OK, here's my complete explanation ...
So, I haven't thought it feasible for you to be a Ti ego type for awhile now. It hit me around the time when we were having one of our very first arguments about your type in this thread:
UDP. It was around then that I realized that we actually approached things in entirely different ways, from entirely different angles. You didn't seem to have the emphasis on asking questions and theorizing and building systems (or whatever you want to call it) in your head and then reasoning from these internal structures like I did. Your emphasis/approach was foreign to me* ... as opposed to other Ti leading forum members like Logos and thehotelambush, and even machintruc, who, even though I may not always agree or disagree with, I DO always understand where their thinking/approach is coming about from (as you would with an identical). Similarly, Potatospirit's emphasis isn't foreign to me, (even though he may have Se creative rather than Ne creative); that's why I don't believe that you are an LSI like some other forum members do.
So that set off my curiosity about your type ... hence me trying to puzzle out Fi versus Te leading types to try to determine which of those you really were. Regarding that paragraph I wrote down about Te versus Ti in the last pm I sent you --- the thing is, that's why it's been impossible for me to be able to just "take your word for it" on your type. I've had to believe my typing of you to be correct from the knowledge within myself. Up until this point, I simply haven't known enough about Te versus Fi leading types; I've had to build a model of how Fi leadings versus Te leadings behave, and then draw conclusions from that.
Then, in our last argument, Diana said something very important. About how similar Ti and Fi leading types are similar in that they BOTH construct their own systems and so Fi types don't have any need for type profiles either. I realized how similar Diana and Minde and all of the Fi dominants "style" was to my own, the only difference being that they had an "ethical" motivation behind their writing and I had more of a "logical" motivation. I thought of Joy, and how she quotes profiles and descriptions quite often. And then I realized that Te types really do like to share and exchange information in that way. So my realization of you being a Te type was "complete" if you like.
The only thing left to determine then was whether I thought you were an ESTj or an ENTj. My own personal opinion on that is ... that your intuition is bloody awful!!!
(Please correct me if you disagree!!!
)
All I can tell you about my reasoning here is that there have been a number of times where I've thought: "Why can't UDP see that? Why can UDP not tell what that person is really trying to say? Why can UDP not see where this thread will lead?"
In this regard, you remind me of my ESTj friends ... their intuition is bad also.
And so, ESTj makes perfect sense in my mind now (with the next possibility being ISTp, which makes sense I think, since it would be your mirror type).
(PS: Please don't take offence at that last paragraph!!!)
So that's about it. What do you think?
* Eg: You relied on the type profiles a lot as opposed to trying to build up your own type "profiles" by reasoning about what you knew regarding the information elements/functions/etc.