I think that is because I have not yet put conscious awareness to these Ti values that you speak of. What would be an example of how strong Ti values would manifest or be expressed?
Thanks for the great response!
I find that I am often unaware of my own Fi values ... until they're violated, and then I experience this kind of "gut" feeling that something's just
wrong here. It's an uncomfortable (emotionally disturbing) feeling. Only once I experience that "gut" feeling (and that's Fi
screaming for Fe to
emote something back because it has been "offended," so to speak) does Fe become aware that
some Fi value has been violated. Fe, then, may, or may not, recognize the specific Fi value that has been violated, but, when it
does identify the actual Fi value that has been violated, we call that "learning" or, at the very least, learning something about oneself. The question for the ego, then, is whether or not to emote in response. Only because Fe is in my mental loop (one's first four Model A function positions) can I control it consciously. So, the question becomes, "Do I emote in response or not?" Fe then has to "check in" with Ni (to determine whether or not it
should emote). One's ego functions, as I understand this dynamic in Socionics theory,
always work together. So, Ne, down in my id is always, continuously, and explosively imagining (irrationally) various possible futures. Implosive Ni, on the other hand, seeks to limit/control/select/judge all the possible futures imagined by Ne. Ne wonders, if I emote, if I follow Fi's strong desire and demand to emote in response to the violation of a given Fi value, what might happen? It immediately generates possible futures based upon all the data stored in the subconscious of the unique individual. Ni must then limit/judge Ne's explosive list of possible futures. Ni goes "no, that's not likely," "no, that's not likely," "well, that might happen," or "no, that is extremely unlikely to happen," until, finally, Ni goes, "Eureka! That's the most likely outcome if you emote in the way that Fi wants." Sometimes, when Ni can't find an Ne-generated future that would be beneficial to the person in question, Fi says, "No, you idiot! Don't emote in response. Nothing good can come from that." When my ego works
properly in this way, we might call the interplay I have described "self-control," i.e. refusing to respond to a strong urge coming out of the id. Often, when I emote, it represents a
failure of Ni to do its job properly. Instead of controlling myself, I emote recklessly, reactively, and in a way that hurts others. I hate that, but ENFj is noted for "thinking out loud," and I do that a lot (too much). I often emote without adequately considering the consequences. Ni needs time to do its work, and if it's not given enough time, it may fail. Sometimes Ni fails no matter how long I ponder a given choice to either act or not act. Other times, Ni says, "Bingo! You should emote, and you should do so
in this way, for that would be the best way to achieve the future you want." Then, I emote (use Fe as an OUTPUT function), but it's always a
choice for Fe to extravert as an OUTPUT function. My ego must
choose whether or not to respond to that powerful Fi pressure to emote in response to some stimulus that has violated a cherished Fi value.
When we say, "Wisdom is the better part of valor," we are basically saying, "Sometimes it's better
not to act." In my case, that's my Ni, informed by Ne, keeping a lid on Fe and "controlling" it, despite the immense pressure of my subconscious and powerful Fi. Perhaps the human brain's
greatest faculty is its ability
not to respond to stimulus. Most other life forms can't control their subconscious urges or desires. They naturally and always respond to stimuli. Humans
don't have to. They can control themselves (sometimes).
As an F dom, it's much easier for me to describe this dynamic, as I see it, in specifically F terms, but I'll give it a shot from the point of view of T. Assuming we're talking about someone who's an ENTj, that person's ego would be TeNi. I basically assume that Ti values, buried in the powerful id of ENTj, sound something like this: "That's a problem that needs solving." T is about problem/solution thinking, so Ti has deeply held values about what is and what is not a problem, and it has deeply held values about how to solve problems and how not to solve problems. So, when neutral, unbiased, and explosive Te acts as the sponge it is and absorbs some data (in its INPUT mode), and when that stimulus violates a deeply-held and subconscious Ti value of the individual in question, Ti may have a "gut" reaction that the ENTj can "feel" as a violation of logic (and this is an uncomfortable feeling). Ti then starts
screaming at Te to evoke (project itself into the world as an OUTPUT function so as to change the world). Before acting, however, Te "checks in" with Ni (ego functions always work together simultaneously) to see whether or not Te
should or should not concede to Ti's demand to evoke, and then the the same Ne/Ni interplay will take place between Ne and Ni that I described above until the person makes a "choice" to either evoke or not evoke (act or not act) in response to the stimulus that violated the ENTj's deeply-held Ti value. What's "logical" to each of us is unique because introverted functions are
always subjective--looking inward at all the data stored in the subconscious of a unique individual with a unique history. As an F dom, I can't really give you a good list of Ti values, but I presume that Ti values are judgments about what is logical and what is not combined with judgments about the best way to do something or the best way to solve a given problem. I suppose I can give an example or two from my own expereince. When my Te evokes, it sometimes expresses a Ti judgment like this: "No, you're doing that the wrong way. Let me do it." Sometimes it works like this: "No, that doesn't make any sense at all (i.e. that's not logical)." Sometimes my Ti values manifest like this: "That's not a problem that needs fixing." Sometimes Te evokes a deeply-held Ti value of mine like this: "Excellent. Good idea! Let's do that because doing so will solve the problem at hand." On other occasions, Te says, "There's nothing for it." That means that Ni has done its job, seen no possible future that would be superior to the status quo if Te were to evoke (change the world) in response to the violation of one of my Ti values, and in that case Te may think (cognition) but
neither say nor evoke something like this: "There's no good solution, here. It would be better
not to act or
not to evoke." Of course, Te always has the option to either react (evoke/act) or not to react at all.
I admit that the words "emote" and "evoke" as I have used them above are less-than-ideal, but the point is that
all mental-loop functions, in their OUTPUT mode, have a choice about whether or not (and how) to react to a given stimulus. Again, we often call
not reacting "self-control," and this is a relatively unique (we think), but immensely powerful, feature of human cognition.
No clue whether or not my words above answered your question, but I was, in effect, Te-ing "out loud" in response to the stimulus that you gave me. T is not my strong suit, admittedly, so I fear that my response may be less-than-satisfying. Still, I gave it a shot.
And yes I think there is an input and output of the extraverted judgment functions, and yes it does appear to be an objective awareness that filters out what's relevant, (I would swap the word input for the word awareness), and subjective to some degree in the output. But couldn't the subjective output be contributed to our subjective perceiving function?
I am going to assume that the word you were looking for was "attributed" (as opposed to contributed), but, either way, at least four functions work together to arrive at every decision a human makes. For me, when I am working out of my ego, it's Fe (absorbing neutrally), Fi (evaluating subjectively), Ne (imagining futures both subjectively and irrationally), and Ni (judging, limiting, and narrowing possible futures so as to determine the
most likely outcome of a given course of action). All four work together simultaneously, as I understand it. Ultimately, though, to answer what I perceive to be the "actual" question you are asking, Model A theory posits that all four mental loop functions can be articulated through language and/or acted upon. All of them can be OUTPUT functions. ESI, for example, is famous for "speaking with actions not words," and ESI's powerful Fi will often
act (change the world) without words, but Fi may also be articulated, as in, "Stupid driver! You're gonna kill somebody!," or "Hillary Clinton would make a bad President." Those are articulated Fi values. The same should apply to all the mental loop functions (positions 1, 2, 3, and 4--both the rational and irrational ones) according to what I understand of Model A theory (though it should be noted that Model A has been challenged by a number of Socionics theorists who have advanced what they believe to be superior models).
Yes, I like to geek-out as well, lol.
Geeks of the world unite! I think a good number of us are
here, in fact.
I am not going to change how I approached this simply because you dislike it. 
= 
