Personality Cafe banner

81 - 100 of 311 Posts

·
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 know that it doesn't have to coincide mutually, but everything I've seen from him is a STRONG driving force just to mix everything together and get a working result that is logically coherent(or, in other words, to MAKE SENSE).

He also does it in such long ways that I can't see him as a xxxJ. He likes to leave the options open etc. Now, I do see him as an overly emotional INT(or INF pretending to be logical when it's only ad verbum of what he read). P and J are the made up things of MBTI and modern tosh anyhow. But if I hadto use them...P would be my answer like 10 / 10.

Finally, just compare him to reckful or some other INTJ's. Now do the same for INTP's. Well, if in reality a night's bright...well, it is bright! Otherwise what?
 

·
Grumpy old bastard
Joined
·
10,085 Posts
All functions deal with the object world because it is not humanly possible to not interact with the object world in some way. You'd be braindead.


Ti, on the other hand, is the very opposite of this. Ti wants to understand how to define something, what something is. .

That your mom likes to organize your library has therefore nothing to do with Te, that's Ti
I am an extrovert, who is rather good at Ti.

You are a Te user. The red DEFINES Te, and how you see the world.

I suggest you and I have a different understanding of Ti.

My Ne takes in more information than most can possibly imagine. I have a kaleidoscope of ideas and concepts coming at me all the time I am awake.

Ti FILTERS that information. Ti makes DECISIONS on that information using my logically based internal format and decision tree. I literally TAKE IN information with my Ti, filter it internally, and "throw away" most of it. What is left I try to implement with my fake, pseudo Te.

We are opposite in this.

Mom organizing the library is NOT Ti. Ti is the logic used to do calculus, geometry proofs, perhaps play chess, play logic games.

Mom organizing the library could very well be Te - putting order upon the world, making the world the way it should be (Te) - orderly and neat, information all in a row (Ni), which leads to a feeling of accomplishment (Fi). Librarians are often INTJ's for a reason. ISTJ's also like order in the world, and they get it by following tradition and rules (Si and Te).

Respectfully, and looking forward to a good discussion,
D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sultanim

·
Grumpy old bastard
Joined
·
10,085 Posts
Personally, I never met anyone who said that Te "wants to organise external world". So this stereotype is beyond me. Also, lol because according to it I wouldn't be a Te-dom.

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)..
I'm one who says Te wants to organize the world. Zuckeberg got FB going because he is an ENTJ, and he DROVE his company to become the vision he wanted. He MADE his company into his vision.

ESTJ's run bureaucracy BECAUSE they make the bureau into what they desire and want.

Few are as good at finding the most efficient system as an ENTP. We can blow through MILLIONS of possibilities our Ne creates with our Ti to find THE MOST efficient, or at least one which is close enough. We FIND the possibility.

ENTJ MAKES the possibility REALITY.

INTJ leads with Ni. Their Ni leads them - they dig into things, and Te supports this by measuring and comparing to externally provided external results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
I think I can. Go ahead and tell me the details. :happy:
This is ridiculous, but let's see:

1. I heat 1 tablespoon salted butter in a skillet over medium-low heat.

2. Then I press the sandwich slightly and place it in the skillet. I let it cook until golden on the bottom, somewhere from 3 to 5 minutes.

3. Flip, adding more butter to the pan if needed, and cook until the other side is golden and the cheese melts, again 3 to 5 more minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
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.
I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).

It doesn't matter how great a person you are if frustrating someone is what you do for fun. That's also known as bullying.

I know that it doesn't have to coincide mutually, but everything I've seen from him is a STRONG driving force just to mix everything together and get a working result that is logically coherent(or, in other words, to MAKE SENSE).

He also does it in such long ways that I can't see him as a xxxJ. He likes to leave the options open etc. Now, I do see him as an overly emotional INT(or INF pretending to be logical when it's only ad verbum of what he read). P and J are the made up things of MBTI and modern tosh anyhow. But if I hadto use them...P would be my answer like 10 / 10.

Finally, just compare him to reckful or some other INTJ's. Now do the same for INTP's. Well, if in reality a night's bright...well, it is bright! Otherwise what?
Not discussing this with you as it's unsolicited typing and, frankly, distracts from the point of this thread. It doesn't matter what @Entropic's type is. All that matters is what's been explained in the OP and if it works as an explanation or not - and obviously from my perspective, it does work overall.

@owlet hmm.. but when @Entropic claims "pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid. Wow.
You've done that thing politicians do where they misquote someone and take it out of context. If you want me to explain why the OP makes sense, I will, but it'll have to be later as I have work. Let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
I'm one who says Te wants to organize the world. Zuckeberg got FB going because he is an ENTJ, and he DROVE his company to become the vision he wanted. He MADE his company into his vision.

ESTJ's run bureaucracy BECAUSE they make the bureau into what they desire and want.

Few are as good at finding the most efficient system as an ENTP. We can blow through MILLIONS of possibilities our Ne creates with our Ti to find THE MOST efficient, or at least one which is close enough. We FIND the possibility.

ENTJ MAKES the possibility REALITY.

INTJ leads with Ni. Their Ni leads them - they dig into things, and Te supports this by measuring and comparing to externally provided external results.
Your point? Like I said Te doesn't want to organise external world but it will if it necessary for efficiency. I have mess in all of my work places BECAUSE that's the most efficient way to order things I need on daily basis. However, in my shelves and drawers all things have their specific place where they belong because THAT is the most efficient way.

Te doesn't give a shit about organising stuff. This is why ENTJs don't want to be leaders all the time but only when there is no one better to lead (or no one to lead at all). If it were true then we would be tyrannical neat freaks. Which has nothign to do with Te-dom.

What you're describing isn't desire to have the external world organised, it's a desire for it to be efficient. Sometimes, that means organisation sometimes that means chaos. Those are just side-effects or means to an end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).
Agreed. I only disagreed with his illustrations. It's really hard to make up illustrations. I prefer to use real-world examples of people I know, whose types I know, and I base them on how I tend to react to the various functions in real life. ;-)

But I think that, overall, his theory was not bad per se. And if we could throw some other perspective on this, here's a fascinating article from personalityjunkie.com
Rethinking Judging & Perceiving in IPs & IJs

Another thought. I don't know if I said this on this thread or another, but from my perspective, introverted perceivers (Ni and Si) don't necessarily realize that their perceptions are subjective and filtered through their introversion. They simply presume that what they are doing is perceiving the world, but their perceptions are, in fact, based on an image of the world, much more so than extraverted perceiving types.

On the other hand, I, long before I knew there were such things as introverts and extraverts, and psychological functions, etc. recognized that I was subjective, and, in fact, that everybody is subjective, and have been willing to work within that subjectivity. To my way of thinking, the best attitude to have is honesty--be honest with yourself and others about your own subjectivity. So long as people pretend and tell themselves and others that they are objective, we can't really move any discussion forward. Only when we admit our own subjectivity can we begin a discussion on the merits of our own perspectives, etc.

The truth is, nobody is a pure extravert or a pure introvert. All perception and judging are transmissive, if you will. They are in a state of flux, either moving inward or outward. They are not static, just sitting there, because, if that were true, they would be called states, not functions. ;-) And since this is a constant process, and since, for instance, I am sitting here writing this, I am constantly moving from introspection to expression--back and forth--back and forth. To me, the most stimulating thing is that back and forth interplay, not when I'm just sitting here, contemplating, but when there is an action that in some way corresponds. And not when typing or expressing, but when I have something to express that comes from within. Personally, I think this is why sites like this are so popular with introverts. It gives us a means of expressing/extraverting. ;-)

And then, there's always Keirsey, and his thoughts that terms like introvert and extravert don't belong, and that their influence is overplayed by the Jungian community. Maybe he's onto something there. We make a mountain out of a mole hill by dividing these things, and thereby people...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).

It doesn't matter how great a person you are if frustrating someone is what you do for fun. That's also known as bullying.



Not discussing this with you as it's unsolicited typing and, frankly, distracts from the point of this thread. It doesn't matter what @Entropic's type is. All that matters is what's been explained in the OP and if it works as an explanation or not - and obviously from my perspective, it does work overall.



You've done that thing politicians do where they misquote someone and take it out of context. If you want me to explain why the OP makes sense, I will, but it'll have to be later as I have work. Let me know.

He said pushing water out of tofu is Te. I would really love to hear how that makes sense. Or shopping in aisles. Or any of the examples. Let's get down to brass tacks here. It is nonsense. Others have already given counter examples of how those behaviors could be nearly any function. It isn't like he slightly missed the mark, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what this subject is even supposed to cover and what REAL subjects outside this one actually do cover. I realize ignorant people who don't know how the world really works will attribute nearly any part of psychology/biology to type, but it is a fantasy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,423 Posts
I've seen this a lot lately, and people vastly confuse these two functions. Specifically, they confuse inferior quality Te and dominant quality Ti to be Te, because they get hung up on the "external" aspect of Te to concretely mean organizing the external world.

The problem, however, is that this is not what is meant when we understand a function to be focused on the object. When a function is extroverted or object-focused, it does not literally mean "what is outside of you"; to use Te as a part of your function stack, especially in the ego, does not make you a stickler of wanting to organize the world around you based on the MBTI J stereotype (that's actually more of a Ti thing); what it means is how the function understands information in the world. To make it even clearer:

All functions deal with the object world because it is not humanly possible to not interact with the object world in some way. You'd be braindead.

What makes a function introverted or extroverted, then, depends on how they interpret data and information of this object world.


An introvert interprets information through a subjective filter, of how the information is understood via the self but an extrovert is interested in seeing objects as they are. Specifically, when dealing with Te vs Ti, Te is interested in what objects can do, what logical results they yield. In socionics Te is therefore sometimes referred to as algorithmic logic which makes sense, because algorithms focus on the results. That Te ends up focusing on modes of production and efficiency is thus a logical result of Te's desire to understand the logical results of objects.

Ti, on the other hand, is the very opposite of this. Ti wants to understand how to define something, what something is. Definitions do not treat the object world in itself because if it would, we wouldn't need to first define it in order to understand its logical properties. Definitions therefore arise based on the subject's understanding of the world. A logical result of this drive of Ti seeking to first needing to define the object world in a logical way is its desire to create categories and hierarchies and once these are established, it is easy to check the logical consistency of a claim against what it is defined to be. Consider this: maths has a subjective factor and that factor is that we happen to call one number 2 and this number is greater than 1. We could call it yellow, we could call it YuWuA or anything, really, but in this case, we happened to call it 2. Based on this underlying subjective assumption that we've made, we have crafted an entire mode of thinking of how to systematize and categorize the world to the point we deem it to be an "objective truth" and incompletely infallible. I am not necessarily discrediting the fact that there are laws of the universe that we can observe by mere existence, but what I am raising awareness of is how maths for example attempts to classify these laws and understand their logical relationships, how they connect and are consistent within the framework we have proposed.

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. To put it more practically in the perspective of Te, I know I can buy a bag of apples that costs 2 dollars. How I got the money to buy the bag of apples is irrelevant. For Ti, if dealing with the same question, it would first have to define what a bag of apples is. We could reasonably say that grass is a type of apple and grass is free, so therefore I get an infinite amount of bags of apples for 2 dollars. I'm of course being somewhat facetious because I am unsure how to provide a better example of Ti, but the point remains that I've seen this kind of solipsist argument from Ti doms all the time and how they attempt to shift goalposts in rhetorical debate by changing the entire premise of what is being argued even if it seems to be extremely removed from reality that we actually operate in.

See, Te doesn't care about what a bag of apples is because it takes the object for what it is. A bag of apples is a bag of apples, why do we need to question that? What is again more interesting is what I can do with this bag of apples, like being able to eat the apples in it. If taking the example further, can I slice my apples in several parts? Does this make it easier to eat? Bingo, we've now invented silverware because it helps us to manipulate the apples as objects in the object world in a way that creates clear logical results. Ti, on the other hand, if inventing silverware, would be concerned about what a spoon is vs a fork to a knife to a spork and so on and so forth and how they are different or what makes them different from each other. It creates hierarchies and systems. 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.

This is really what Te and Ti are and what they do.

It's about how we interpret the world that defines whether we are dealing with extroverted or introverted cognition, not necessarily what we do in it. That your mom likes to organize your library has therefore nothing to do with Te, that's Ti, and that your brother rather shops for groceries by always sticks to the aisles by doing each aisle one by one very methodologically until he's gotten all he wants exactly as organized within the store, that's Ti too, NOT Te. 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.
I think you´re too focused on single functions. Always analyze behaviour as the result of the first 2 functions. (sometimes the third as well and rarely, the inferior function, all depends on the situation.)

But wanting to organize a room or a library isn't a single function. First of all, Ti is a judging function so it couldn't care less about the outside world. What makes people want to organize their suroundings is a perceiving function together with a judging function. Si-Te for example. Si is annoyed by seeing a mess, Te initiates doing something about it. But that's just a very simplistic way to describe it. The real power is in the combination of the 2. The combination has properties that either single function doesn't have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
He said pushing water out of tofu is Te. I would really love to hear how that makes sense. Or shopping in aisles. Or any of the examples. Let's get down to brass tacks here. It is nonsense.
I think it means that after you notice the immediate reality, you act on it in a logical manner without much depth, catogorization, or pre-determined notions, in contrast to Ti.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
I think it means that after you notice the immediate reality, you act on it in a logical manner without much depth, catogorization, or pre-determined notions, in contrast to Ti.

How much is there to think about tofu?

Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
How much is there to think about tofu?

Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.
no, no, no. I said IN CONTRAST TO Ti. It means Ti is like that and Te is not.


How much is there to think about tofu?
I don't know. Maybe we should put a quesition about tofu in the INTP or ISTP forum to test
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu


He didn't say that pushing water out of tofu is TE.

He implied that using an object for a purpose other than the job that the object was originally designed/produced for, to obtain a desired effect, is TE.

I don't know whether this is indeed true or not; I'm here to learn, but that is obviously what he was implying.
 

·
Registered
INTP or bust
Joined
·
13,942 Posts
How much is there to think about tofu?

Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.
Tofu? Is there some sort of controversy? Can this be straightened out?

Te tofu - what is the easiest way to make it? How can it be flavored? How do we analyze its nutritious value?

Ti tofu - what kind of food is this ... as opposed to non-constructed food? Is it worthwhile eating? How can its texture enhance a meal?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
no, no, no. I said IN CONTRAST TO Ti. It means Ti is like that and Te is not.




I don't know. Maybe we should put a quesition about tofu in the INTP or ISTP forum to test

I know you mean Ti is like that. Ti categorizes. Typology categorizes. How is ordering people by functions, by type, by quadra, by enneagram, etc etc. different than grocery lists or bookkeeping? It is the same thing. Show me how that logic doesn't bridge all those examples. It seems like a smooth road to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Not discussing this with you as it's unsolicited typing and, frankly, distracts from the point of this thread. It doesn't matter what @Entropic's type is. All that matters is what's been explained in the OP and if it works as an explanation or not - and obviously from my perspective, it does work overall.
Without giving my personal opinion on anyone's type here, I do think it's relevant to the topic at hand. If one types themselves at valuing function a high in their stack, whilst really being someone who values function b instead, then their view on the functions will be warped and it makes any discussion with this person on the topic of these functions unnecessarily strained and emotionally charged.
If one is going to expand on, and/or explain, theory, it's best to know what one is talking about. And the first place to show this is by typing oneself correctly, because that's where the groundwork is.
When someone mistypes, and then proceeds to argue the functions based on their personal relation to their (mis)type (which is impossible to not do), then the basis of the argument is flawed from the get-go.


You need to have a solid foundation before you can start building a house.

So I'd say, yes, it's relevant, even if unsolicited and thus, against the forum rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
And the first place to show this is by typing oneself correctly, because that's where the groundwork is.
When someone mistypes, and then proceeds to argue the functions based on their personal relation to their (mis)type (which is impossible to not do), then the basis of the argument is flawed from the get-go.
what happens when someone disagrees that you are typed correctly even though you are? It will be the word of one against the word of the other...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
what happens when someone disagrees that you are typed correctly even though you are? It will be the word of one against the word of the other...
Whether someone is correctly typed or not doesn't rely on anyone's word; their typing will be correct, or incorrect, regardless. Actions speak louder than words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Prada — March 10, 2016...

Te doesn't give a shit about organising stuff. This is why ENTJs don't want to be leaders all the time but only when there is no one better to lead (or no one to lead at all).
Prada — September 15, 2015...

I was quite confused about my type (INTJ or ENTJ) until I discovered cognitive functions and realised just how important they are when typing people. ... I knew even before that my dream job was CEO and I'm doing my best to learn all possible skills that I think will help me achieving my goals. ...

I love leading people and I want to be as good at it as possible (just as at everything I consider important). Partly for that reason I decided to volunteer at two clubs, one of which I'm leading with two friends and the other is actually a student organisation where I have like 99.9% chance to get into board in the next election. ... Even people higher in the hierarchy already acknowledge me as the next board member. Sorry, this has no informational value, I'm just bragging here.
Isabel Myers — 1980...

Myers said:
[The E_TJ] might be called the standard executive type. There are other kinds of executives, some of them brilliantly successful. But it is doubtful whether any other type so enjoys being an executive, or works so hard to get to be one. Sometimes at an early age, a child of this type, with systematic purpose and natural interest in running things, becomes, popularity aside, the leader of the school class.
 
81 - 100 of 311 Posts
Top