Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
"Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated. This is all in part of the characteristic of being able to source logic that is not directly evident from external reality. A short extract from Carl Jung:
The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material.

Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education.
"Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true. Well "Te" doesn't have to source its "objective data" from the external, like Ni's stereotype it can magic up facts by looking deep inside sourcing data internally. It can adopt "subjectively sanctioned" ideas as Jung pointed out. What ever is pointed to it is what is granted as the object, if that seems to be a strange but "sound" concept deep within a person, it can be sourced as evidence to justify a point. However at the same time it is important to note that not all of Te's facts are equal, just because evidence it provided, it doesn't mean that the "Te" types will trust it. There is a misconception amongst some "Ti" types that "Te"s do not independently craft their own understanding of an idea since if given facts from the external, they would naturally be taken for processing without manipulation; in that mode of thought "Ti" types are said to instead independently craft their logic instead, thus not taking strict/"rigid" adherence to that external model. Whilst that is true to an extent it doesn't quite acknowledge how "Te" types craft "understanding".

But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends
"Te" can't reason on its own as it doesn't have a "subject" by default, its use in service serves of other ends. This means that it isn't the process that is directly responsible for crafting meaning. Initially this may not make sense that as a judgement it isn't responsible for crafting meaning directly. However a simple fact is that a "Te" type can take his model to another "Te" type and fail to sell his idea when the subject driving the models between the two are different. For example this can easily be notice when xSTJs and xNTJs disagree on a model of understanding whilst both respect the validity of the "Te" evidence produced. "Te" doesn't create understanding it merely a tool for which ever subjective function maybe using it.

Psychological Types - Wikisocion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
For example this can easily be notice when xSTJs and xNTJs disagree on a model of understanding whilst both respect the validity of the "Te" evidence produced.
It would be the same in all of the Te types, including EXFPs and IXFPs as well - in fact, it's probably the most pure in the inferior Te types, where it's very highly untainted by other consciously learned/conditioned elements of the person.

"Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true.
What does this even mean? I don't think this is true (if it references objective conditions of the real world, where does this fall in line? Jung pointed out that all of the extraverted functions are like "active imagination" in Ch. 10 of Psychological Types, which implies that people should be very good at using them "on-the-spot," outside of the protective incubation of their minds - is this what you're getting at on some level?). Understanding itself has nothing to do with any function in particular - it may involve some, or just involve a person's non-Jungian thinking (not a process like Jungian thinking). Hell, it can even click at the unconscious level (not intuition, btw).

Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated.
No. Te might give a person a strong locus of control over referencing facts, but it doesn't multiply anything. It draws connections and makes connections in a cause-and-effect manner (or just a divergent manner in general), like all of the other extraverted functions. So actually, it zeros in on information in a very dynamic way, while Ti would multiply facts into components of thought.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It would be the same in all of the Te types, including EXFPs and IXFPs as well - in fact, it's probably the most pure in the inferior Te types, where it's very highly untainted by other consciously learned/conditioned elements of the person.



What does this even mean? I don't think this is true (if it references objective conditions of the real world, where does this fall in line? Jung pointed out that all of the extraverted functions are like "active imagination" in Ch. 10 of Psychological Types, which implies that people should be very good at using them "on-the-spot," outside of the protective incubation of their minds - is this what you're getting at on some level?). Understanding itself has nothing to do with any function in particular - it may involve some, or just involve a person's non-Jungian thinking (not a process like Jungian thinking). Hell, it can even click at the unconscious level (not intuition, btw).



No. Te might give a person a strong locus of control over referencing facts, but it doesn't multiply anything. It draws connections and makes connections in a cause-and-effect manner (or just a divergent manner in general), like all of the other extraverted functions. So actually, it zeros in on information in a very dynamic way, while Ti would multiply facts into components of thought.
Your critique doesn't even adhere to the same evidence I put there, I find it difficult to even take it seriously. Even Celebrity Type even said so and I've got the quote there for you to see. You are just digging "facts" from your internal objects which make sense to you. Something which I've noted is a characteristic of "Te".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Your critique doesn't even adhere to the same evidence I put there, I find it difficult to even take it seriously. Even Celebrity Type even said so and I've got the quote there for you to see. You are just digging "facts" from your internal objects which make sense to you. Something which I've noted is a characteristic of "Te".
Yeah, and Celebrity Type is a more credible source than Carl Jung, lol. Internal objects would probably be stored and re-arranged in the imagination itself based on the data extracted from the environment toward the ego via the extraverted functions. Those functions aren't internal - their products can be, but they can never be.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yeah, and Celebrity Type is a more credible source than Carl Jung, lol. Internal objects would probably be stored and re-arranged in the imagination itself based on the data extracted from the environment toward the ego via the extraverted functions. Those functions aren't internal - their products can be, but they can never be.
Its your interpretation of "Jung" vs Celebrity Types interpretation of him, which really seems more reliable? Stop taking this personally, it ruins your point of view further than it appears to be. I'm guessing you have some intricate model in your mind which feels right and you are feeling frustrated about having to prove it since it sounds like crystal clear fact.

Good luck on that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,800 Posts
This kind of thread hurts my head, although i enjoy reading all the responses in hopes of learning something new. What i have learned to date with Ti-Te is the way they process and express themselves. Not making any generalizations here, although for me personally i know when someone is using Ti by the fact it reads almost backwards in my thinking process. This causes me frustration and millions of misunderstandings. If i read it over and over again i might come to some kind of resolution the angle they are coming from, but if i don't really listen and try and put pieces together, i'm going left while their going right sort of speak. That language ( or process )is not naturally for me, because it doesn't align with how i would naturally process. Te just makes perfect sense to me overall.

Anywho these thread are interesting even with different perspectives :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Its your interpretation of "Jung" vs Celebrity Types interpretation of him, which really seems more reliable? Stop taking this personally, it ruins your point of view further than it appears to be. I'm guessing you have some intricate model in your mind which feels right and you are feeling frustrated about having to prove it since it sounds like crystal clear fact.

Good luck on that
I love how your post here is 100% projection. Good luck with owning the projections. My point is, that I have no idea how it's possible from your explanation to say that Te can be internal. Obviously, everything related to the human brain is internal, essentially, so what are you trying to prove? I have a feeling we're coming from very different perspectives (schools of thought) on the functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Or, perhaps we've just tied the knot in our interpretations (I really do seriously hate how Te gets painted as something that looks almost like the antithesis of a thinking function for whatever the reasons).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Or, perhaps we've just tied the knot in our interpretations (I really do seriously hate how Te gets painted as something that looks almost like the antithesis of a thinking function for whatever the reasons).
Me too, the only reason why I actually forced myself to read Jung's stuff was because I didn't want to believe that "Ti" was superior to "Te" as it is commonly mistaken. DaveSuperPowers was all over the place with his random stereotypes, especially when he implied that only "Ti" guys can think. Apparent INTJs are suppose to be doers, they supposedly can't be at the fore point of discovery since that was a role for the "thinker" that INTPs fit perfectly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PyrLove and esq

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Me too, the only reason why I actually forced myself to read Jung's stuff was because I didn't want to believe that "Ti" was superior to "Te" as it is commonly mistaken. DaveSuperPowers was all over the place with his random stereotypes, especially when he implied that only "Ti" guys can think. Apparent INTJs are suppose to be doers, they supposedly can't be at the fore point of discovery since that was a role for the "thinker" that INTPs fit perfectly.
Oh yeah, that Ti supremacy silliness definitely got me more Jung obsessive as well (I've been to begin with, but that really did it for me - heh, I guess having intellectual obsessions makes me a mistyped Ti type now - NOT). I always thought the "doer" associations with Te were downright ridiculous - I'm usually a pretty horrendous doer (I can remember being really slow to carry out chemistry experiments in chemistry class, where my INFP lab partner was much quicker in the application department here). Isn't DaveSuperPowers supposedly an INTJ (and supposedly the guy who was convinced that sensors' eyes demonstrate a more primitive mentality in them due to their dominant function - if not, this guy was similar to who I think DaveSP might've been)?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Oh yeah, that Ti supremacy silliness definitely got me more Jung obsessive as well (I've been to begin with, but that really did it for me - heh, I guess having intellectual obsessions makes me a mistyped Ti type now - NOT). I always thought the "doer" associations with Te were downright ridiculous - I'm usually a pretty horrendous doer (I can remember being really slow to carry out chemistry experiments in chemistry class, where my INFP lab partner was much quicker in the application department here). Isn't DaveSuperPowers supposedly an INTJ (and supposedly the guy who was convinced that sensors' eyes demonstrate a more primitive mentality in them due to their dominant function - if not, this guy was similar to who I think DaveSP might've been)?
Socionics says the truth when it says that "Ni"s don't do enough living we've got inertia issues. Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion plus ENTJs are said to be very similar to their introverted counterparts with the only exception that they start with the facts before intuiting, they aren't seen to be really different or intellectually inferior as suggested by MBTI's stereotypes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
Socionics says the truth when it says that "Ni" don't do enough living we've got inertia issues. Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion plus ENTJs are said to be very similar to their introverted counterparts with the only exception that they starts with the facts before intuiting, they aren't seen to be really different or intellectually inferior as suggested by MBTI's stereotypes.
Yeah, the ENTJ stereotypes are so out-in-left-field, I tend to wonder if some disgruntled Fi dominants (or even Ti dominants) with agendas write those. The ENTJs I know tend to be highly intelligent people who are really sharp with being able to come to accurate conclusions on the spot from logical presumptions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
On a random side note, it seriously cracks me up (and disturbs me even more all-at-once) how the Fe dominants on that Socionics website get painted like all-talk, no substance politicians who can get away with not using logic (so, technically, this would make them clinically insane, since lack of logic is the hallmark of an irrational state of mind) and throwing empty rhetoric out while they act like their functioning from intensive hormonal reactions. I know tons of Fe dominant professors who are nothing like this (they aren't oblivious to the events and what's going on around them either like that description entails - I don't even know how anyone can survive like this). Good grief, it's a wonder I'm a Jungian purist at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esq

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
This thread is really dark. Why no avatar?

Jung, what's your opinion on Socionics? You deem it unworthy?
You talking to me? If so, well, I think it's sort of this oversimplified system like MBTI that tries harder to adhere to Jungian principles, which is good, but in trying to depict the functions, does it in a bit of a crude, stereotypical way (in other words, it tries too hard to animate the functions to assign them to the real world, but also tries to dumb it down for the public, while getting a bit overly presumptuous about their manifestations and what they might mean for different types, which is inevitably what happens with type descriptions anyway, since they don't use real people to verify them with or assign the descriptions/ideas/principles to instead). It's like a more sophisticated take on MBTI, but I think MBTI frankly does a better job of representing the individual functions (it's less presumptuous about the functions, anyway). They're both rough and cartoony when it comes to representing real people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
"Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated. This is all in part of the characteristic of being able to source logic that is not directly evident from external reality. ...

"Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true. Well "Te" doesn't have to source its "objective data" from the external, like Ni's stereotype it can magic up facts by looking deep inside sourcing data internally. It can adopt "subjectively sanctioned" ideas as Jung pointed out.
Um, yeah, speaking of pulling stuff out of one's ass...

You want to talk about Te? Let's talk about Te.

First of all, I don't think anybody really follows Jung's conception of Te very closely today, including cognitive function theorists like Nardi, Berens and Thomson. Jung didn't miss the boat as badly on Te as he did on, say, Si, but Myers (rightly) corrected him in major respects, and Nardi, Berens and (I think) virtually all modern cognitive function theorists pretty much incorporate Myers' improvements. But — setting that issue aside for the moment — assuming someone was interested in learning about Jung's original conception of Te, your OP would certainly be a poor place to start.

FYI, Jung believed there were two very different categories of ideas that constitute products of "extraverted thinking." Both kinds are extraverted by virtue of the fact that they basically come from outside the subject, but they come from outside in two completely different ways.

The first category is ideas that constitute what Jung called "concretistic" thinking, by which he meant ideas that are very closely tied to external physical facts, with a relatively low level (at most) of abstraction. As Jung explained, concretistic thinking involves concepts that are "not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception." Jung noted that, "o far as the recognition of facts is concerned this orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual. Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data." Not to put too fine a point on it, Jung thought extraverts in general (not just Te-doms) tended to be somewhat crippled thinkers when it came to dealing with highly abstract concepts.

And the second category of ideas that Jung said could be products of extraverted thinking are more abstract ("purely ideal") ideas that "come from outside" as far as the particular thinker is concerned because he didn't think of them himself, but got them from external sources — ideas "borrowed from outside, i.e., ... transmitted by tradition and education," as Jung described it. Jung viewed extraverted thinking types as conservative traditionalists when it came to their abstract ideals. He said they tended to adopt the "generally accepted ideas" of the time rather than coming up with original ideas of their own.

In your OP, you completely misinterpret the sentence where Jung refers to "subjectively sanctioned" ideas. Here's the sentence in context (from the Collected Works translation, which superseded the original Baynes translation):

Jung said:
Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge—does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective?
What Jung says is that an idea that's a product of Te is either "determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned." And in the next sentence, he explains, "Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education."

In other words, again, Jung viewed "extraverted thinking" as either involving (1) ideas that were "embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception" at the expense of subjective interpretation, or (2) more abstract ideas that the extraverted thinker "borrowed" from outside because they were the "generally accepted ideas" of his time and place, rather than abstract ideas that he came up with himself. The "subjectively sanctioned" reference that you completely misunderstood was Jung explaining that the fact that the Te-dom ends up "subjectively sanctioning" an idea — i.e., deciding that he personally agrees with it — doesn't change the fact that the idea's source was external, because otherwise, as far as Jung was concerned, it wouldn't constitute "extraverted thinking."

===================================

And while I have your attention, let me expand on my initial comment that almost nobody today — with the exception of annoyingly uninformed internet forumites — makes use of Jung's original conception of Te.

Who are the Te-doms (in terms of the MBTI types)? ESTJs and ENTJs. Do ESTJs tend to be somewhat fact-oriented "concrete" thinkers? Yep; that's pretty much their S at work, right? And do their ideas tend to be largely "borrowed from outside" (conventional/traditional)? Yep; they're SJs, right? You could see an ESTJ squawking that some of Jung's characterizations sell him short (in terms of abstract thinking ability, for example), but still, so far (at least arguably) so good. But wait... what about ENTJs? Oops. Concretistic thinkers? Not hardly. Tending to mostly favor conventional/traditional ideas "borrowed from outside"? Well, no, actually. And the main problem is that extraversion, as Jung conceived it, was what we today would think of as more of a combination of E and S. So Jung's "extraverted thinkers" weren't E_TJs; his description really only works (to the extent that it does) for ESTJs.

And Myers recognized that. After a short chapter in Gifts Differing where she dutifully provided four pages of tables summarizing Jung's conceptions of the cognitive functions (including, for Te, "Is fed from objective data — facts and borrowed ideas"; and "Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance"), she went on to abandon those aspects of Jung's characterization in her own descriptions of E_TJs (except, to a limited extent, in her ESTJ description). Myers' description of ENTJs aptly notes that they "look at the world with intuition rather than sensing, so they are mainly interested in the possibilities beyond the present, obvious or known," singles out their "tolerance for theory" and "taste for complex problems" and says they're "likely to be expert at finding new solutions."

To Myers, E_TJs were "analytical and impersonal" types driven to "organize the facts — and everything else within reach." She said they're "decisive, logical, strong in reasoning power," "aim to govern their own conduct and other people's in accordance with thought-out conclusions," and "value truth in the form of fact, formula, and method."

Look at, say, Berens' or Thomson's descriptions of Te and ENTJs and ESTJs and you'll see that they basically adopt Myers' adjustments to Jung — including her all-important transplantation of abstract/concrete from I/E to N/S.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
@reckful
"Nardi, Berens and Thomson..." if someone work is garbage it is so regardless of what time it is in. They are creating their own theories where they create their own subjective truth. They have their own theories from what I've seen and its not really conclusive.

Your critique does nothing really, you still don't understand what "subjectively sanctification" ideas is but what ever works for you.

You really misunderstand Jung and way this isn't the first time people have attempted to dump Nardi's material without much thought. From what I've seen he hasn't really found solid ground and he has practically started to create his own theory where the functions are different. He seems like he is trying to coerce his data around the ideas his presented. Nardi is some kind of Ti type when typing him according to Jung's definition of the functions (he might be possibly extroverted but that might be another story). Had nardi been a Te type, I would expect his introverted perception to coerce itself losely around the poor facts his found. Jung's generally looks more impressive than his since he actually attempted to adhere as strictly as possible, to the object.

I'm actually hoping that my dissertation doesn't actually lean towards the subjective, the way I may want to coerce the objective to suit my subjective understanding. But that is a random lesson I've learnt from Jung.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful
"Nardi, Berens and Thomson..." if someone work is garbage it is so regardless of what time it is in. They are creating their own theories where they create their own subjective truth. They have their own theories from what I've seen and its not really conclusive.

Your critique does nothing really, you still don't understand what "subjectively sanctification" ideas is but what ever works for you.
As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.

And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.

And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.
I read your post son, I actually spent a couple of minutes digesting it, trying to understand the logic, evidence that guided your perception; naturally since I didn't agree with it. And what I realized is the issue of multiplying "facts" that Te is well known for is also in your model of understanding where you ascend Nardi and Myers work based on the fact that it is a lot more recent than Jung; I'm not really buying some of those facts you've multiplied from your psyche. If the evidence is crystal clear, without any gap feeling from the subjectively sanctioned, I'm able to see so, as naturally my Te follows the highest order of evidence confirmed by objective reality. However in truth this isn't always easy to attain hence facts are naturally multiplied.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
As I suspect you know (unless you barely read my post, which I suppose is a distinct possibility), the fact that Myers adjusted Jung — and that Nardi, Berens, Thomson and others have essentially followed her lead — was a secondary point in my post, the main part of which explained how, "setting that issue aside," your OP badly mischaracterized Jung's original conception of Te.

And, as I suspect you also know, and not surprisingly, your latest post is a total non-reply on that issue.
You left the edits I had made as I'd continued to think about your position and how I came to a conclusion on Nardi. The guy still has a lot of work to do under his belt and he must lesson his orientation towards the subjective.
Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education.
Plus dude you left out the punctuation in "Jung" description that points to evidence created by Te having a subjective sanction. I don't know how don't realize that the idea of "Te" pulling evidence out of its ass makes sense. Its like a "Te" type saying god exists/doesn't exists using subjective premises, subjectively sanctioned ideas that can make both either part be certain that they have the superior answers as to their chosen position over god's existance or non existance.

That is all part of the multiplying facts aspect that "Te" has, a person can take an inconclusive subject model and use it as evidence (in which process the "objectification" process emerges).
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top