Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 311 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
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.


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 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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



So please tell me how I'm stereotyping because I fail to see it.



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 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.



How so?



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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...
I am just trying to help everyone achieve understanding. Mixing Socionics, MBTI, Jung and Enneagram will not achieve that. In fact, the way you do this is more akin to Ti way of breaking down and rebuilding from the ground up. Just saying.

Don't mix things. Just trust Jung and several others. People who knew their job. And weren't in this for money's sake(like oh so many modern psychologists in lieu of MBTI).

Besides, holding grudges and attacking ad hominem doesn't really picture you in the best light(no matter how big fan club you've garnered here). See, I understand everything. So, no big deal.

Back, to the topic...what's the latest update?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
@Entropic ;

*cracks joints*

1) Your first error was mix Socionics with MBTI, let's start here. Socionics pretend 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. It is because of examples like this:



The problem with this kind of premises, they are vague. You're proposing Ti acts that way.. But also Si? Ti and Si are WAY different functions, one is a perceiving and the other a judging function. The error made here is that you didn't explain how Ti or Si reach that conclusion.

And this is where you begin to stereotype:



Here, for example, you're implying Te users always act like that, but they don't: you need to lay a context. The failure of implying lies in (typical of Socionics) simply 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.

Compare ENFJ:


Vs ISFP:


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 it can't predict personality traits, emotional responses, ideological bias, moral compass, etc. And Socionics pretends to do that. You're in a big contradiction to try to explain cognitive functions and approach them from a behaviorist perspective: they are just mental processes, and that's exactly why you need to lay down principles: mental processes have a myriad of ways of expressing themselves . How many times you need people to repeat that to you?


I suggest you to really consider the faults you've made. 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.

Love your references to Muhtesem. That was an example of how to do a show. Still, the gowns did have too much cleavage...it's just innacurate(ok, then the girls should've been 80% naked...twist my tongue).

Anyhow, Si and Ti can be similar in their OCD ways and ONLY in that. They both have a penchant for tidyness and for order in the physical sense. It's just that Si has a tendency to arrange it like that because it's pleasing to him when he sees things arranged like that. Ti, otoh, builds mental structures, strict bodies of how things should be. The books, spoons etc, are not arranged as they are because of their pleasant aesthetic or because of efficiency(easy to grab a spoon or whatever). It's because in mind of a Ti dom, it simply MUST look like that because the right portion of a ladder is labeled as "spoon place". I could demonstrate this quite nicely with a screenshot of Campaign Editor of StarCraft:

hqdefault.jpg

See those locations(blue boxes)? That's how Ti mind thinks. The right part of a ladder is literally a big blue box with a title "SPOONS".

etc etc

They may come to similar results, but on wildly different ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Love your references to Muhtesem. That was an example of how to do a show. Still, the gowns did have too much cleavage...it's just innacurate(ok, then the girls should've been 80% naked...twist my tongue).
I agree with that! Overall, it was a great show. I wept uncontrollably when Hürrem died.. even if others were praying for her death (I can be quite immersed emotionally in the shows I like).

Anyhow, Si and Ti can be similar in their OCD ways and ONLY in that. They both have a penchant for tidyness and for order in the physical sense. It's just that Si has a tendency to arrange it like that because it's pleasing to him when he sees things arranged like that. Ti, otoh, builds mental structures, strict bodies of how things should be. The books, spoons etc, are not arranged as they are because of their pleasant aesthetic or because of efficiency(easy to grab a spoon or whatever). It's because in mind of a Ti dom, it simply MUST look like that because the right portion of a ladder is labeled as "spoon place".
Agreed. If we compare them individually by their principles, they can be quite similar. It's when you see them work with other functions that you see how they manifest differently: for example, main or aux Ti is accompanied by main or aux Ne/Se, theoretically it would imply Ti types aren't much about rigidness but more about "accommodation" (this ties with the concept of Fe and harmony btw). On the other hand main/aux Si is accompanied by main or aux Fe/Te, implying Si users, despite being (introverted) perceivers, are more likely to adopt an order based either on the scope of its values (Fe, people) or rules (Te, objects).

I could demonstrate this quite nicely with a screenshot of Campaign Editor of StarCraft:

View attachment 491538

See those locations(blue boxes)? That's how Ti mind thinks. The right part of a ladder is literally a big blue box with a title "SPOONS".
I see that. It's creating its own little system.

They may come to similar results, but on wildly different ways.
Agreed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2? To Te, that 1+1=2 isn't so interesting as much as it is interesting to understand what we can do with the result of 2. We could fundamentally replace 1 with anything else if we still accomplish number 2 and it is number 2 that we want.
I think there were a couple of wording issues (and real world examples always run the risk of slipping into the grey area between cognition and behaviour, which could be an issue), but this bit is very good and describes the differences between Ti and Te clearly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2?
Just to be nitpicky here: There is no cause and effect in place, because "=" doesn't signify a process. It just means "is the same as".

1 and 1 doesn't become 2 when paired with a +. 1 and 1 is the same as 2, regardless of the time dimension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Just to be nitpicky here: There is no cause and effect in place, because "=" doesn't signify a process. It just means "is the same as".

1 and 1 doesn't become 2 when paired with a +. 1 and 1 is the same as 2, regardless of the time dimension.
And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples. :p

Otherwise, what if the equation were 1 + 2 = 2? Is it still the same? Is there a process for comparing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
@PaladinX

And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples. :p
That's exactly what @NiDBiLD said. 1 and 1 is already 2, it doesn't need the plus sign for validation.

Otherwise, what if the equation were 1 + 2 = 2? Is it still the same? Is there a process for comparing?
If you had a bowl with 2 apples and you add 1 more, would it still be 2? ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,105 Posts
Te is a decision making function. It is used to make decisions. If you are merely observing objective data like numbers in an excel sheet, that is SE.

But if you are using that data to make a decision, that is TE.

Now if you make a decision according to an external framework, i.e. and accounting decision based on generally accepted accounting principles, that is TE and SE used in conjunction to make a decision...SE is taking the data in and TE is using it to make a choice based on external inherited, objective guidelines...like the principles of physics.

TI on the other hand is making decisions based on a subjective framework. Sometimes the subjective framework is more true to reality than the objective framework. For example, to make a choice based on the world being flat circa 1300's and earlier would be an objective decision. But if you made a choice based on the world being round, that would have been subjective.

What is objective and subjective is not what is real or not real. What is objective is not necessarily reality...it is what i sconsidered reality, but never reality itself.

Many people get confused over what is quite simple. If i make a decision based on a framework in my mind, for example, I have a framework that every time i hide a cheetoh from you, you get angry, and I want to make you angry, so I hide the cheetoh from you...that is subjective reasoning because it involves your relative and subjective relationships, your personal experience. There is no board of directors determining the laws of cheetoh hiding.

TI make good scientists because they are able to compartmentalize and build a frame work of internal logical constructs that mirror true scientific paradigms, which in most cases, in science, is more valuable than simply taking the word of the book as law (TE).

So you see...the difference between a rational and perceptive function is only one thing, and that is that one is used to decide and the other is used to gather the evidence for deciding....

Once you know that it is really easy to understand, and simple...and there is no reason for bloviations and extrapolations that are pretty much meaningless in nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
That's exactly what @NiDBiLD said. 1 and 1 is already 2, it doesn't need the plus sign for validation.
Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:

And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples.

^ That sounds like cause and effect to me.

And if I remove the plus sign, you think 11=2 has the same meaning? :S

If you had a bowl with 2 apples and you add 1 more, would it still be 2? ...
Eh? I think there is a misunderstanding. What point do you think that I'm making?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:

And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples.

^ That sounds like cause and effect to me.

And if I remove the plus sign, you think 11=2 has the same meaning? :S



Eh? I think there is a misunderstanding. What point do you think that I'm making?
I...don't understand. Why are we talking about apples again? Or maths for that matter?

...what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:

And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples.

^ That sounds like cause and effect to me.
When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. irregardless of space and time.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?

And if I remove the plus sign, you think 11=2 has the same meaning? :S
In real life 1 apple beside 1 apple are 2 apples. I'm just using your "apples" example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. irregardless of space and time.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?



In real life 1 apple beside 1 apple are 2 apples. I'm just using your "apples" example.
It's to show how Ti would process things such as 1+1=2. To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things.

1 is just 1 on it's own. Now if there is 2, then it's because 1 was there and now another 1 is there, which is exactly what addition is. It is a concept. Addition would be the cause which Ti is interested in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
It's to show how Ti would process things such as 1+1=2. To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things.

1 is just 1 on it's own. Now if there is 2, then it's because 1 was there and now another 1 is there, which is exactly what addition is. It is a concept. Addition would be the cause which Ti is interested in.
The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!

1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.

It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... Any function can arrive at that conclusion.

As I have been repeating in my previous posts, if one wants to describe functions and compare them in the way, one needs to first create the principles for each cognitive function and then test their validity in the frame of a particular context. These lame examples aren't of any use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!

1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.

It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... Any function can arrive at that conclusion.

As I have been repeating in my previous posts, if one wants to describe functions and compare them in the way, one needs to first create the principles for each cognitive function and then test their validity in the frame of a particular context. These lame examples aren't of any use.
To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things.
^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!

1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.
That's the thing - Te is more likely to accept it as fact (due to it being agreed on as correct by general consensus, having evidence to back it up etc.), while Ti is more likely to get hung up on why that's the case (where did it come from, who decided this was correct etc.). Te is focused on the result and is so more likely to examine the 2, while Ti is more likely to scrutinize the detail of the equation to make sure it makes sense to them (fits into their 'mental bookshelf').

I dispute being able to use the equation in this way to describe other functions, so if you can give examples for them all, that would be great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. irregardless of space and time.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?
I could not have misunderstood the point if he didn't really have one. I'm pretty sure he explicitly stated he was nitpicking. I thought I would take him up on exploring that angle further.

I'm not really sure what you are on about though. I feel like you are arguing something that I am not presenting.

I did not get an implied sense of complexity in the op. Again, I wonder if you are reading into something. From my perspective, the op presented an oversimplified example of Ti's general interest in understanding concepts and their relationships.


I...don't understand. Why are we talking about apples again? Or maths for that matter?

...what?
Just semantics. Nothing to see here. :)

It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... Any function can arrive at that conclusion.
Then you are missing the point and making a mountain out of a mole hill at the same time. :p

To be clear, no one stated or implied that any given function is needed to arrive at that conclusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
That's the thing - Te is more likely to accept it as fact (due to it being agreed on as correct by general consensus, having evidence to back it up etc.), while Ti is more likely to get hung up on why that's the case (where did it come from, who decided this was correct etc.). Te is focused on the result and is so more likely to examine the 2, while Ti is more likely to scrutinize the detail of the equation to make sure it makes sense to them (fits into their 'mental bookshelf').
I agree with that, see:

Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?

I dispute being able to use the equation in this way to describe other functions, so if you can give examples for them all, that would be great.
As evidenced above, 1+1=2 is not something that can be attributed to any function. I'm sure other cognitive functions do have their particular ways of processing it.
@PaladinX

Then you are missing the point and making a mountain out of a mole hill at the same time. :p

To be clear, no one stated or implied that any given function is needed to arrive at that conclusion.
OP implied certain actions are attributed to certain cognitive functions without context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
@Sultanim It may be the lack of sleep, but I'm genuinely unsure what your issue with the equation example is.
If it's the concept of 1+1=2 being absolute fact, then you could go into the thought process of why does 1 have half the value of 2 when it's also a single-digit number? Why does 1 come before 2? Does it make sense for 1 to come before 2, 3, 4 etc.? If you look at it in terms of complexity/number of strokes required to draw it, why does 7 come after 2? And so on. Ti is more likely to be concerned with if the value of two 1s would in fact equal 2 and how much sense that makes to them personally.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!

1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.

It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... Any function can arrive at that conclusion.

As I have been repeating in my previous posts, if one wants to describe functions and compare them in the way, one needs to first create the principles for each cognitive function and then test their validity in the frame of a particular context. These lame examples aren't of any use.

You are right. It is self propelling. There is no route. It just is. Math is a language with laws/conventions. The law/convention is that 1+1=2. It is a custom one abides by.
 
41 - 60 of 311 Posts
Top