Another sample for the experience

Hmmm... Well, this was a bit oversimplification. Actually we could see it from another angle, Engllish would then be more Ti-friendly because of its simpler use of various precise vocabulary whereas latin languages are more Te-heavy because of strong emphasis on grammar rules and sentence protocols, there's not much room for fluid use of prepositions in order to make it sounds right. However, it depends how you prefer to convey precision: either by vocabulary or use of sentence tools (prépositions etc). Philosophers tend to rely more on the latter whereas writers (especially to describe places, people, etc) prefer the former.

To illustrate this with funny examples, take this French sentence:
Mais qu'est-ce que c'est donc que ce truc-là ? Litteraly: But what is this that it is then that stuff?
In French it sounds flowless as you can see, the astonishment is conveyed by the extensive use of the preposition words. In English it would sound too heavy and clustered.
To compare, the English equivalent:
WHAT the HELL is THAT?
The emphasis is not so much on the use of grammar but on the vocabulary and the forceful tone on specific words. However, the French, especially the younger ones, use more and more the "English" pattern. For examples, phrases like "C'est QUOI ce TRUC de OUF?" but I think it doesn't sound as efficient as English. I don't know if you noticed this new way of expressing ourselves in French?

I may be speaking of something different here, so sorry for derailing. I have only a superficial knowledge of academic philosophy as a whole, as I didn't graduate in philosophy but swayed towards a more philosophical method only at the post-graduate level. It's about my personal experience of differing methodological interests, meaning how one likes to do or use philosophy, and how that fits in the academic circle one happens to be in. I have noticed that some people enjoy doing almost purely conceptual, even speculative, philosophy that is often (not always) accompanied with appreciation of metaphysics, although it can also stay at the level of logical/conceptual analysis of either historical or contemporary issues. Some like phenomenology and/or hermeneutics - the more continental stuff. My own preference is in naturalism. That's very vague, but in short I refer to a philosophical outlook that aims at being in congruence with other sciences (empirism) and also uses scientific research results instead of keeping it at the purely philosophical discourse. To my own surprise and nuisance, this preference is not widely shared in my present field.

I'd be careful to make any definitive conclusions about the correlation of the cognitive functions I seem to use and my methodological preferences (whaatt? ), but it did strike me as interesting that I have high Te and a strong appreciation of objective, empirical methods. I want external validation for my, or anyone else's, claims, especially with regard to ontology, and I believe scientific method is by far the best one for giving that validation. I'm not saying ontological questions are the only interesting ones, only that for me they matter. I like to ask questions that have to do with how and what things are, and why they are what they are, and I'm happy to keep it at one level, i.e. to assume and build on the worldview and epistemology that our present-day science offers instead of dealing with all kinds of possible worlds or differing ways of gathering knowledge. One reason for this exclusive attitude of mine is that scientific knowledge has enormous instrumental proof behind it = it works, which for me speaks the language of objective validation.
I also started to speculate whether high Ti users are happier with "rationalist" kind of methods; conceptual analysis, logic, literary philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics etc. But as said, it's about preferences, and preferences might change.

I can also be the winner in generating hypotheses, but I do prefer to keep them at the "possible in this world" level i.e. extending on present-day science and falsifiable. That's why I usually try to ground them on knowledge that someone else has already gathered and extend on that. Free-riding, whoippee, but that's how science actually works! This said, I at times do enjoy playing a little bit more with theories, and assume more than is warranted. I do this for pragmatic reasons; e.g. personality typology is not scientifically grounded but I still take it more seriously than I maybe would with some other things with similar scientific status, because it satisfies some psychological needs of mine.

It's just cosmetic. We all know I'm never wrong.

hello!

not sure what you would like to hear on review of your newest... in any case, i think it's great that your VR has helped you expand your personal vision and that you are working on expressiveness!

in terms of reading, i've looked over a few of your videos in the past (without commenting, sorry--you seemed to have plenty of comments!!!) and what strikes me most is your rigidity. again, your eyes show a lot of Ni/Se with plenty of Ni, and your face is very Ti blank (sorry, not seeing much Fe as of yet ). however, the rigidity does definitely suggest a J lead to me over a P lead (as you've been typed)

so i don't know if you need want my amateur confirmation, but i do agree with the TiSe read fwiw

well imo there's no end to learning! i am still too new to VR and the scientific basis to CT as presented here to give you an opinion regarding your posture and introversion. i do agree that interviews with the camera do seem somewhat unrealistic, although i'm not sure how you can remove that problem.