The bolded is very much like a Je function in MBTI/JCF. Je is pretty much defined this way, impose shit upon the external environment. So in this case this sounds like Fe, not Fi.Fi, being an Introverted Judging function, rationally reasons out personal ethics and moral creeds. Assuming Fi is a conscious function, then Fi is 'conducted' by the individual to determine what is morally right, and what is morally wrong, so that the Fi user can build a framework to impose upon the external environment. The Fi users project ethical values onto situations in the environment to morally orient themselves and their position. They reason out in their minds why one side of a situation or controversy is morally in the wrong, while doing the same for the one that is morally wrong, with circumstantial evidence (provided by lovely Pe* which will be the subject of the Te vs Pe conversation in just a second). This reasoning can be provided by how the individual approached other topics in order to stray from being hypocritical (more common with Fi dominants, who are more dogmatic in their ethical imposing); for example, if I find that killing animals is morally wrong, then I should also find the consumption of animals mass slaughtered by factories wrong as well, since it causes the problem in the first place (product demand); ergo, I should become a vegan because veganism is morally right due to the fact that it reduces the demand (microscopically) and thus goes against the morally wrong action of mass slaughtering animals (started out with killing animals is wrong, got to veganism is right). By the way, veganism is stupid.
I get what you mean by the moral consistency idea, though. That's just like logical consistency for Ti.
Lol at the veganism example btw, yeah that sort of reasoning to go vegan is really stupid.
Glad you liked the Augusta Ti stuffThe reason I like to call it "Formal Logic" is because while it is subjective rationalization, it isn't really "subjective" since it focuses on objective truth that can be derived from pure logic (perhaps I should just call it "pure logic"?). Whereas Fi can work rather ambiguously due to the nature of morals, Ti is more forced to walk the road of pure logic so that it can reason out the machinations of the environment and project how the environment should be working accurately (pure logic is logical, after all) according to the pure logic that is conducted within. I rather enjoyed Augusta's description of Ti, for some reason I seem to have skipped over it before, so thank you for that. I would conjecture that the logical feelings arise from the projection of how the environment should be working according to pure logic onto the environment itself, how the object in the environment in question fits the standards of the pure logic model. If it is an unknown object, Ti flags it as such, and attempts to account for it after gathering circumstantial evidence through Pe. If there is an object leaning 70% off of a table, say a slender remote, the Ti user can use the Pe circumstantial evidence provided (the description) to project onto the object the concept of balance, or, rather, imbalance, thereby linking the idea of imbalance with the remote that is now probably falling off of the table. It is entirely logical to project the characteristic of imbalance onto the remote, due to the nature of the remote's position.
I guess "pure logic" would be a better choice for a name than "formal logic". "Pure" would of course not necessarily mean perfect here, just referring to the idea that Ti (as any other introverted function) is about abstracting away some - in this case logical - essence from objects. This is the original Jungian definition btw but the MBTI, various JCF-based theories and socionics do seem to make use of some very similar ideas when defining Ti.
Also, this is the reason why I don't really agree when you say Ti is about projecting "how the environment should be working accurately". I don't follow you here at all; I don't even know what you mean by environment working "accurately" here. Environment - the world - works whatever way it does and Ti is about abstracting away ideas about it, e.g. about how it works. As Jung said, introversion is about removing yourself from the object. This idea of actively imposing frameworks isn't quite the same thing. If you just mean that the perception of the world is a bit "filtered" through logical ideas then that's okay but I wouldn't directly link that to imposing anything on the external world - just like with your Fi description, same issue there IMO. I think you need quite a bit more than just Ti (or Fi) itself to interact with environment in such a way.
The example of the remote is pretty good, though I still don't agree about the projection idea. The feeling of imbalance is just abstracted away from the perception. At least that's how it seems to me. I think there is a difference in meaning here; or just your word usage is very different from mine.
You mean the MBTI ENTJ -> socionics SLE/ESTp correlation right? Or did you mean there's actually a lot of people who confuse LIE/ENTj with SLE/ESTp? I don't see those two types as being that similar tbh. In theory anyway.The Te vs Pe debacle. (Ever wonder why there are a shit-ton of ESTp-ENTj mistypes in Socionics? Oh, and know that your nitpicking led to this wall of text under here)
No worries about wall of text I don't think it was nitpicking tho'. Effective communication is important, so when using generic words like "evidence", it's best to clarify what's meant by that. That's why I asked.
Anyway, thanks, the wall of text does clarify what you meant about that.
The Ti / Te difference though, a few things I'd like to note.
It's not clear what you mean by "static accuracy" for Ti. That again makes no sense to me. You also mention it lacks relevance to reality. I disagree, degree of relevance of "pure logic" to reality entirely depends on how well the logic is mapped to the phenomenon/environment/reality. How well you figure out the "logical essence" of things. And, because the quality of such mapping can be variable, I would never say that such logic is static in accuracy. Rather, its accuracy depends on the quality of the mapping, just like with relevance. I use the word "accuracy" in the sense of "correct", how about you though?
I don't know how purity of logic would help reveal where evidence lies; again, I'm referring to the issue of quality of mapping. Unless you mean that said evidence is inconsistent with current understanding of how things work, assuming that this current understanding is really good. But then, current understanding isn't perfect either so just because an inconsistency has been revealed, it doesn't mean the evidence is lying. Though sure, it could be. Anyway, mind giving an example where the Te evidence is lying and this can be discovered by Ti way of thinking?
I find it funny you call the Pe observations circumstantial evidence even when it's not a one-time observation. Te evidence as you describe it, is also pretty circumstantial in this sense. Many scientific studies just have some variables better controlled for but not perfect either. Think about science of nutrition for example. Or psychology, yeah :P
....Anyway I'll try to describe how I do observation for evidence; Say I have a question about how something works. I first think through previously observed data in my head and I get a theory assimilated off that. Then I go out to test that theory. If it gets refuted by the very first so-called "circumstantial" observation, then it's refuted, period. Back to drawing board then. If it's not (yet) refuted and further observations keep supporting it, I will still prefer to have some proper explanation why the theory is correct. My reductionist thinking comes into the picture here. That has a lot of frameworks included in it, mostly sciencey stuff, but the point is, if I can place my theory inside those frameworks and I can see through all levels of explanation down to the lowest level that's relevant for the theory being currently analysed, then I'm mostly satisfied. So yeah, you could say the entirety of these frameworks* is what determines what makes sense.
*: It's not likely that all of science from physics to biology will suddenly get refuted in one second based on some new little piece of evidence. Don't misunderstand me. Not saying that science is all-knowing either. But assume science all gets uprooted like that, well we do still need to put some other system in its place. Can't just let everything hanging in the air. (And honestly, most likely the new system would just be some paradigm shift in the way of explaining things, not invalidating previous stuff that has been shown to work within at least certain constraints.)
Anyway, what I describe above, do you see this as entirely Ti? Because going by your Te definition, it certainly seems to include some Te use by the willingness to look at results of scientific research. Though I would say, the way I look at that sort of research stuff usually involves withholding any kind of real judgment until it can all make sense together. So it's often just data that's partially analysed or not even analysed right away, depending. And honestly a lot of data in general that I encounter is just that, data left unanalysed until I can do it or want to do so for whatever reason.
And, I know the goatee example is just meant as some crazy funny example and I know it was Fi, not Ti, but I would never make a final judgment on people with goatees until I know why people with goatees try to hurt other people. That "model" there is so simplistic that it can't even be called a model. It's just connecting two things together without it being part of a real system. And surely Fi users, well at least Fi-doms, would try to place their Fi judgments inside a bigger Fi framework? Or not? Maybe I am asking too much from Fi types? I want to also say that I liked the Te reasoning in the goatee example. I really like that kind of logic, taking into account the size of sample and probabilities. I think a lot like that and so I would like to ask you why you think this is a Te thing and why it can't be a Ji and specifically a Ti thing.
Overall, I take it you were trying to say that the Te user just attributes a probability to people with goatees hurting other people while the Fi (and Ti??) user is thinking black-and-white along the lines of "they will always hurt people"??? That makes no sense to me, why couldn't the JiPe user use probabilities? Staying with Ti now, probability theory is a pretty pure logic thing :P
You say the general difference between JePi and JiPe is also this: "You have absorbed the logical worth in other evidence produced by observations other than your own, realizing the authority of evidence in the environment itself rather than evidence gathered by the self from the environment personally." I have certainly read about this kind of distinction in some typology theories (both MBTI and socionics actually) so yeah I guess this is a pretty common definition. But I will say it never truly made sense to me. Just because someone else conducted an experiment and not myself, it doesn't mean it can't be a valid observation. Assuming they conducted the experiment using proper methodology, it's just as good as one done by myself. (Also that assumes that I care for proper methodology. Yes, I do, I like to try within whatever physical constraints.) I can read the data from this experiment done by someone else, I can analyse and interpret the results for myself just fine. Of course, it will feel more like "reality" if I directly experience it myself but that has nothing to do with goodness of data. So if I was to go by this definition of Ti vs Te (where Ti is supposed to disregard data gathered by someone else), I would not be preferring either function over the other. What do you say that is, then?