when it comes to pain it seems EII gives it as good as they get it. when they look at people as the face of conscience, what is that if not an argument. if they literally had no ability to compete they would have been selected out a long time ago. they embody a form of argument that just hits on a channel you're presently short shrifting.
if you constrain argument to "verbal altercation of explicit rational postulates" then yeah they don't like to argue but that's an artificially constrained view of the subject. there's nothing wrong with it being artificially constrained, but the point is if the model is an artificial constraint and someone can artificially draw those lines in a different place, that is precisely why we have competing models and so forth. there's no problem with competing models either, the point is simply that arguments ultimately are resolved across a higher level. this stuff doesn't end here, this is why I say to Myst her and Sol could be reversed, my point is not that they're definitely reversed, but rather that such a thing is possible. right now in the final analysis these models signify the preferred orientation of individuals toward phenomena. what selects between them is not their Ti but a natural force of which Ti is a subsidiary component in the service of. the arguments that win are selected not for their internal symmetry since you can gerrymander any system you want, but the real results they produce. in that sense what people are aiming for when they use socionics often determines the model they adapt... thus it should come as no surprise people argue and arguments explicitly revolving around socionics tend to be Ti, but that's only one piece of the picture. when I leave here and go apply it or observe the world with socionics in mind, to the extent that I benefit and influence the world and pass on that influence in time is an argument all its own. if your argument is perfect in your own mind but fails to reach other people the argument fails when you die a natural death, you could say it served a kind of introverted purpose but not an extroverted one because it was convincing internally but ended there... to say arguments are Ti is the statement of a Ti base affirming its own commitment to itself by construing the world and its ability to influence and be influenced solely in terms of Ti... its simply the lens through which you view things not the actual case. if you think all arguments entail people sitting down and hashing things out and that anything other than that is not an argument, then you view the world in limited terms. humanity is a forum where arguments play themselves out across every level all the time and nature selects between them and that is how we have things other than Ti to begin with. if Ti was the true limit to argument and not one sub instance of it, embodied in a certain type of individual, we would have nothing but Ti types competing amongst themselves if nature was doing its job. the other functions answer to a higher power than your individual rationality