Aren't you the one putting the artists in one box and the scientists in the other?
A 4 Ti type could take it upon himself to study the nature of human emotion so that he can understand himself and attribute meaning to his own emotions. He could do this as an attempt to understand the mysteries of his own wild abyss of emotions (inferior Fe) that seem to explode up to the surface.
4's fear is insignificance - lack of meaning and identity.
So, what marks a 4 is that they attribute meaning to things - their impressions, feelings, thoughts, ideas, structures, inner worlds, experiences...
The functions might determine the specific manner in which they do this. So a Ti dominant 4 might engage a study on general human emotion (Fe) and try to map it out hoping that in turn he would understand himself. He might do this while still being a very emotional creature (we all know about inferior Fe splats and the melancholy or anger or rage beneath).
5 is less about attributing personal meaning to things and more about removing themselves from the equation so they can observe the world as if from outside, in order to build up competency which would then make them feel safe to exert power. This is not Ti per se. 5s' fear is being "useless," and the Ti is a means through which to be "useful." aka competent.
A Ti dominant 4 might apply a logical principle based on their own internal truth which they would then identify with as a 4.
4s also tend to be self-referencing, but they could repeatedly reference their own thought patterns, internal truth, the meanings they have attributed to their feelings and what this says about them (which becomes the structure that they build) whereas a Ti dominant 5 would build a world of internal structure and apply it to a project, a masterpiece, or a field that he becomes competent in, that he might see as his life's work evidencing his competency, but something outside of himself; rather than something he identifies with and says "this work IS me."
A Ti dominant 4 is much more likely to get personal and talk about himself as though his very self is the result of the complex world of meanings that he has attributed to his feelings, ideas, experiences and relationships. And those things define him and constitute his identity.
Oh yes , inferior Fe is actually very akin to some 4 issues. It is a volatile bunch of feelings welling up out of nowhere which the Ti might either ignore in favor of some system or, if he has incorporated "understanding human emotion" or "understanding himself" into his studies, he might examine such emotions deeply and use it as the stuff of music, novels or a basis for psychological study.
It's not about being healthy at all. If a 4 is a Ti dom, the Fe expression of feelings and need for emotional sharing juxtaposed with being blocked by a Ti-based need to filter everything through a logical process that gives it a place in a framework or paradigm that isolates the Ti dom in their own self-imposed castle of individualized ideas... might create tremendous disturbance inside. The 4 then may identify as a chaotic emotional creature whose emotions are out of control and misunderstood, even by the 4 himself.
Remember that the Ti process is a highly subjective process. Read Jung's description here. He is not describing something inherently rational, objective or impersonal. The Ti dom's personal world , just like the Fi dom's, is highly personalized and isolating since nobody else can understand it and it is especially difficult to communicate something so complex. Sound like a 4 description?
When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?
This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]
Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.
Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact.
So as you can see,
Nope, Ti is highly subjective.
In socionics, it is said that the "role function," meaning the function opposite your first, plays a strong role in the psyche.
So, a Fi dom might have a strong influence from Ti, and a Ti dom might have a strong influence from Fi. It's just not very well integrated. It comes out at the expense of what the person really cares about and once an immediate issue is solved, the person goes back to his dominant function and into a world that the role function cannot interrupt.
Cool! Glad if I could help
I also have difficulty putting things in words. By the time I'm doing that fluidly, I've absorbed a lot of information, thoughts and analysis already.
I see what you mean. But, it's still not integration. I agree about holy origin, but feeling like your inner world is separate from the rest of the world, and your identity is separate, is definitely possible for Ti doms. Otherwise 5s wouldn't be Ti doms. Both 4 and 5 share the feeling of being alien or separate from the world, it's just one focuses on identity and the other on usefulness.
How a 4 struggles with Holy Origin will be very different from 4 to 4. But an attempt to orient themselves with the rest of humans could definitely match a Ti-Fe desire to study and analyze and create systems to understand why they are different and what makes them unlike the rest. They might want to know where they fit into the system so that they can feel more human and thus more part of holy origin. Remember in enneagram a vice comes with a virtue.
To add to my previous posts,
Some types might fit together in ways that are not apparent when considering stereotypes instead of the true meaning of types. For instance, some claim that in order to be a 4, someone must be Fi dominant. Yet,
Quotes from Ichazo on Type 4:
Characteristic Fixation: Intellect
Intellect may at first appear as a phenomenon of the head triad, or the adaptation instinct, but this is not the case. The intellect refers to reason and comprehension which the 4th point experiences the full spectrum. This ranges from having a focus on reason to a broad overview and a generalization of the world. This leads to having a deep understand at one end, to a superficial and false sense of reason at the other. The fixation of intellect leads to deceit as one is caught in a riptide ranging form reason to fallacy. The intellect is caught in Envy which can be described as for the desire of connection or understanding of another which is not present.
Trap of the 4th point:
Those who dwell within the 4th point on the Enneagram fall into the trap of constant analysis of the world around them. Not to be confused with the 5th points trap of observation, to be observed requires a detachment and withdrawal this is rather a search of reason for all that is around the individual. The journey that will liberate the one who is caught in the 4th point is the Way of Clarity which leads to the way of Clear and objective analysis (embodied by the 1st point of the enneagram).
There is no reason why any introverted type could not fit this definition. Both Fi and Ti egos, especially, are prone to highly subjective over-analysis.
This is just one example, and 4 is the type I know best - but before jumping to conclusions about type combinations that might not work, make sure you understand the true nature of each enneagram type, and how it can manifest through functions.