also please don't take anything i said about
as like *what it is* ... i was trying to explain it as i understood it and failed to.
eta: i was basically using the dictionary definition of objective when i used that word. when i used it i was questioning the validity of the VI echo-chamber process as a means of typing (as i don't think that's a good way to type people, basically). Radio later transitioned into using it in terms of talking about Te & Ti. when he mentioned the jungian definition i incorrectly thought he was saying i'd been using that definition, which was why i said "no" (he may not have even been addressing me). i wasn't talking about jung in the conversation.