I know a Scholar who is in Theory most of the time. It kind of looks like Sage in oration, as this person kind of sits immobile, as if on a throne, and yammers on about all their theories about things they have never bothered to actually investigate in any depth. They are just expounding on their own prejudices and insecurities as if it were objective fact. It makes me think of a stereotypical 19th century British guy dressed up like an anthropologist, who never actually goes anywhere, but sits in his big upholstered chair with a huge map, pompously and authoritatively telling you all about the things that go on in New Guinea and what the natives are like and why, when actually all he is doing is repeating his own prejudices, has never been there and has never even questioned the bad information he's managed to acquire from chair.
I know other Scholars who aren't as extreme, but they will confidently spout theories based on half-cocked information -- which we all do, of course, but the difference is that Scholars are proud of being such good researchers and knowers, so they have a kind of unearned pride and certainty about their empty theory.
And the difference between this Theory and actual healthy theorizing is that this Theory is based on CF - it's a manifestation of resistance and defense, not a healthy use of the ability to gather, synthesize and generalize knowledge to create a theory.