Ok, this is getting interesting. I hope you don't mind me continuing; I'm an ENTP!
That's interesting; I got more of an ENTP vibe from your posts in this thread, but your profile states that your MBTI is INTP...?
First, inductive reasoning is impossible.
I'm not sure how you can boldly say such a thing. Inductive reasoning (while criticized for not being solely of merit) is generally accepted as a method of arguing a premise. If you really do believe in your statement, I would definitely say that you take an odd stance, if I'm understanding what you are asserting correctly.
Second, by objective data and external facts, I think Jung meant something like "facts that accepted by everyone else". But this is highly problematic. Facts are facts regardless of whether anyone agrees on what they are. It seems almost like Jung is confusing 'facts' for 'consensus'.
I actually don't think he meant that. If you read through his section about Extraverted Thinking in Psychological Types, I believe he talks about objective data
and facts that are accepted by others: anything that is external to the self that drives a premise to a conclusion. Most of the dichotomies are general enough that it's just a matter of inward vs. outward perception, behavior, etc. I agree that facts and consensus are two very different things, and that is precisely why I struggle with Te types (and if you have a large enough sample of personal experiences with Te types, I don't doubt you'd see the trend as well). There are far too many things beyond the realm of being provable, so strong Te types tend to lean on consensus, whether that be a general societal consensus or a smaller, more qualified consensus (depending on context).
Heres an extract explaining extraverted senseing "Like extraverted thinking, Se concerns itself with the facts; however, this is not for sake of logical fulfillment or completion, but for sake of receiving the highest physiological pleasure as possible." But this too is problematic. Logic has nothing to do with facts. Some facts -- aka theories -- can be operated on logically. But non-theoretical facts cannot. Sensory facts cannot be operated on logically. And those are the kinds of facts I was talking about when describing Elon Musk.
I see what you are saying now, but I still think he leans on objective data in his way of thinking rather than subjective reasoning, and he doesn't
live in the data like Se types I know.
From what I've observed of Intuitives and Sensors:
Intuitives tend to absorb external physical stimuli and immediately utilize it in an inward/convergent or outward/divergent manner. They live in their heads and are "idea" people.
Sensors
stay with the external physical stimuli, which is difficult for me to explain or even understand as I'm not personally familiar with it, but I observe that this happens. Much like your excerpt states, they stay with the details, but not for any sort of logical or ideological closure. So in this sense, if you consider this physical stimuli to be the "facts", then yes, Se is concerned with "facts", but my suspicions are that Musk focuses on these to convey his ideas more easily to the majority, i.e. Sensors, especially given that he wants to be an effective entrepreneur and champion of his visions.
