A couple of things on Te and how Te is extroverted - Page 3

A couple of things on Te and how Te is extroverted

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 311
Thank Tree357Thanks

This is a discussion on A couple of things on Te and how Te is extroverted within the Cognitive Functions forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; I think good example of Ti is with Milton Friedman. Now I don't have enough ram to get a link ...

  1. #21

    I think good example of Ti is with Milton Friedman. Now I don't have enough ram to get a link to the video but you can certainly find it.
    Milton was an economist who more of a "market fundamentalist," when you put him in argument with someone trying to bring something into a scenario where it doesn't work "taken to the extreme."
    So this kid asks "is it screwed up if an electric company shuts off a guy's power and he ends up dying from that?"
    On the flat face of it, yes sure the electric company could easily give the guy a break and let him have electricity for free until his condition improves or whatever.
    But Friedman says that kind of misses the principle of how the situation operates. The main idea is supply and demand of course and this relates to resources. Things cost money to obtain because they aren't unlimited. Someone must pay the electric company so we know that resources are allocated efficiently. Imagine if the electric company decided to give free electricity to everyone. It wouldn't work. Take it to the extreme and it is not good. Milton argues that the company is not obligated to help the man and asks why his friends and family wouldn't pay for it. But that's beside the point.
    The point is breaking down the system and getting the principle down. If you modify some variable to the extremes and it evidently doesn't make sense, it's no good. Something must "make sense at every level." He did something like that with tax rates in a different video. I think it's good example of Ti and I tend to think that way sometimes. I ought to start thinking more to get more examples, I used think that way a lot in the days of Kant.
    ninjahitsawall, Sultanim and Cataclysm thanked this post.

  2. #22

    You don't have enough RAM?

  3. #23

    @Entropic ; Hmm. I see where you were going but the examples where just crap. You should have proposed a problem and then lay out how Te users and Ti users would have solved them, it would've been much more easy to understand and apply to real life.

    Also, I'm starting to think it's less of a Ti vs Te issue, but more of a Ti vs Fi one.

    For example: a Ti user has crafted an inner system which he applies to himself and the world; a Ti user will try to find a way to make things fit in their inner logic (inferior Fe). A Fi user on the other hand has an inner value system independent of others; a Fi user doesn't want to assimilate others to themselves as much as they want to comprehend the order of the environment they find themselves in (inferior Te).

    I find it extremely necessary to examine functions by their axis, where the inferior function has a strong pull on the main function. It's an axis, and one pole attracts the other for the sake of balance. It is much easier to understand them that way. For example, Fe users are compelled by their Ti: Fe users need for harmony in groups stems from the fact that they project their inner logic onto the world (Ti). This is most exemplified by Fe leaders who draw masses into their ideological system; a Fe user is most likely to act on what makes more sense them, or what feels right for them, according to their inner logic. A Ti user on the other hand has the need to break things and examine and question things because, as their inner logic is constantly being applied to the world, it must mean a grand scheme must exist; Ti therefore needs to test the validity of things. What I'm trying to say is they think their logic can be applied to everything (however true or false their logic might be) and therefore anything that doesn't fit into their logic must be incorrect (Fe need for harmony). Also this would explain why Fe users want the outer to align with their inner logic or ideologies (however objective they might believe them to be).

    A Te user can see the rational value of a Ti user's logic, but it will remain indifferent to anything that isn't effective (as opposed to Ti's knack for all things efficient). While Ti wants to fit things into their logic, Te believes that things have an inherent order that is evident and pretty much has worked until now. Te is not so much worried about the order and the systems, but much more about how the order and/or the system of the environment they find themselves in affects them (Fi). This is where it gets interesting. Fi is about the validation of its own values (however right/good or wrong/evil they might be) and for that they create a gap between outer values and their values (much like Te's belief that things have their own inherent place in the world that is pretty evident). Basically, Te believes in the apparent logic of reality (what people like to call facts) and among that they determine what serves them (Fi need for expression). Fi (like Ti) doubts values that are intended to function in mass scale because they feel everyone has different needs (Te).

    Ti/Fe: inconspicuous, complex, efficient, algorithmic, coordinated.

    Fi/Te: obvious, simple, effective, heuristic, particular.

    Take in count that this is just an observation of this particular set of axis; in no way I pretend to completely describe types. That would require describing the Se/Ni and Ne/Si axis to explain types individually accordingly.

    I think this could explain they way types behave, in some way.
    Last edited by Sultanim; 03-06-2016 at 02:05 AM. Reason: Clearing to whom this post is directed at; system->logic
    Animal, Kore, reptilian and 1 others thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    ENTJ

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    Do you even understand why they are being used, though? Seems like you don't. Why do you think I mentioned pressing water out of tofu with a frying pan? What does it demonstrate? What reasoning process was used when coming up with that decision?

    If you're so keen on the why, then why can't you see the why behind actions taken?
    You clearly state that I was wrong but you don't bother to explain why. See a problem here?
    koalaroo and Sultanim thanked this post.

  6. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Prada View Post
    You clearly state that I was wrong but you don't bother to explain why. See a problem here?
    You accused me of being wrong first before explaining why; the burden of proof is on you to point out how the reasoning is fallacious, hence I asked you the question if you understood why these examples were being used and what they demonstrate.

    I wrote this thread exactly to counter stuff like this, because there's a lot of information in here that is just incorrect:

    Quote Originally Posted by Anadyomenos View Post
    Hmm. I see where you were going but the examples where just crap. You should have proposed a problem and then lay out how Te users and Ti users would have solved them, it would've been much more easy to understand and apply to real life.

    Also, I'm starting to think it's less of a Ti vs Te issue, but more of a Ti vs Fi one.

    For example: a Ti user has crafted an inner system which he applies to himself and the world; a Ti user will try to find a way to make things fit in their inner system (inferior Fe). A Fi user on the other hand has an inner value system independent of others; a Fi user doesn't want to assimilate others to themselves as much as they want to comprehend the order of the environment they find themselves in (inferior Te).
    Sounds good in theory but is poorly phrased and is vague and ultimately ends up sounding and doing the same thing.

    Also, Fi isn't about values, but it's how you feel about values and things in a personal way e.g. like/dislike. An Fi type can feel having values is wrong, for example. Then they by definition are valueless.

    I find it extremely necessary to examine functions by their axis, where the inferior function has a strong pull on the main function. It's an axis, and one pole attracts the other for the sake of balance. It is much easier to understand them that way. For example, Fe users are compelled by their Ti: Fe users need for harmony in groups stems from the fact that they project their inner system onto the world (Ti).
    Fe is not about social harmony, that's such a stereotype and it is Ti that understands how something falls into its place. See my OP and systems and hierarchy? Yeah, that. Fe is about how we process feelings and emotions and where we detect it, so Fe does it outside of the self and wants to focus on feelings outside of the self. Logically then, Fe is a strong focus on outwards emotional expressions which is why socioniocs for example states that Fe is about atmospheres, moods and emotional tones and the like. Fe is also keen on detecting emotions in other objects and to draw out emotions and similarly then, Fi is about our inner emotional realities, how we internally experience and react to things around us.

    I like the take on Fe as being against the zombification of society, which can be the very opposite of social harmony if it's desired by the Fe do so (sorry, can't find the guy who said it despite googling everywhere, he's not so big in typology circles but uses a combined system that looks at socionics, Beebe, and MBTI, it's pretty consistent and he has a really good idea of the functions).

    This is most exemplified by Fe leaders who draw masses into their ideological system; a Fe user is most likely to act on what makes more sense them, or what feels right for them, according to their inner system.
    Poor example. Fi can do this too, since a feeler is a feeler and both act on what they feel and what makes sense. "Make sense" is a poor phrase to use here, too vague.

    A Ti user on the other hand has the need to break things and examine and question things because, as their inner system is constantly being applied to the world, it must mean a grand scheme must exist;


    This part is imo not very related to Ti at all but sounds much more typical type 5 stuff, the idea of there being a grand theory or the like. Not every Ti dom goes about in the world thinking about things that way. Ti can very much be a gut reaction of "that makes sense" without needing to evaluating it further.

    Ti therefore needs to test the validity of things
    .
    Again, it doesn't have to work that way. It doesn't necessarily have to viscerally test something in order to know if something makes sense. I mean, most of the time, we perform basic deductions in our lives and assume that because A, then B and then C, right? We don't walk around testing whether C really follows B and B really follows A. We just assume. Why? Because it makes sense. That's actually much more consistent with how Ti works for most people.

    What I'm trying to say is they think their logic can be applied to everything (however true or false their logic might be) and therefore anything that doesn't fit into their system must be incorrect (Fe need for harmony). Also this would explain why Fe users want the outer to align with their inner system (however objective they might believe them to be).
    Fe is the opposite of wanting things to align, but ok. The thing about Fe is that it's extremely chaotic (ever been forced to work on a logical task of needing to categorize information with an Fe dom? I have, not very pleasant) and Fe tries to act against too much logical rigidity because when we are too logical and rigid, we fail to properly express ourselves and our realities. You know the stereotype how Ti egos are thought of as being emotional robots, especially when they try to focus too much on logic? That. Fe seeks people to be spontaneously expressive, fluid and "in touch" with the life they see around them. They try to liven up things and people. It has nothing to do with being consistent. Typical for Fe doms is that they may do something like, "I feel for all these poor beggars on the street" and then "I am almost like a beggar too, when I grew up I only had 20 dollars as a weekly sum to spend the things I wanted, I always had to beg my friends for more money". That right there is a poor use of their Ti, how they are not consistent in what they express because feeling precedes logic.

    Or another example, where they may say, "You are so totally right and I feel for you! All these immigrants are so annoying because all they do is coming here and steal our jobs, just like you say!" to "I feel for all these immigrants, they never get any jobs because it says so in the news."

    I am obviously taking exaggerated examples to get my point across and usually Fe doms are not this bad, but I've seen Fe doms do this all the time and this happens exactly because their Ti is relegated so far down into their unconsciousness that they don't stop to think what they actually are saying, in a sense, because again, their feelings precede any logical validity of their claims. So saying that Fe doms as politicians try to draw people into their politics because there is a logical framework that they consistently build on is just well... wrong. Fe doms can certainly be great politicians, but it is thanks to their ability to inspire feelings into others then, not because they are necessarily logical in their claims. There's a reason ESFPs are called politicians in socionics though, because the combination of Se + their high unconscious Fe makes them great mobilizing people for causes and a lot of famous political figures have been ESFPs.

    A Te user can see the rational value of a Ti user's logic, but it will remain indifferent to anything that isn't effective (as opposed to Ti's knack for all things efficient). While Ti wants to fit things into their logic, Te believes that things have an inherent order that is evident and pretty much has worked until now.


    Sounds flawed. Order isn't a Te thing. Te is again about outcomes. Why does the order matter as long as I get the outcome I want? I may recognize the order if it is deemed relevant, but the recognition of it is then Ti, not Te.

    Te is not so much worried about the order and the systems, but much more about how the order and/or the system of the environment they find themselves in affects them (Fi).
    This honestly sounds more like Fe than Te.

    This is where it gets interesting. Fi is about the validation of its own values (however right/good or wrong/evil they might be) and for that they create a gap between outer values and their values (much like Te's belief that things have their own inherent place in the world that is pretty evident).
    I don't think Fi about self-validation. I have no idea where you got this from and how you justify this in terms of the introverted nature of Fi? Also, Fi isn't about values per se, it's about how we internally feel about something. It can be about values like how I feel right now that what you express seems wrong. Fi is more about focusing on our own emotional inner reactions to something regardless of how this fits into a larger emotional schema e.g. moods. Fe tries to inspire emotion, it has an assumption that other people lack feeling until they are livened up by the feeling, so it projects emotions outwards in the hopes others will be affected in the same way, but Fi doesn't do that. It keeps the feeling to itself. If an Fe type observes someone being unemotional they tend to assume the person in question just needs to be livened up more so they can let their emotions loose; Fi assumes feelings are more of a personal and private matter and don't need to be shared with other people in that way. That's the difference, imo.

    Basically, Te believes in the apparent logic of reality (what people like to call facts) and among that they determine what serves them (Fi need for expression). Fi (like Ti) doubts values that are intended to function in mass scale because they feel everyone has different needs (Te).
    Both Te and Ti deal with facts but different kinds of facts. If I cite a dictionary definition, that's a Ti kind of fact, actually. Also, idk why you link Fi with a need for expression. That's Fe. Essentially, Fi thinks that feelings are a personal and private matter and something we decide on our own, and Ti thinks logic is a personal and private matter and something we decide on our own. So if you try to speak with an INFJ about how to use their logic, how to produce or best accomplish certain outcomes, they'll sour up quite quickly because they don't like to think of logic that way. It is one thing to give them a lot of information on a thing, but another to tell them how or what to do with that information. This is why Ti is introverted so they want to come up with their own ways of how to make sense of something, how to interpret logical connections, just like how Fi wants to be allowed to feel something based on how you personally feel something regardless of how this makes others feel, hence why both IxTJs and IxFPs can be such party poopers, because both have a particular attitude towards Fe that really devalues its social role.

    Ti/Fe: inconspicuous, complex, efficient, algorithmic, coordinated.

    Fi/Te: obvious, simple, effective, heuristic, particular.
    The way you express value judgements here is really bad; you make Ti essentially sound awesome (complex) and Te dumb as fuck (obvious, simple). I don't think even think either of these are particularly accurate in how to represent and describe the two axes.

    Take in count that this is just an observation of this particular set of axis; in no way I pretend to completely describe types. That would require describing the Se/Ni and Ne/Si axis to explain types individually accordingly.
    I think this could explain they way types behave, in some way.
    I think you got the axes mixed up, personally.
    Last edited by Entropic; 03-06-2016 at 01:13 AM.
    reptilian thanked this post.

  7. #26

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    You accused me of being wrong first before explaining why; the burden of proof is on you to point out how the reasoning is fallacious, hence I asked you the question if you understood why these examples were being used and what they demonstrate.
    But how can you demand that when the "theory" you have is illogical itself? You want people to refute your point of view but the rational behind it doesn't have anything to back it up: pretty much everyone in this thread has pointed it out!

    You should revise the OP and make it more plausible.
    Last edited by Sultanim; 03-06-2016 at 01:07 AM. Reason: Thay->that (grammatical error)

  8. #27

    Quote Originally Posted by Anadyomenos View Post
    But how can you demand that when the "theory" you have is illogical itself? You want people to refute your point of view but the rational behind it doesn't have anything to back it up: pretty much everyone in this thread has pointed it out!

    You should revise the OP and make it more plausible.
    How is it illogical? I think it is in fact extremely logical. It is, however, contrary to how most people understand and conceptualize the theory which is exactly why I wrote it (see how I debunked your entire previous post, and yet people think my example is creating stereotypes?). Just because you aren't used to it being presented this way it doesn't mean it's wrong or illogical, however. It is primarily built on socionics, hence I cite socionics a lot, but it is also a way to connect back to Jung's idea of the I/E axis and how it works. I wouldn't per se even say it's my theory as such, as much as I see it as correcting incorrect information and how to understand the theory in the first place by a) removing needless vagueness b) actually offering a complete and thought-out framework in which we can operationalize the functions within that doesn't bias the functions in any particularly dumb way e.g. Fe and social harmony or Fi being the same as having values.

    If people cannot follow the examples cited, I ask them to offer how they think they are wrong and I can from there assess how to move on by explaining what I meant with them.

  9. #28

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropic View Post
    How is it illogical? I think it is in fact extremely logical. It is, however, contrary to how most people understand and conceptualize the theory which is exactly why I wrote it (see how I debunked your entire previous post, and yet people think my example is creating stereotypes?). Just because you aren't used to it being presented this way it doesn't mean it's wrong or illogical, however. It is primarily built on socionics, hence I cite socionics a lot, but it is also a way to connect back to Jung's idea of the I/E axis and how it works. I wouldn't per se even say it's my theory as such, as much as I see it as correcting incorrect information and how to understand the theory in the first place by a) removing needless vagueness b) actually offering a complete and thought-out framework in which we can operationalize the functions within that doesn't bias the functions in any particularly dumb way e.g. Fe and social harmony or Fi being the same as having values.

    If people cannot follow the examples cited, I ask them to offer how they think they are wrong and I can from there assess how to move on by explaining what I meant with them.
    People have been telling you since the beginning: you are creating stereotypes because you aren't defining functions by the role they play in solving problems, you think they are cute letters that people stick together to call themselves something they can group themselves in. It's pretty idiotic and useless.

  10. #29

    @Entropic


    Fi isn't about values, but it's how you feel about values and things in a personal way e.g. like/dislike. An Fi type can feel having values is wrong, for example. Then they by definition are valueless.
    So, Fe doesn't "feel" about values? Do Fe types don't have likes/dislikes? A Fe type can't "feel" if a value is right or wrong? Fi is a judging function. It is about values.

    Fe is not about social harmony,
    I didn't say that, I said Fe CARES about HARMONY. Fe wants to align the values of the group, Fi doesn't care about that.

    Fe is about how we process feelings and emotions and where we detect it, so Fe does it outside of the self and wants to
    focus on feelings outside of the self. Logically then, Fe is a strong focus on outwards emotional expressions which is why socioniocs for example states that Fe is about atmospheres, moods and emotional tones and the like. Fe is also keen on detecting emotions in other objects and to draw out emotions and similarly then, Fi is about our inner emotional realities, how we internally experience and react to things around us.
    So Fi users don't know how to detect emotions in othere "objects"? Fe users don't have inner emotional realities?

    I like the take on Fe as being against the zombification of society, which can be the very opposite of social harmony if it's desired by the Fe do so (sorry, can't find the guy who said it despite googling everywhere, he's not so big in typology circles but uses a combined system that looks at socionics, Beebe, and MBTI, it's pretty consistent and he has a really good idea of the functions).
    I never said Fe is about social harmony, I said Fe is about harmony, and that can include social harmony. Do you think Hitler, INFJ, wasn't attempting to ennact his own ideal of social harmony (Ti)?

    You're just wrong, so wrong. First of all, MBTI and Socionics are two different instruments, and the defining difference is that MBTI is, as everyone in this thread keeps repeating, about cognitive processes that affect the psyche. It's not about likes/dislikes, it's not about personality traits, it's not about appearance and can't be determined by reading faces, things that Socionics use to type people. That's why Socionics is useless. This is the bigger part of why you failed to make OP rational.

    Poor example. Fi can do this too, since a feeler is a feeler and both act on what they feel and what makes sense. "Make sense" is a poor phrase to use here, too vague.
    They are not the same kind of feelers.. That's why one is called Fi and the other Fe..

    This part is imo not very related to Ti at all but sounds much more typical type 5 stuff, the idea of there being a grand theory or the like. Not every Ti dom goes about in the world thinking about things that way. Ti can very much be a gut reaction of "that makes sense" without needing to evaluating it further.
    And here you go mixing everything again. Ti is not about "guts reaction"; it's a judging function and it's about the logic behind thinks.

    Again, it doesn't have to work that way. It doesn't necessarily have to viscerally test something in order to know if something makes sense. I mean, most of the time, we perform basic deductions in our lives and assume that because A, then B and then C, right? We don't walk around testing whether C really follows B and B really follows A. We just assume. Why? Because it makes sense. That's actually much more consistent with how Ti works for most people.
    We all use all 8 functions but that's the purpose of MBTI, to tell you what functions you use the most...

    Fe is the opposite of wanting things to align, but ok. The thing about Fe is that it's extremely chaotic (ever been forced to work on a logical task of needing to categorize information with an Fe dom? I have, not very pleasant) and Fe tries to act against too much logical rigidity because when we are too logical and rigid, we fail to properly express ourselves and our realities. You know the stereotype how Ti egos are thought of as being emotional robots, especially when they try to focus too much on logic? That. Fe seeks people to be spontaneously expressive, fluid and "in touch" with the life they see around them. They try to liven up things and people. It has nothing to do with being consistent. Typical for Fe doms is that they may do something like, "I feel for all these poor beggars on the street" and then "I am almost like a beggar too, when I grew up I only had 20 dollars as a weekly sum to spend the things I wanted, I always had to beg my friends for more money". That right there is a poor use of their Ti, how they are not consistent in what they express because feeling precedes logic.
    You cringed about my alleged stereotyping but I'm going to dismiss this in its entirety because it's all stereotyping.

    Or another example, where they may say, "You are so totally right and I feel for you! All these immigrants are so annoying because all they do is coming here and steal our jobs, just like you say!" to "I feel for all these immigrants, they never get any jobs because it says so in the news."

    I am obviously taking exaggerated examples to get my point across and usually Fe doms are not this bad, but I've seen Fe doms do this all the time and this happens exactly because their Ti is relegated so far down into their unconsciousness that they don't stop to think what they actually are saying, in a sense, because again, their feelings precede any logical validity of their claims. So saying that Fe doms as politicians try to draw people into their politics because there is a logical framework that they consistently build on is just well... wrong. Fe doms can certainly be great politicians, but it is thanks to their ability to inspire feelings into others then, not because they are necessarily logical in their claims. There's a reason ESFPs are called politicians in socionics though, because the combination of Se + their high unconscious Fe makes them great mobilizing people for causes and a lot of famous political figures have been ESFPs.
    But anyone, a Fi type can react like that too: again, functions are not traits, personality, beliefs.. they are just cognitive functions that enter into play when solving a problem.

    Sounds flawed. Order isn't a Te thing. Te is again about outcomes. Why does the order matter as long as I get the outcome I want?
    That's exactly what I said...

    This honestly sounds more like Fe than Te.
    How????

    I don't think Fi about self-validation. I have no idea where you got this from and how you justify this in terms of the introverted nature of Fi? Also, Fi isn't about values per se, it's about how we internally feel about something. It can be about values like how I feel right now that what you express seems wrong. Fi is more about focusing on our own emotional inner reactions to something regardless of how this fits into a larger emotional schema e.g. moods. Fe tries to inspire emotion, it has an assumption that other people lack feeling until they are livened up by the feeling, so it projects emotions outwards in the hopes others will be affected in the same way, but Fi doesn't do that. It keeps the feeling to itself. If an Fe type observes someone being unemotional they tend to assume the person in question just needs to be livened up more so they can let their emotions loose; Fi assumes feelings are more of a personal and private matter and don't need to be shared with other people in that way. That's the difference, imo.
    You just validated my points about Fi validation of own values and Fe desire for harmony.

    Both Te and Ti deal with facts but different kinds of facts. If I cite a dictionary definition, that's a Ti kind of fact, actually. Also, idk why you link Fi with a need for expression. That's Fe. Essentially, Fi thinks that feelings are a personal and private matter and something we decide on our own, and Ti thinks logic is a personal and private matter and something we decide on our own. So if you try to speak with an INFJ about how to use their logic, how to produce or best accomplish certain outcomes, they'll sour up quite quickly because they don't like to think of logic that way. It is one thing to give them a lot of information on a thing, but another to tell them how or what to do with that information. This is why Ti is introverted so they want to come up with their own ways of how to make sense of something, how to interpret logical connections, just like how Fi wants to be allowed to feel something based on how you personally feel something regardless of how this makes others feel, hence why both IxTJs and IxFPs can be such party poopers, because both have a particular attitude towards Fe that really devalues its social role.
    First.. you said Fe wasn't about social harmony.. yet here... And you said Fi wasn't about VALIDATION of their own values.. yet HERE..

    The way you express value judgements here is really bad; you make Ti essentially sound awesome (complex) and Te dumb as fuck (obvious, simple). I don't think even think either of these are particularly accurate in how to represent and describe the two axes.
    I'm not gonna take criticism from someone who's theory has been refuted by everyone making the same remarks, yet doesn't want to see their faults. No thanks.
    Animal thanked this post.

  11. #30

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandmaster Yoda View Post
    I think good example of Ti is with Milton Friedman. Now I don't have enough ram to get a link to the video but you can certainly find it.
    Milton was an economist who more of a "market fundamentalist," when you put him in argument with someone trying to bring something into a scenario where it doesn't work "taken to the extreme."
    So this kid asks "is it screwed up if an electric company shuts off a guy's power and he ends up dying from that?"
    On the flat face of it, yes sure the electric company could easily give the guy a break and let him have electricity for free until his condition improves or whatever.
    But Friedman says that kind of misses the principle of how the situation operates. The main idea is supply and demand of course and this relates to resources. Things cost money to obtain because they aren't unlimited. Someone must pay the electric company so we know that resources are allocated efficiently. Imagine if the electric company decided to give free electricity to everyone. It wouldn't work. Take it to the extreme and it is not good. Milton argues that the company is not obligated to help the man and asks why his friends and family wouldn't pay for it. But that's beside the point.
    The point is breaking down the system and getting the principle down. If you modify some variable to the extremes and it evidently doesn't make sense, it's no good. Something must "make sense at every level." He did something like that with tax rates in a different video. I think it's good example of Ti and I tend to think that way sometimes. I ought to start thinking more to get more examples, I used think that way a lot in the days of Kant.
    I want to add something to this:

    For instance, in all states in the United States the legal drinking age for unsupervised persons is 21 years, because it is argued that people need to be mature enough to make decisions involving the risks of alcohol consumption. However, assuming people mature at different rates, the specific age of 21 would be too late for some and too early for others. In this case, the somewhat arbitrary deadline is used because it is impossible or impractical to tell whether an individual is sufficiently mature for society to trust them with that kind of responsibility. Some proposed changes, however, have included the completion of an alcohol education course rather than the attainment of 21 years of age as the criterion for legal alcohol possession. This would put youth alcohol policy more on a case-by-case basis and less on a heuristic one, since the completion of such a course would presumably be voluntary and not uniform across the population.
    I think it's pretty evident how in your comment how Ti works: it questions the "apparent", breaks down the order and reorganizes, devises an algorithm to solve the problem efficiently; it must be noted how the harmony (Fe) is expressed as Ti's need for the solution to be applied to everyone. I just bolded some things to remark Ti's general knack for assuming and Te's need for quick solutions.

    The rational on the former quote puts in evidence that, despite the Ti rationale being much more detailed and centered in the process for a much efficient result, it's not always the most effective choice.
    Last edited by Sultanim; 03-06-2016 at 10:56 AM.
    Grandmaster Yoda thanked this post.


     
Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-14-2015, 12:36 PM
  2. [INFJ] What are things that tell YOU that you are extroverted or introverted?
    By Resonate121 in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 03:31 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 08:30 PM
  4. [INTP] INTP Men: Help a couple extroverted girls understand.
    By Miso in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 12-06-2011, 06:09 PM
  5. A couple of things
    By abitsilly in forum Trends Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 07:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0