Personality Cafe banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

10,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So you have self concluded you're a predominantly Ti dom or aux...

I am curious how you would describe this process in progress.

I am going to give a few scenarios:

If there is an ethics debate, hmm let's pretend it's about abortion. How do you formulate and process your conclusions. Should abortion be legal? (I don't really fricken care about your stance let's make that clear this is not an ethics debate on a stance either direction, it's about how you would describe your process for analysis).

Sally gives 5 shits about economics but only documents 4 shits, Harry gives 2 shits about ethics but Later adds 1 shit, Courtney gives zero give a fucks about logic but documents one give a fuck, Tom gives ten fucks about fine arts. How many give a fucks was given?

When arguing about cognitive functions how likely are you to quote other data to confirm, back up, or legitimize an argument?

5,417 Posts
If I'm trying to make a point, I'll try to back it up with relevant data. But if there is no data to back something up, it's bs. As far as ethics goes, I do have a code AI follow. I'm all for individual rights so what other people do is none of my business actually. If someone wants to get an abortion, they can. It's upto them. Who am I to judge? Why should I judge? As far as ethical issues go, it's so much easier to not give a shit than it is to stay invested.

Facts actually play a huge role in my decision making process. I think I am capable of looking at things objectively and seeing them for what they are. I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to know?

1,087 Posts
For me atleast, I guess it depends on perspective based on how much I know about the topic, prior to tackling it. Large topics, such as abortion and ethics requires that one has fleshed out enough information (pros and cons), to understand both sides - before taking a stance; and even then opinions may be ill-informed. It also depends on my principles as well as how involved I am to aforementioned topic. These, among other things, determine what I deem to be right and wrong. If what I deem to be right and wrong "is not (objectively)" right and wrong, I am either ill informed. On the other hand, if it's a subjective opinion imposed on me without a sense of validity, I will not budge (I'll probably take it into consideration though, lol).

It's a super evasive thought process based on what I deem valid/invalid, but I don't know if it's because of Ne (or me being a special snowflake).


How significant are the "give/not-give a/- fuck(s)" and "give/not-give a/- shit(s)", and how does it impact overall decision making on topics such as economics, ethics, logic and fine arts? Does documentation add additional significance and does it count if documented or not? Important questions. And why do Sally, Harry, Courtney and Tom matter? I refuse to answer :mad:!


Rational茅 first and support it with references if necessary (it's usually not, but I have sources).

I try to reason out my opinions along with my thought process and assume it's enough - if it's contested, I evaluate and bring my references to the discussion (if necessary, to verify if my source is valid/invalid), and if it's wrong/flawed it's rectified - but not without reason.

Discussions here are not scientific journals, I don't need a bibliography to validate every single one of my posts. I leave it open for discussion. If contested - then sure, bring sources to the table, so both parties can learn.

But then again, this is my style of thinking - which may be influenced by a bunch of different factors (environment/enneagram etc.). I'd like to see what others think.
  • Like
Reactions: Sensational

5,331 Posts
Dunno, I just know I'm a Ti user because everyone gets butthurt when I speak to them.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts