The Fe/Ti dynamic is to chide Ti to behave correctly even though such behavior isn't strictly logical. When INTPs see INTJs expounding facts in a Te manner, it reeks of that hubris, of self-centered logical rightness, and must be called out in an Fe way to invoke a sense of shame (which doesn't work very well on INTJs, and works all too well on INTPs).
Interesting...
Not to nitpick, but this would be more judging Te via Fe, though, right?
As opposed to seeing Te as if it's Fe?
I can definitely get on board with them judging our Te via their Fe...
I think it's kinda why I said seeing Te as Fi...
I think that when we make statements about what is objectively true, they think we're just projecting subjective Fi judgments onto reality, which, in some cases we may be, but plenty of times we're not. There is such a thing as external reality, and there are such things as statements that correspond with it, and ones that don't. Obviously, it's not simply a binary thing, there are degrees to which statements correspond, and, as you've pointed out above, there are ways in which statements correspond in certain regards, but not necessarily in others. Regardless, though, not all Te is simply Fi. That's the bullshit conviction that I think a lot of TPs and FJs engage in.
I think this basically makes our interpretations the same, no?
Language just clarified.
The Te/Fi dynamic is that Fi has its deeply-held convictions, but there is a (Te) recognition that not all of these convictions can be materialized in the real world. Fi holds Te to internalized idealistic values, while Te tempers Fi values to conform (to a degree!) to practical reality. An INTJ expounding an idea isn't intentionally imposing his own intellectual concepts onto reality, but rather there is an ongoing "negotiation" with reality that INTPs don't see, because their inner Ti logic is as shielded from reality as our Fi values.
With regards to this last part, I do have to say I always find that part interesting, cuz, while I agree with it in one regard, I do always have to go back and say that Ti, as a T function,
is dealing with the world in a different way than Fi (truth vs values), and, as such, is, by that one dimension, closer to reality than is Fi. This all draws back to what I've called the tripartite meaning of objectivity/subjectivity in typology (
LINK), which, now that I think of it, you are partially responsible for (as is Eric B).
So an INTJ reacting to another INTJs "incorrect" statement will offer counter-evidence (your statement A cannot be true because X and Y are demonstrably true instead, and offer a much better explanation of events), while an INTP will instead assume the INTJ has leaped to a conclusion and attempt first to offer gentle "nitpicks" (as you aptly put it) to help nudge the INTJ out of his misconception, and eventually resort to outright attempts to shame based on supposed hubris on the part of the INTJ.
Yes, this is pretty much spot on.
Although I think "misconception" would be more accurate in quotes.
These are just communication styles, though, not actual incorrect reasoning on the part of either party.
I dunno...
I'd say it's pretty dumb on the part of INTPs.
By your construction (which I agree with), I think the implication is:
If we correct them, it's in the form of: hey, that thought doesn't correspond with reality. Objective critique.
If they correct us, it's in the form of: hey, you're not supposed to behave that way. Bullshit, subjective ethical critique.
I've wanted to have this particular discussion for a while now -- glad it's finally come up... and in an Ni thread, of all places...