Personality Cafe banner

61 - 80 of 311 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 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.
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.
Basically, (1+1=2) is not a context, it is a principle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
OP implied certain actions are attributed to certain cognitive functions without context.
Can you please clearly demonstrate what the OP stated and how he implies what you are claiming?


As a side question, how does Feeling do math?
He implied purchasing the cheapest tofu because all tofu are equal in quality to be Te. Might be valid.. But it needs a context.

I have not been the only one to believe that functions are tied in axes. Fi therefore with Te and Fe with Ti, because they work together (even if one is inferior it's still being preferred).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
He implied purchasing the cheapest tofu because all tofu are equal in quality to be Te. Might be valid.. But it needs a context.
Oh I thought we were talking about the equation?

I have not been the only one to believe that functions are tied in axes. Fi therefore with Te and Fe with Ti, because they work together (even if one is inferior it's still being preferred).
Fair enough. I disagree with this perspective, but it helps me to understand where you are coming from so I appreciate it. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Based on our whole conversation thus far and your assertions about the equation...
Cutesy examples like "ordering things", "pushing tofu out of water", "1+1=2" and such are not enough to describe functions. The problems with these is that they are static actions. We can infer on them, and say how each cognitive function would process them, but the resulting statements can become potential tools for misinterpretation of types and to stereotype the way types act. I don't know if I have the answer but there must be a better way to explain functions and not confuse types with personality; it's been overdone and there are a millions of thread on it. Of course, there's no limit to the threads that can cover the same roundabouts. I just became interested in the thread, remarked the errors other people pointed out (like the way he was mixing Socionics with MBTI) and made a premise of my own, and I'm still open for discussion on the matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
hmm, things seem to be getting a bit fluffy watching this thread :/

From my perspective, the op presented an oversimplified example of Ti's general interest in understanding concepts and their relationships.
This is Thinking ^


This is what thinking does. It compares and contrasts between objects to determine 'what something is'. It builds concepts that are the abstract ideas of what a thing is. It uses a criterion to draw relationships between concepts and objects to determine what a thing is.

The act of recognising is thinking. The act of defining is thinking. The act of drawing relationships between things is thinking. What I am doing right now to pin point what thinking is, is thinking.

To judge what a thing is requires a criterion. The criterion contains a list of properties that defines what the concept is and may very well have a label of some sort as an identifier. An object is then judged against this criteria. If the properties it has are the same as the criteria then the object is deemed to have a relationship with the concept and is labeled with it's identifier. If it does not match then the conclusion drawn is this is different to the concept and does not receive the identifying label. basically a true or false judgment.


Example:
(the identifier:) apple
(Criteria:) the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin green or red skin and crisp flesh.

Notice how the above pulls together a specific set of properties to form a criteria (fruit, green/red skin, crisp flesh).
Also notice how this definition forms relationships to other objects. Such as fruit, tree, rose family, skin, flesh.
And any object you encounter that fits this criteria is an apple. Any object that does not fit this criteria is not an apple.
The definition we have on the screen above is a concept of an apple, not the actual apple.

Thinking is not as literal as this. Apperception can involve memories, ideas, previous experiences, etc. that act as a criterion where we are able to recognise what we are seeing in front of us, this outside of language.


What determines the E or I factor is where this criterion is defined. If its origin is external from the outside world, or subjective from the inner world. Either I can bring together certain properties to form a logical concept (true/false, if then else, and, or, etc.) and then fit objects to this (Ti), or I can look at the objects and their properties and draw relationships between other objects and their properties.




Now the OP is defining the difference between Te and Ti by how each define objects.
It assets Te is concerned with the function of an object, whilst Ti is concerned with the label of the object.
Te is defining based on the properties of the object, external criterion. Ti is defining based on a subjective properties, internal criterion.
An object determines its function. Either a screwdriver is able or not able to lever off a paint can lid.
The object does not determine it's label. The screw driver did not call itself a screwdriver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #69
@Sultanim I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion.

My conclusion remains the same: actions are correlative to functions but are not functions in themselves and most of all, what my latter portion was intended to illustrate exactly as @Cmart was pointing out, is how different actions have different reasoning processes behind them, i.e. one action can be motivated by many different processes that could on paper, be almost any function, though some contexts will always imply one or the other, such as the example of the maths argument that was being discussed.

Why? Because maths is an inherent property of the thinking function. It is about classification, either externally or internally. Surely we can do maths in possibly other ways like @PaladinX was asking for e.g. I may not know what the answer is in this situation so I'd feel myself through it like I like the number 4, so I put number 4 there if we're referring to the feeling function, or if intuition, I can intuit 4 makes more sense though I cannot explain why, or if sensation, I recall seeing 4 being the answer, I think 4 is the answer.

Of course, again, to illustrate the damn point and arguably, functions may not even play that much of a role in this scenario even, but if I must state a way to make myself clear to you, then yes, I'll use an example like this. You can't get away from behavior unless you explain the functions in themselves in a vacuum, but you know what? Most people won't be able to grasp that. It's too abstract. Not even Jung described the functions that much in a vacuum. He utilized real life examples too and he made quite stereotypical remarks about I/E, specifically that are definitely behavioral e.g. extroverts like to be around people more. I mean, where do you think this stereotype comes from? Jung invented introversion/extroversion as a temperament. It did not exist before Jung.

Describing things in an abstract vacuum-way may work for people who are already well-familiar with the theory and its concepts, but I don't just write for a rare elite of people, I write for a wide variety of people including those who may be less familiar or understand the theory less. For the sake of pedagogy, you need practical examples. Also, contrary to what you claim, I am not saying that X is always true for Y type except when I do it abstractly i.e. it is true for Te that Te is always concerned for the result and Ti its internal logical classification of a thing.

How this manifests may vary so again, I honestly think you would have reacted the same way no matter who or what it was unless you yourself wrote it, but you know what? I don't think you could write it without falling back on examples either. You've done it yourself. There is a breadth of difference between illustrating a point with an example and saying that the example itself is always true for what you are trying to describe. I honestly never intended or had any interest to do the latter and it also outright contradicts my own premise. It's about what something represents in this case, and this representation is not literal so no matter how strongly you feel I am doing that, I am not doing that.

@Ixim really dude? I mean, I do type as an ILI for a reason lol, because ILIs have demonstrative Ti and can thus seem like a Ti dom. If we go with the more common interpretation of Jung's functional stacking, then an INTJ would also be an Ni and a Ti type, if the thinking function becomes the auxiliary and a part of the conscious mind. So no contradiction there. Yet I also make feeling decisions on Fi, shrug.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
@Sultanim I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion.
Are you gonna omit most of what people have been saying? Or are you just too proud to admit that your argument needs a revision? The post in itself is flawed since the moment you started mixing Socionics with MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Thinking is not as literal as this. Apperception can involve memories, ideas, previous experiences, etc. that act as a criterion where we are able to recognise what we are seeing in front of us, this outside of language.


What determines the E or I factor is where this criterion is defined. If its origin is external from the outside world, or subjective from the inner world. Either I can bring together certain properties to form a logical concept (true/false, if then else, and, or, etc.) and then fit objects to this (Ti), or I can look at the objects and their properties and draw relationships between other objects and their properties.
That is exactly why a context is needed. A problem with intricacies to properly see the manifestation of said criterion in that context.

Now the OP is defining the difference between Te and Ti by how each define objects.
It assets Te is concerned with the function of an object, whilst Ti is concerned with the label of the object.
Te is defining based on the properties of the object, external criterion. Ti is defining based on a subjective properties, internal criterion.
An object determines its function. Either a screwdriver is able or not able to lever off a paint can lid.
The object does not determine it's label. The screw driver did not call itself a screwdriver.
:unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
@Sultanim I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion.

My conclusion remains the same: actions are correlative to functions but are not functions in themselves and most of all, what my latter portion was intended to illustrate exactly as @Cmart was pointing out, is how different actions have different reasoning processes behind them, i.e. one action can be motivated by many different processes that could on paper, be almost any function, though some contexts will always imply one or the other, such as the example of the maths argument that was being discussed.

Why? Because maths is an inherent property of the thinking function. It is about classification, either externally or internally. Surely we can do maths in possibly other ways like @PaladinX was asking for e.g. I may not know what the answer is in this situation so I'd feel myself through it like I like the number 4, so I put number 4 there if we're referring to the feeling function, or if intuition, I can intuit 4 makes more sense though I cannot explain why, or if sensation, I recall seeing 4 being the answer, I think 4 is the answer.

Of course, again, to illustrate the damn point and arguably, functions may not even play that much of a role in this scenario even, but if I must state a way to make myself clear to you, then yes, I'll use an example like this. You can't get away from behavior unless you explain the functions in themselves in a vacuum, but you know what? Most people won't be able to grasp that. It's too abstract. Not even Jung described the functions that much in a vacuum. He utilized real life examples too and he made quite stereotypical remarks about I/E, specifically that are definitely behavioral e.g. extroverts like to be around people more. I mean, where do you think this stereotype comes from? Jung invented introversion/extroversion as a temperament. It did not exist before Jung.

Describing things in an abstract vacuum-way may work for people who are already well-familiar with the theory and its concepts, but I don't just write for a rare elite of people, I write for a wide variety of people including those who may be less familiar or understand the theory less. For the sake of pedagogy, you need practical examples. Also, contrary to what you claim, I am not saying that X is always true for Y type except when I do it abstractly i.e. it is true for Te that Te is always concerned for the result and Ti its internal logical classification of a thing.

How this manifests may vary so again, I honestly think you would have reacted the same way no matter who or what it was unless you yourself wrote it, but you know what? I don't think you could write it without falling back on examples either. You've done it yourself. There is a breadth of difference between illustrating a point with an example and saying that the example itself is always true for what you are trying to describe. I honestly never intended or had any interest to do the latter and it also outright contradicts my own premise. It's about what something represents in this case, and this representation is not literal so no matter how strongly you feel I am doing that, I am not doing that.

@Ixim really dude? I mean, I do type as an ILI for a reason lol, because ILIs have demonstrative Ti and can thus seem like a Ti dom. If we go with the more common interpretation of Jung's functional stacking, then an INTJ would also be an Ni and a Ti type, if the thinking function becomes the auxiliary and a part of the conscious mind. So no contradiction there. Yet I also make feeling decisions on Fi, shrug.
Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.

Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #73 (Edited)
Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.

Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.
Whatever obvious things people have stated, that obvious thing is that you are getting hung up on an issue that doesn't even exist because you don't even understand the idea behind the op. And no, actually, most of what I write is focused on intuition, not Ti. I suggest you go observe how Ti doms tend to lay out their stuff, especially INTPs. You'll find they approach things very differently.

@Sultanim
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the issue here is that YOU are wrong and you can't admit that you are reading something in my op I didn't intend? Like for example how you state I imply a thing but in my very op there's plenty of evidence that actually supports the opposite of what you claim I do. Stop accuse my character as a way to avoid logical scrutiny. How about how you omitted everything I wrote in favor of again, stating your interpretation of my op without even trying to acknowledge my perspective?

I'll gladly accept that maybe my examples were poor if they actually suggested what you claim they do but I consistently don't claim that; it's what you read and how you connect it. If you utterly cannot shift your perspective to see what I'm trying to say then honestly just stop waste my time. Again, just because you feel I do something wrong doesn't mean I'm actually factually wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.

Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.
Rebuilding a theory isn't Ti. It's just having imagination/interest enough to take it a step further and adapt it.
(Also unsolicited typing is against the rules of the forum, so unless @Entropic wants input on his type, you should probably stick to the topic at hand.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Rebuilding a theory isn't Ti. It's just having imagination/interest enough to take it a step further and adapt it.
(Also unsolicited typing is against the rules of the forum, so unless @Entropic wants input on his type, you should probably stick to the topic at hand.)
I'll be open. Be warned!

Him and me don't see eye to eye. Which is already troubling given how ~90% people I knew had only positive if not superlative words for me(I am humble, but people seem to think I'm awesome, so it must be awesome to be me :wink:). From that example can be concluded that I aggravate only weirdoes and losers. And poking those is always fun, especially when...nah I won't bring that in. When they have no pronoun to use for them.

Just look. It's fun to tease him. And when the most of his self confidence comes from something that has been thoroughly rejected by the professionals. To me, it is a nice and fun tool. But I guarantee you that this what I am saying will piss off people. Do I care? I'm losing my hair over it. Sheesh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Whatever obvious things people have stated, that obvious thing is that you are getting hung up on an issue that doesn't even exist because you don't even understand the idea behind the op. And no, actually, most of what I write is focused on intuition, not Ti. I suggest you go observe how Ti doms tend to lay out their stuff, especially INTPs. You'll find they approach things very differently.

@Sultanim
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the issue here is that YOU are wrong and you can't admit that you are reading something in my op I didn't intend? Like for example how you state I imply a thing but in my very op there's plenty of evidence that actually supports the opposite of what you claim I do. Stop accuse my character as a way to avoid logical scrutiny. How about how you omitted everything I wrote in favor of again, stating your interpretation of my op without even trying to acknowledge my perspective?

I'll gladly accept that maybe my examples were poor if they actually suggested what you claim they do but I consistently don't claim that; it's what you read and how you connect it. If you utterly cannot shift your perspective to see what I'm trying to say then honestly just stop waste my time. Again, just because you feel I do something wrong doesn't mean I'm actually factually wrong.
Again, you're factually wrong because Socionics and MBTI are different tools ans define cognitive functions differently. But yeah, keep ignoring everything presented thus far. I have presented why and where you have failed, but you, up to this post, haven't refuted my stance: in fact you keep coming back with lazy, emotional responses, saying you think I am wrong but can't clearly state why. You did the same to every single one of the people who refuted your post. Talk about sharing a "theory" to then be immature when people discuss about it. You didn't even share anything new: it's the way you worded it.
@owlet hmm.. but when @Entropic claims "pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid. Wow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Again, you're factually wrong because Socionics and MBTI are different tools ans define cognitive functions differently. But yeah, keep ignoring everything presented thus far. I have presented why and where you have failed, but you, up to this post, haven't refuted my stance: in fact you keep coming back with lazy, emotional responses, saying you think I am wrong but can't clearly state why. You did the same to every single one of the people who refuted your post. Talk about sharing a "theory" to then be immature when people discuss about it. You didn't even share anything new: it's the way you worded it.
@owlet hmm.. but when @Entropic claims "pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid. Wow.
Well, first of all, you are lying as he said...
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.
Then, it is actually a good example.
Finding a practical solution, seeing what other use can a object have, comparing quality of tofu's (comparing specifics of the object that are obvious to the outside observer) ... But I think it is also Se in works as the calculation of needed amount of force or power to do that pressing.
A quick solution to a problem would be Te, while Ti would be figuring out why it happened and taking precautions to prevent it hapening again. Both types would do both, but the very first thing the attention goes to, probably will tell you about the valued direction of Thinking function, Ti or Te.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
Well, first of all, you are lying as he said...


Then, it is actually a good example.
Finding a practical solution, seeing what other use can a object have, comparing quality of tofu's (comparing specifics of the object that are obvious to the outside observer) ... But I think it is also Se in works as the calculation of needed amount of force or power to do that pressing.
Bargain shopping is not Te. Reading food labels is not a function either. Most of this stuff is common sense.

Can you tell my functions by how I make my grilled cheese? How would a Ti user make grilled cheese compared to a Te user? It is fucking ridiculous. lol.
 
61 - 80 of 311 Posts
Top