Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 311 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,812 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)
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:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
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.
First of all, yes, I did. Here:
Te picks the most efficient way to do things and if having an organised library is efficient (in case the person needs to be able to find the correct book asap). Functions aren't WHAT you do, functions are WHY you do it. Both Ni and Ne can make the same conclusions but the process is different. Likewise, Te and Ti can be expressed in similar ways, the real question is why the person behaves that way. For that reason it's important to judge long term behaviour rather than short term. Since we can't read minds of others.
Second of all, being wrong is not a sin and debating isn't about being right it is to learn something. You got awfully defensive just because I disagreed on your points even though I wasn't even attacking you and I said that your points were good. Instead of explaining why I misunderstood them. When I called you out on it you, you used the "You started it!" excuse. If I were nasty or rude I would understand but I simply point out the things I found flawed and explained why yet you got offended by that and refused to explain.

To add to the topic: Singular specific behaviours don't have functions. So, no, pushing water from tofu with a heavy pan is not Te and ordering things is not Ti. Functions are way more complex than that. You made really good and thought out points for Ti and Te difference but then you completely scrapped them and went "This single action is Te." You seem to have a good grasp on the functions in theory so you should know that it simply doesn't work this way in real life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
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 think it was Leo, from Typetips on youtube.

Anyways... Te is a form of judgment, and because it is extroverted (like Fe), it gathers outside information. Which means it is a part of the superego construct within the human hierarchy. Example: two T-ego-dom children are being raised, the introverted one wants to know why certain rules are the way they are, so the superego is put to introspective digestion. While the extroverted one will want to know how certain rules apply in the external world.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
First of all, yes, I did. Here:


Second of all, being wrong is not a sin and debating isn't about being right it is to learn something. You got awfully defensive just because I disagreed on your points even though I wasn't even attacking you and I said that your points were good. Instead of explaining why I misunderstood them. When I called you out on it you, you used the "You started it!" excuse. If I were nasty or rude I would understand but I simply point out the things I found flawed and explained why yet you got offended by that and refused to explain.

To add to the topic: Singular specific behaviours don't have functions. So, no, pushing water from tofu with a heavy pan is not Te and ordering things is not Ti. Functions are way more complex than that. You made really good and thought out points for Ti and Te difference but then you completely scrapped them and went "This single action is Te." You seem to have a good grasp on the functions in theory so you should know that it simply doesn't work this way in real life.

What is a conception but its practical effects? Its combined effects? If he thinks a function makes tofu that way, those practical effects encompass his knowledge of the subject. A thing is merely its combined effects in the world. So Te is making Tofu, that is how it combines and manifests itself in the environment. It is wrong obviously but I am trying to point out that conceptions of a thing is only its combined, practical effects. Those things must line up with theory. If you don't understand practical effects about something you simply don't understand it.

"Pragmatism. The opinion that metaphysics is to be largely cleared up by the application of the following maxim for attaining clearness of apprehension: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
What is a conception but its practical effects? Its combined effects? If he thinks a function makes tofu that way, those practical effects encompass his knowledge of the subject. A thing is merely its combined effects in the world. So Te is making Tofu, that is how it combines and manifests itself in the environment. It is wrong obviously but I am trying to point out that conceptions of a thing is only its combined, practical effects. Those things must line up with theory. If you don't understand practical effects about something you simply don't understand it.

"Pragmatism. The opinion that metaphysics is to be largely cleared up by the application of the following maxim for attaining clearness of apprehension: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
But the thing is, pushing tofu out of the water could be Te... Se, Si, etc. If you really want to describe a function (and in this case compare function vs function) you should lay out the principles and then propose a problem to solve to test the validity of said principles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
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.
If you are going by Jung:

Fe is social harmony because a person whose dominant function is Fe wants to naturally adapt his behaviour so as to suit the general public present.
Fi isn't necessarily having values, but it is using your Feeling function to change the world according to your ethical values. So it could include killing stuff if you are a nihilist.

Fe is a social metamorph(practically invisible).
Fi is a social lighthouse(lol-anyhow, you can't miss it!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
What is a conception but its practical effects? Its combined effects? If he thinks a function makes tofu that way, those practical effects encompass his knowledge of the subject. A thing is merely its combined effects in the world. So Te is making Tofu, that is how it combines and manifests itself in the environment. It is wrong obviously but I am trying to point out that conceptions of a thing is only its combined, practical effects. Those things must line up with theory. If you don't understand practical effects about something you simply don't understand it.

"Pragmatism. The opinion that metaphysics is to be largely cleared up by the application of the following maxim for attaining clearness of apprehension: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
My point was already covered by @Sultanim well enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #38 (Edited)
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.
Except I gave several practical examples of how they infer the specific reasoning process. I am not sure how that's difficult to comprehend, but ok? I am not even focused on the action, but the logic behind it. Also, your character accusation is petty and unwarranted and is extremely far from how I conceptualize things.

@Entropic

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.
I never excluded Fe to feel about values though, but usually, Fe isn't so much about say, right/wrong to the person in question (that's more Ti), so when Fe types feel, they often feel with people.

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.
I don't think Fe always seeks to align the values of the group, though. It can also purposefully go against the group if it thinks the group is becoming too bland in its expressions.

So Fi users don't know how to detect emotions in othere "objects"? Fe users don't have inner emotional realities?
They don't focus on these things no, as a part of the cognitive aspect of the function. Fi doesn't project feelings onto objects like Fe does, to focus on the environmental aspect of the feeling, just like Fe doesn't focus so much on the internal relationship you have between self-object as Fi does.

These are properties of I vs E.

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 actually did include the word "social" but ok. Also, I don't type Hitler because I don't think he genuinely can be typed. He's too much of a caricature persona so you may use another example to demonstrate the point.

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.
And socionics is also about cognition. I do think that MBTI and socionics deal with the same objects of reality and they do that by approaching it differently so I also think that Fi in the MBTI=Fi in socionics. If you also studied socionics, you'd realize socionics is a lot about personality traits. It specifically calls it information metabolism, actually, which means how we process information around us. That's a very cognitive approach and VI isn't even accepted as a type phenomenon even in socionics circles, so don't use that to discredit socionics. The main aspect of socionics is model A, which has nothing to do with visual typing, something the MBTI and the MBTI community also endorses at its places, btw.

They are not the same kind of feelers.. That's why one is called Fi and the other Fe..
No shit, because that's what I've been arguing with you all this while, actually? But it doesn't mean that your phrasing isn't vague and can mean a lot of things or be interpreted in different ways. I understand what you are trying to convey, but I also think it can and should be conveyed better.

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.
Sure it is, but rationally think about it: how many Ti doms do you really think always need to consciously stop and logicalize in their head before they make a decision? Functions don't work that way. We process them so easily they occur spontaneously and unconsciously. That's my point and I think saying that Ti doms must always "stop and think" is a bit of a misnomer.

We all use all 8 functions but that's the purpose of MBTI, to tell you what functions you use the most...
Except frequency of use=!skill of use. My ESTP cousin tries to Fe a lot all the time; it doesn't mean she's actually good at it the same way an Fe ego is. I use Fi a lot too but it doesn't mean I'm good at Fi either.

You cringed about my alleged stereotyping but I'm going to dismiss this in its entirety because it's all stereotyping.
So please tell me how I'm stereotyping because I fail to see it.

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.
I actually never linked them to that so again, you are reacting because you literally interpret my examples but you know what? I am very sure you'd react the same way no matter how I'd phrase it or express it, actually. You focus on the outcome of the actions in the examples I cited; they are in fact irrelevant. What's relevant is how the process of said result is reached. It's the process, how it is being reasoned, how it's being expressed. I am not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. I am not saying "putting kettle on stove=Te", I am saying, the reason the person decided to put the kettle on the stove is related to Te. Two very different things.

That's exactly what I said...
That's what you did but ok.

I don't really care to scroll all the way up to check, but it was something related to how it was regulating the emotions of the external world. It was again too ambiguous and vaguely expressed imo.

You just validated my points about Fi validation of own values and Fe desire for harmony.
How so?

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..
Again, please tell me exactly how you even interpret it this way.

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.
Actually, just because you think my supposed theory is refuted doesn't mean that your attempts to connect these things are incorrect or make you above criticism yourself. On the contrary, if you have the right to dismiss my supposed "theory" even though it's actually not mine, I have every right to criticize you and then some on the fact that I think the way you present information right now is extremely biased and wrong and compared to you, I am also avoiding character attacks as I'm attacking your claims only, whereas you keep thinking it's ok to dismiss what I express just because you disagree with me lol.

First of all, yes, I did. Here:
You expressed it's stereotyping and you criticize the examples but you don't bother to explain why. So yes, it is still warranted that you explain why it is so. Saying "I criticize you" is not explaining why you criticize me or my thoughts. That is simply a disagreement and I asked you to justify your disagreement with logic, not "I disagree with you because I disagree with you". That's circular and I'm certainly not stupid; I understand that much myself. If this is a logical debate, then you need to justify your opinions with logic, not reinforcing your previous judgement with another value judgement.

Second of all, being wrong is not a sin and debating isn't about being right it is to learn something. You got awfully defensive just because I disagreed on your points even though I wasn't even attacking you and I said that your points were good. Instead of explaining why I misunderstood them. When I called you out on it you, you used the "You started it!" excuse. If I were nasty or rude I would understand but I simply point out the things I found flawed and explained why yet you got offended by that and refused to explain.
I asked you to explain yourself because you criticized my examples used and I wanted to know exactly what it is you found wrong with them. Now you are dragging this out by attacking my character and my behavior, again not the point I raised. Explain why you think they are wrong and we can actually argue the points being made so we can move on with this and have an actual logical argument.

To add to the topic: Singular specific behaviours don't have functions. So, no, pushing water from tofu with a heavy pan is not Te and ordering things is not Ti. Functions are way more complex than that. You made really good and thought out points for Ti and Te difference but then you completely scrapped them and went "This single action is Te." You seem to have a good grasp on the functions in theory so you should know that it simply doesn't work this way in real life.
Except I never stated this as they were examples, not hard rules to draw. However, ordering the library yes, I do think that is Ti, because you can try to toss and turn that argument however you want, but the order will always be based on Ti reasoning in some way. That's one of the reasons why there's a question like that in the Ti section in the 80 questions socionics questionnaire. Do note: Ti can serve Te reasons and vice versa.

If you think I have such a good grasp of the theory and the functions, then maybe stop attribute certain thoughts or behaviors you think I think and do and maybe trust in what I say what I think.

I think it was Leo, from Typetips on youtube.

Anyways... Te is a form of judgment, and because it is extroverted (like Fe), it gathers outside information. Which means it is a part of the superego construct within the human hierarchy. Example: two T-ego-dom children are being raised, the introverted one wants to know why certain rules are the way they are, so the superego is put to introspective digestion. While the extroverted one will want to know how certain rules apply in the external world.
Yeah, I agree with that and yes, that's Leo, thanks.

@Ixim Yeah, I'm ignoring you because the points you raise are honestly quite asinine and not worth responding to like how you think I contradict Jung. Not worthy of my time refuting, for the same reason I don't bother with FAT because he's just being a contrarian because he can be one and because it's me so he has a knee-jerk to always default to being a contrarian. He doesn't even care for the content so I don't bother with that either.

If you are going to debate, at least raise some damn valid points or criticisms that aren't already addressed by me elsewhere...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
@Entropic ;

*cracks joints*

1) Your first error was to mix Socionics with MBTI, let's start there. Socionics pretends to divide personality in 16 types. MBTI proposes 16 different types of cognitive ability.
2) Your post is flawed because it failed to describe concretely how functions come into play when solving a problem. Wonder why so many people are confused about their type and constantly fail at typing themselves and others? It is because of examples like this:

Ti is also the function that ultimately results in that your mom rather have forks all the way to the left, knives in the middle and spoons to the right even if it seems arbitrary to an outsider who does not know or understand why your mom chooses to organize the silverware that particular way (to be noted: Si can lead to this too but for very different reasons, but for practical purposes let's focus on how this is an aspect of Ti). Furthermore, it is your Te dad that goes crazy every time he goes to get a knife because it is not as efficiently placed where it could be for the purpose it is meant to serve.
The problem with this kind of premises is that they are vague. You're proposing Ti acts x way.. But also Si? Hm.. Ti and Si can reach similar results, and for that, any function can, actually. However, let's remember this very basic thing: Ti and Si are completely unrelated functions. One is a perceiving function and the other a judging function. They work in different ways. The error made here is that you didn't explain how Ti or Si reached that conclusion. And for that you need a context.

And this is where you begin to stereotype:

It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu, and it is Te when your dad rather buys the cheaper kind of tofu than the more expensive because in terms of quality it is exactly the same.
If (Te) was a person and not a function, you'd be right. See? You're implying Te users always act x way, but they don't: you need to lay a context. Not only you're confusing cognitive function (Te) and type (main/aux Te users: ENTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, ISTJ), you're stereotyping. The failure of your implication lies in (typical of Socionics) typing people by their personal biases: but what seems like Te could rather be Ti. Again, you need to lay a problem and compare, in the context of THAT problem, how Te vs Ti would act.

3) F is about values and the human content, as T is about order and things; Te is about grasping the order of the environment it finds itself in, destroying or building according to usefulness/effectiveness, while Ti is about examining it, doubting it, and reordering it according to efficiency. Fe is about aligning its values with that of a group (harmony), and Fi is about a differentiation of its own values from that of groups. I think this is self-evident, but Fe wants harmony and Fi just wants to express itself. The funniest thing is that you think I'm fabricating this when I'm only shortening how Jung described judging functions. Take for example:

(ENFJ) Martin L. King JR said:
"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
(ISFP) Prince said:
"[I want to be able to] walk around and be me. That's all I want to be, that's all I ever tried to be."
Fe cares intrinsically for harmony, and Fi cares intrinsically for self-expression.

4) MBTI can only do as much as indicate the functions you use the most. I'm sure we all agree here in the thread about that. I agree that MBTI can't predict skill, and also that it can't predict personality traits, emotional responses, ideological bias, moral compass, etc. things Socionics pretends to do. You're in a big contradiction trying to explain cognitive functions and approach them from a behaviorist perspective: they are just mental processes. That's exactly why you need to lay down their principles, because even though mental processes have a myriad of ways of manifesting, there are fundamentals behind their why, how, etc. And those fundamentals must be proved to be valid. How many times you need people to repeat that to you?


I suggest you to examine your stance and take in count what everybody has pointed out. Sure, you can keep believing your logic isn't flawed. But as long as everyone keeps singling out the same plot-holes, whatever your so called theory claims to do remains.. useless.

 
21 - 40 of 311 Posts
Top