Back to the description of TT communication for a moment:
TT argumentative style will be, in exactly one word, verbose. This is because TTs are 1. hyperlexic, 2. occipital, holistic, visual processors, and 3. expressing, in words, things that cannot be exhaustively expressed in words (but not for lack of trying). So one TT will spend several paragraphs describing a few facets of a visuospatial object that only exists in his or her head (humorously, we tend to consider these objects “parsimonious”). The other TTs will read all of this (compulsively), try to faithfully reproduce the whole object from the fragments, and compare this with the object in their own heads. They will describe the differences they’ve found, and the process will repeat.
I think we can extend this to TTs as acting men. After living in the same house with me for a while, my sister-in-law complained “I’ve never known anyone like you. You have to understand everything and if you don’t understand something, you just don’t do it.”
Even more, I think TTs are hardwired to rationalize every single action- if possible- within the context of their working worldview. All intellectual activity eventually comes down to the continual worldview-building effort, which eventually diminishes in importance at maturity (30 years old, maybe). I think this is the essence of ‘thal adolescence- the construction of a robust, holistic worldview that will serve as a predictive model to last the rest of the thal’s life, which will be focused much more on action than on critical thought.
This gives rise to the TT communication model, which is surprisingly free of what we’d call “argument”. I’d describe it as comparative world-building, or just comparing notes. In micro terms, it looks like this:
“I’ve observed X.”
“I have also observed X, which seems to follow from framework A but not from framework B.”
“Framework B is still predictive most of the time, but lacks nuance in the particulars.”
“I have/haven’t observed this general tendency.”
Afterward, the TTs will privately try to reconcile the frameworks and hopefully meet again to compare notes.
In macro terms, it manifests as the “red pilling” phenomenon, by which a TT stumbles across a website or book with high generality and predictive power. I’ve observed that all sources which trigger this phenomenon have ambitious scope, many attempting to describe “everything” as much as possible, from beginning to end. (They necessarily rely on a large number of shared observations, such as the usefulness of IQ as an idea. They are generally disinterested in arguing about usefulness of various opinions, preferring merely to state them and move on.)
Maybe an illustration would be more useful. Imagine two men trying to write instruction manuals for two different black box machines in two different rooms. Neither is allowed to enter the other man’s room, but they are allowed to meet in a common room and describe their black boxes to each other. One may say “Mine does different things when I touch it in different places,” and the other may say “Mine seems to stay pretty much the same no matter what I do.” It would be fatuous for either man to argue over these observations, but they could still benefit from comparing notes and looking for similarities of operation.
“Red pilling” would be the phenomenon of finding a complete operating manual for someone else’s black box that seems to be highly similar to one’s own black box.
To be even more specific, ordinary people are mostly interested in finding certain combinations of buttons that are highly useful. TTs are trying to isolate the effects of individual buttons, and use these individual effects to explain combinatory behaviors.
Eh, fuck it, float it, post it, amirite?