimpse of the whole and to grasp the context aesthetically, emotionally.
agreed (to the extent that i can understood it), but i don't believe those have to contradict.
while i certainly don't embody the ideal, i do believe in my signature quote:
"Were wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
Ti without Fe can be utterly oblivious to what things mean to people, essentially generating a world of phenomena.
Fe without Ti gets lost in the world of appearances, satisfied by things thought of as nothing but what they seem.
but those are not only tasteless, they are utterly dishonest:
curiosity is not genuine if it doesn't seek to find where it comes from, & caring merely for what people mean to you without seeking the reality in which they inhabit isn't caring about anyone else but yourself. it is only when we channel both and aspire to the common grounds in which al; our perspectives reside, that thing we call objective reality that connect us all, that we can do either one in a way that's meaningful beyond psychological masturbation.
to bring it back to the activity described by the OP - it is as big of a failure to do so as it comes. not only does it not see the common grounds were the perspective of others reside, it is rejecting information about the common grounds because of the perspective from which it comes from.
