To explain how you see communication.
I don't see what I understand as Fi in you, but Fi is not a function I understand well, so I couldn't pinpoint what I'm looking for; since you type as Fi dominant, I'm curious as how you believe you manifest this. You can make up your own context, just an example or two would be good. What led you to type as INFP (with high Te hence the x I assume) rather than INTP or INTJ?
Because it's ego conscious. And no, people don't see Fi in me because I don't show it to other people generally speaking. My expression of it is also perhaps an abstraction that people aren't used seeing or understanding as Fi.
I have to disagree here; I think the emotion expresses is simply very subtle. Maybe this is what you mean. But I think it will always be present to some extent, as opposed to a thinking type, which would express the same emotional quality in a different way.
Thinkers can be very emotional and vice versa. I know an ExTJ who is very keen on expressing his inferior Fi but that it's inferior becomes apparent in situations where his values are questioned and he cannot provide a nuanced view. I never said there are no emotional cues, but feelers do not have exhibit them in order to be considered feelers and vice versa since ultimately it's about whether feeling as a judging preference is ego conscious or not. Pneumoceptor on Personality Cafe is for example a person I'd consider cold for an Fe type because she doesn't tend to really emote many of her feelings.
It would be entirely contextual. I think it was related to a post in which you questioned something I said, and I don't remember what it was, so I have no context; and quite frankly I don't feel like putting in the effort to find it. From the thread title though I'm sure it had to do with me making a claim of relationships between cognitive functions and mental states which could be classified as disorders, with which you disagreed. I meant something along the lines of this post for example:
http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html
My understanding of the dominant-tertiary loop is that it exists, then it doesn't. I for example think that a person's ego can take on two introverted functions that are ego-conscious i.e. dominant and auxiliary and this could seem like a dominant-tertiary loop at first because the MBTI theory suggests that the auxiliary must be of opposite function attitude to the dominant although Jung makes no claims about this himself. Myers think the psyche cannot operate healthily without that push-pull between introversion-extroversion. In MBTI, the person who is say, NiTi would thus be in a dominant-tertiary loop and is in MBTI letter code, an INFJ instead of say, an INTJ. I personally don't agree with or think the former makes much sense since I think ego consciousness of functions should determine the letter used, not whether the function is introverted or extroverted in relation to the dominant, but anyway.
I think a person can function normally if the two ego conscious functions are introverted just fine, which I think is different to when a person starts relying on the inferior and another judgement function of the same attitude because they are already unhealthy so in a way I'd say, that's more inferior-auxiliary loop than dominant-tertiary, although you can also get stuck in auxiliary-tertiary feedback loops as I was this summer and unhealthy which essentially boiled down to revisiting a scenario that has happened and trying to figure out a new solution to it despite that it's already happened by asking myself the questions what if, maybe, possibly and so on. Then yes, I agree, it can lead to neurotic reasoning. Weak Ni with Ji can for instance lead to paranoia and conspiracy theorizing and why this doesn't happen in an individual whose top two functions would be say, NiFi is because they can tell when they are reading too much into things and when they aren't since their ego is oriented towards intuition and feeling.
So in a sense I don't think looping must be restricted to one function combination.
I also think as a whole based on what I've observed in people that NiJi is the most observable and detrimental "loops", although one could perhaps assume that certain Pe dominant types who has yet to develop an auxiliary can appear what is often understood as PeJe because they seem to have an inability to filter information in relation to themselves but only trust external sources to tell them who they are. I think this is rather a good example of unhealthy use of extroversion in general though and Pe more so than Je.
Similarly, a person's ego can be very stuck in their dominant perspective to the point where that too becomes neurotic and they react very strongly towards outside influence trying to disrupt this e.g. something triggers their inferior causing an eruption. I've seen this in a person who is an Si dominant but believes himself to be an INTP. Why I think my typing of him is right over his self-typing has to do with that he's grown blind to his own dominant function and I can tell that he's not intuitive or even enjoys intuition as a cognitive perspective because he reacted very strongly against my intuition which would have been very archetypal if Jung had typed this guy. In other words, he was probably in Jungian terms, one of the most stereotype Si dominants you could find.
It would be within the context of several posts. My experience is that I post something and then it gets nitpicked to death, people arguing against an extreme position I never took (like that having a characteristic means you have Aspergers, Te users can't form their own theories, such and such a person always does this, all NT's have social problems, etc), just basically dismissing it based on a straw man fallacy. There is a lot of saying I'm wrong without correspondingly saying what the other person actually believes is right. That's just my perception.
Well, you cannot base your reasoning on that NTs would as a whole have social problems without acknowledging that other types can experience social problems for a wide variety of problems, too, and it's not related to NT-ness but a lot of factors that make up human cognition and whether we are in fact deemed sociable or not. That in itself is a logical fallacy that perhaps is the most reminiscient of No True Scotsman.
You made this thread in the NT subforum. It implicitly leads to the assumption that you somehow feel there's a stronger correlation between NTs and Aspbergers, and if reading other posts in this thread, you also see this mentality kind of being perpetuated. INTPs with inferior Fe are more likely to be autistic just because their Fe is inferior. Again, that's not logically valid reasoning since as I already expressed, I don't think those with autism can first of all be properly typed in the MBTI system since their cognition operates differently to that of a "normal" person, and I think it also misunderstands the role of inferior Fe and how it plays in a Ti dominant's psyche. Not every NT is gong to be socially awkward as it highly depends on the rest of their psychological makeup, upbringing etc. Gender also probably plays a role and what kind of social behaviors are acceptable to begin with.
Because when I'm using a feeling function with Ti to back it up, I'm switching the hierarchy, which doesn't work that well. According to my understanding of theory. This is commonly agreed upon, as Coriolis pointed out. you might have a different opinion. I think functions which are lower in consciousness aren't so much dysfunctional when used, but rather primitive and immature when used consciously; lack of practice and differentiation means the person is less skilled with its conscious use.
How can one switch "hierarchy"? I think there's a difference between expressing that the unconsciousness is suddenly expressed and claiming that the functions would switch order of preference...? In the latter the unconscious is clearly still the unconscious, just that we suddenly became aware of it. As for the latter, in a sense, yes, although one could argue whether the unconscious functions can be used consciously since that would imply they are in fact at some level, conscious.
Sometimes this is true. But determining whether this is true and on what grounds is tricky business, if the "facts" are not scientific in nature, only theoretical.
That's when we have to rely on logical reasoning to argue for our case just like like in philosophy where much of what is being discussed/understood/researched/theorized isn't concretely tangible, either.
It's not the Ti which bothers me; I enjoy discussion and debate. I don't like when it's applied in places it doesn't belong, missing the big picture and completely neglecting the quality of human interaction. Which now that I think about it is a very F(e) thing to say. I think NTP's can be concerned about this though. Surely they find each other annoying at times, and most would consider it unhealthy and not preferable to ignore feeling related issues when they are relevant. Basically, I think debate should be respectful of the other's dignity and intelligence.
I think I have to disagree because if feeling is the function you suppress the most into the unconsciousness, which I think we can both agree on is true in a Ti dominant, why would they be concerned about expressing feeling or care about whether the emotional context? It's the very perspective they try to ignore.
Why do you? I think it has greater explanatory power, is more complete, and is easier to use because relies less on vague generalities. The more distinction the better.
If so, then why rely on certain MBTI stereotypes about how say, feelers and thinkers behave?
No, that would take too much time. I'd have to dig through a bunch of posts. Here's one which says just a little bit which is similar:
Also posts people have made which I thought made sense. Probably one by [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION].
Well, I think Doctorjuice is often to the point but he misses contextual and theoretical depth in his videos, ergo the shortness of it. I in fact wrote an article about INTJ and INTP writing styles many months ago though, although in retrospect I think little of what I wrote has to do with actual NiTe and TiNe cognition as much of my understanding was built on MBTI theory rather than Jung.
i went online and found endless descriptions of Aspie women and guess what? I fit every single one of them. Yet have no real difficulties in getting about in society, living my life or otherwise functioning. So if I were an Aspie then I'd have to conclude that its no more difficult than being say blonde or brunette so why exactly do they need self-help groups, special education and lessons in social functioning? This world has gone crazy on the 'I'm a special little snowflake' theme, with people just lining up to be diagnosed with this and that just so they can claim their specialness. Humans are so narrow in their thinking that they label anyone with a slightly different set of priorities in life dysfunctional and then set about correcting that dysfunction with medication and counsellors willing to help you develop coping mechanisms. The next leap of choosing eye or hair colour as a dysfunction is really not very far away at the rate we are going. 
