Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 42 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 · (Edited)
@reckful
MBTI ruined a lot of Jung's work as they tried to make it more accessible to people. Socionics which came later does fair job of adhering to most of Jung's principles which were sound by the way. Jung was very objective and his work is of a high quality, the guys in the modern age have advantage of trying to bridge his work with neuroscience but from the looks of it they don't really have things that are firmly concrete. Most of the theories in neuroscience are bull shit when actually trying to apply them to a meaningful concept, as my dissertation is in A.I. I've learnt quite a lot that in my field the theories from biology are largely shunned when trying to adapt the techniques for A.I.; neural networks could not even make sense for programmers as they do in biology which is why ANN (artificial neural networks) were created trying to the add benefits the principle had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ellis Bell

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Celebrity Types is an acceptable source of information but Nardi, Berens, and Myers are not?


*confused*
They are not, just different, they seem to have different definitions of the functions. They say that the shadow functions rise to consciousness from the subconscious, apparently everyone has 8 functions. But Jung says that the subconscious (Shadow) functions remain in the there; Yet they always rise to prominence. At first that seems contradictory since if one assumes that the "subconscious" part of a person is always hidden. However that wasn't the definition since the subconscious is the part of the psyche that people have no conscious control over, hence the principle of where lie detectors come from (all influenced by Jung, who even made tests in the pasts without the proper equipment used nowadays).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
@reckful
MBTI ruined a lot of Jung's work as they tried to make it more accessible to people.
My post partly described the corrections (particularly from an ENTJ's standpoint) Myers made to Jung's original conception of Te, some of which followed from her recognition that Jung had mixed together two components (at least) of human temperament (I/E and N/S) in his broad and (overly) multifaceted conceptions of introversion and extraversion.

Were it not for Isabel Myers' work, it's quite possible few of this forum's members would ever have heard of Jung's ideas about personality. As I understand it, Psychological Types received a relatively unappreciative reception from the psychological community and mostly languished for years until Myers developed her typology, which reflected countless corrections and improvements to Jung's ideas. Properly understood, and as a theory for understanding the normal-range aspects of personality that tend to remain relatively stable over a lifetime, the Myers-Briggs typology represented a big advance beyond Psychological Types. Fifty years and many studies later, Myers' four dichotomies (three of which differ significantly from Jung's original conceptions of them) have generally been found to exhibit reasonable degrees of validity and reliability (by the soft-science standards of personality psychology) and appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors of personality. The fact that the Big Five typology was independently developed, also has many years of accumulated data behind it, and has ended up lining up reasonably well with the MBTI dichotomies — which Myers described earlier — is further confirmation of the impressiveness of Briggs' and Myers' insights in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, making a number of appropriate corrections and expansions, and shifting the central focus from the eight functions to the four dichotomies.

Meanwhile, how are Jung's eight cognitive functions doing in the academic community?

Well, McCrae and Costa are probably the most prominent Big Five psychologists, and on top of concluding (see this article) that the four MBTI dichotomies are essentially (albeit with some variation) tapping into four of the five Big Five factors (and that the accumulated data provides reasonable support for the MBTI dichotomies), they've also pointed out that "the MBTI may be looked upon as an advance over Jung's largely untested speculations," and that Jung's original conceptions of the types are not supported by the data.

And here's a recent article from a journal published by the owners of the MBTI in which James Reynierse notes that there are now decades of studies (including some of his own) that provide support for the four MBTI dichotomies, as compared to an almost complete lack of support for the cognitive functions. Reynierse concludes that the cognitive functions constitute what he calls a "category mistake," and explains why. You might want to open your mind and take a look.

It's clear from your posts that your own understanding of Jung's ideas, and of the adjustments Briggs and Myers made to them, isn't even close to being sufficient for you to be making the kind of overall assessment of the MBTI that you made in your latest post.

As one example, my first post pointed out how far off your OP was in its misinterpretation of Jung's conception of Te. And the fact that you continue to refuse to either admit you were wrong or defend your interpretation — meanwhile making irrelevant remarks about Nardi (who I'm no fan of) and AI and the MBTI "ruining a lot of Jung's work" — suggests to me you've got integrity issues compounding your ignorance.

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

As a final note, and so I'm not misunderstood: Notwithstanding what McCrae and Costa and Reynierse may have concluded about the eight "cognitive functions," I haven't taken a definite, final position that they're a complete mistake, and I certainly don't think anyone else is currently in a position to say that their nonexistence has been firmly established. But in the face of internet forumites who assert (or imply) that the cognitive functions are what it's really all about and/or that the four MBTI dichotomies are some kind of dumbed-down and/or superficial overlay that was just formulated for testing purposes or that's mostly comprised of silly behavioral stereotypes or bla bla bla, I'm often moved to point out that, outside the internet forum echo chamber, the four dichotomies remain the elements of Jungian/MBTI typology that are better supported by the data and more widely accepted in the psychological community.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
My post partly described the corrections (particularly from an ENTJ's standpoint) Myers made to Jung's original conception of Te, some of which followed from her recognition that Jung had mixed together two components (at least) of human temperament (I/E and N/S) in his broad and (overly) multifaceted conceptions of introversion and extraversion.

Were it not for Isabel Myers' work, it's quite possible few of this forum's members would ever have heard of Jung's ideas about personality. As I understand it, Psychological Types received a relatively unappreciative reception from the psychological community and mostly languished for years until Myers developed her typology, which reflected countless corrections and improvements to Jung's ideas. Properly understood, and as a theory for understanding the normal-range aspects of personality that tend to remain relatively stable over a lifetime, the Myers-Briggs typology represented a big advance beyond Psychological Types. Fifty years and many studies later, Myers' four dichotomies (three of which differ significantly from Jung's original conceptions of them) have generally been found to exhibit reasonable degrees of validity and reliability (by the soft-science standards of personality psychology) and appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors of personality. The fact that the Big Five typology was independently developed, also has many years of accumulated data behind it, and has ended up lining up reasonably well with the MBTI dichotomies — which Myers described earlier — is further confirmation of the impressiveness of Briggs' and Myers' insights in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, making a number of appropriate corrections and expansions, and shifting the central focus from the eight functions to the four dichotomies.

Meanwhile, how are Jung's eight cognitive functions doing in the academic community?

Well, McCrae and Costa are probably the most prominent Big Five psychologists, and on top of concluding (see this article) that the four MBTI dichotomies are essentially (albeit with some variation) tapping into four of the five Big Five factors (and that the accumulated data provides reasonable support for the MBTI dichotomies), they've also pointed out that "the MBTI may be looked upon as an advance over Jung's largely untested speculations," and that Jung's original conceptions of the types are not supported by the data.

And here's a recent article from a journal published by the owners of the MBTI in which James Reynierse notes that there are now decades of studies (including some of his own) that provide support for the four MBTI dichotomies, as compared to an almost complete lack of support for the cognitive functions. Reynierse concludes that the cognitive functions constitute what he calls a "category mistake," and explains why. You might want to open your mind and take a look.

It's clear from your posts that your own understanding of Jung's ideas, and of the adjustments Briggs and Myers made to them, isn't even close to being sufficient for you to be making the kind of overall assessment of the MBTI that you made in your latest post.

As one example, my first post pointed out how far off your OP was in its misinterpretation of Jung's conception of Te. And the fact that you continue to refuse to either admit you were wrong or defend your interpretation — meanwhile making irrelevant remarks about Nardi (who I'm no fan of) and AI and the MBTI "ruining a lot of Jung's work" — suggests to me you've got integrity issues compounding your ignorance.

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

As a final note, and so I'm not misunderstood: Notwithstanding what McCrae and Costa and Reynierse may have concluded about the eight "cognitive functions," I haven't taken a definite, final position that they're a complete mistake, and I certainly don't think anyone else is currently in a position to say that their nonexistence has been firmly established. But in the face of internet forumites who assert (or imply) that the cognitive functions are what it's really all about and/or that the four MBTI dichotomies are some kind of dumbed-down and/or superficial overlay that was just formulated for testing purposes or that's mostly comprised of silly behavioral stereotypes or bla bla bla, I'm often moved to point out that, outside the internet forum echo chamber, the four dichotomies remain the elements of Jungian/MBTI typology that are better supported by the data and more widely accepted in the psychological community.
Socionics makes more sense in comparison to MBTI. You still remain stubborn but I guess you are coming from other subjective definitions, you refuse to see past throught it. You have multiplied your facts upto a point were you simply realised they are untranslatable to others, something Jung noted I don't know ho you can't see through that.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
@reckful
http://leadu-library.com/mj/2007/club/MBTI/MBTI-5factor.pdf
Matey the article above is merely somebody's subjective analysis that does very little to create any objective truth. They are merely trying to coerce they data into their own subjective analysis. There is too much objective data missing hence the interpretation is strongly leaned to their desired subjective position. The big 5 personality theory is just too subjective.

This just one of the reasons why people largely look down on psychology, there is very little objectivity. Hence the neuro network example I'd pulled up.

MBTI is largely crippled and that isn't really news once you start to look at it, socionics is a lot more sound than it; but again psychology generally suffers from the same flaws.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
@reckful

And
here's a recent article from a journal published by the owners of the MBTI in which James Reynierse notes that there are now decades of studies (including some of his own) that provide support for the four MBTI dichotomies, as compared to an almost complete lack of support for the cognitive functions. Reynierse concludes that the cognitive functions constitute what he calls a "category mistake," and explains why. You might want to open your mind and take a look.
This article was largely a huge waste of my time, starting from the abstract and going to the conclusion. His category mistake accusation is either inconclusive or clearly stating the obvious fact that Jung could never be able to get into people's minds finding hard science evidence for his claims.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
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."
Even when "subjectively sanctioned", in what sense?

Anyway, this description seems to work for me as MBTI TJ type, too.


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.
No, this description is not about ESTJs or ENTJs, it's about "pure" Te as dominant function. Don't expect it to fit either ESTJs or ENTJs in that form. It's not meant to.


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."
This is simply because of what the quote itself says - the ENTJ has intuition too, not just Te.


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."
Yes, this fits Jung's Te well.


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.
Clearly, the abstract/concrete thing isn't really the issue there.

Anyway, there are different meanings of these words. So it depends on which meaning is used here as to whether it's I/E or N/S or whatever else. Not that I care about these nuances, just saying.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
No, this description is not about ESTJs or ENTJs, it's about "pure" Te as dominant function. Don't expect it to fit either ESTJs or ENTJs in that form. It's not meant to.
One of the lamer canards that pops up with semi-regularity at internet forums is the one that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or otherwise unusual) portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to all introverts and all extraverts. Chapter 10 is the only place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less typical characteristics of his types?

And he did.

And when somebody's confused on that issue, it usually turns out that the source of their confusion is a misinterpretation of this Jung passage from Chapter 10, which comes at the start of his discussion of the auxiliary function:

In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.​

What Jung is saying in this passage is that his eight portraits are artifically "pure" portraits in the sense of leaving out the "individual features" that tend to distinguish, say, one Te-dom from another Te-dom —and, most notably, a Te-dom with an N-aux from a Te-dom with an S-aux. (It's important to remember that the sentence about the "pure form" was at the start of the paragraph where Jung introduces the reader to the auxiliary function.)

And by contrast, when it comes to the characteristics that derive from Te, and will therefore tend to found in Te-doms generally (i.e., ENTJs and ESTJs both), Jung says that his portraits concentrate on "the common and therefore typical features" of the type. So it makes no sense to claim that the features Jung described as "common" and "typical" of Te-doms were features he thought would only show up in rare cases.

As a final (maybe) clarification with respect to the relationship between the "purity" Jung is referring to and the auxiliary function, please note that there's a big difference between saying (1) that Jung's portraits are artificially "pure" in the sense of omitting the features that would vary depending on which auxiliary function someone had, and (2) that the people Jung is describing are the "pure" people who don't have an auxiliary function. Jung makes it clear that he thought it was overwhelmingly typical to have an auxiliary function — and in fact, he went so far as to say (at the end of the passage I quoted) that an auxiliary function is "invariably present in consciousness." So... there's no way Jung would have described Te characteristics that were only present in some rare no-auxiliary-function subset of Te-doms as characteristics that were the "common and therefore typical" features of the type.

If you're interested, you can find a somewhat longer discussion of this issue here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
One of the lamer canards that pops up with semi-regularity at internet forums
I don't think there is a need to use personal qualifiers like "lamer".


is the one that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or otherwise unusual) portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to all introverts and all extraverts. Chapter 10 is the only place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less typical characteristics of his types?
Strawman. This is not what I was talking about. Same issue with the post you linked to.

It should be obvious that the description of "pure" Te as a dominant function means that it's about the typical characteristics of the Te-dom type. Without any auxiliary added.


In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.

What Jung is saying in this passage is that his eight portraits are artifically "pure" portraits in the sense of leaving out the "individual features" that tend to distinguish, say, one Te-dom from another Te-dom —and, most notably, a Te-dom with an N-aux from a Te-dom with an S-aux. (It's important to remember that the sentence about the "pure form" was at the start of the paragraph where Jung introduces the reader to the auxiliary function.)
Yes this was my point.


And by contrast, when it comes to the characteristics that derive from Te, and will therefore tend to found in Te-doms generally (i.e., ENTJs and ESTJs both), Jung says that his portraits concentrate on "the common and therefore typical features" of the type. So it makes no sense to claim that the features Jung described as "common" and "typical" of Te-doms were features he thought would only show up in rare cases.
Where did I claim such a thing that it's about some rarity?


As a final (maybe) clarification with respect to the relationship between the "purity" Jung is referring to and the auxiliary function, please note that there's a big difference between saying (1) that Jung's portraits are artificially "pure" in the sense of omitting the features that would vary depending on which auxiliary function someone had, and (2) that the people Jung is describing are the "pure" people who don't have an auxiliary function. Jung makes it clear that he thought it was overwhelmingly typical to have an auxiliary function — and in fact, he went so far as to say (at the end of the passage I quoted) that an auxiliary function is "invariably present in consciousness." So... there's no way Jung would have described Te characteristics that were only present in some rare no-auxiliary-function subset of Te-doms as characteristics that were the "common and therefore typical" features of the type.
My point was interpretation (1). It's just a description with exaggerated typical characteristics of the dominant function, yeah, so don't expect it to fit 100% the ESTJ or the ENTJ because those are profiles with other nuances added (from the auxiliary).

One more note on your other post you linked to. I don't subscribe to Jung blindly. So don't stereotype me into that category of people. Otoh, I think you don't want to own up to the fact that Myers got quite a bit wrong too. :p I myself don't see either system as the Bible.


Anyway. I had a question for you, can you answer it? How is "subjectively sanctioned" meant for the jungian Te-dom? Just simply what you said in your other post, that the Te-dom personally accepts the external idea? Does the jungian Ti-dom think of every single idea themselves?
 

· Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
That moment you realise someone's about to be converted over to the dichotomies.
:hopelessness:


Run, istj!
Quickly, while there's still time!

:laughing:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Where did I claim such a thing that it's about some rarity?
...
My point was interpretation (1). It's just a description with exaggerated typical characteristics of the dominant function, yeah, so don't expect it to fit 100% the ESTJ or the ENTJ because those are profiles with other nuances added (from the auxiliary).
...
Anyway. I had a question for you, can you answer it? How is "subjectively sanctioned" meant for the jungian Te-dom? Just simply what you said in your other post, that the Te-dom personally accepts the external idea? Does the jungian Ti-dom think of every single idea themselves?
I disagree that Jung meant that the Te characteristics that he described as "the common and therefore typical features" of Te-doms were exaggerated in his portraits. He just meant that his portraits were incomplete, because they didn't include the additional characteristics that would be characteristic of Te-doms with a particular auxiliary.

And I had no way of knowing exactly what you meant by your reference to a "pure" type, but there is (as I said) a frequently-encountered canard at internet forums where people refer to "pure" Jungian types as a relatively unusual phenomenon, and claim that those are the only people that are really well captured by Jung's Chapter 10 descriptions.

And I'm always happy to put in my contrary $0.02 on that issue for any interested thread readers, regardless of whether that group included you in this particular case.

On your last question, in the context of that Te-dom description, yes, when Jung wrote "even when it is subjectively sanctioned," he was just noting that the fact that an individual Te-dom has accepted the idea doesn't keep it from being extraverted if it was essentially "determined by" (or "borrowed from") the outside, rather than being a product of the the internally-focused process that Jung viewed as introverted thinking.

But on the other hand, I certainly assume Jung didn't think that a Ti-dom "thinks of every single idea themselves." That just sounds like a straw-manny question to me. And I assume that he also didn't think that a Te-dom never comes up with an original (individually-sourced) idea.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
That moment you realise someone's about to be converted over to the dichotomies.
:hopelessness:

Run, istj!
Quickly, while there's still time!

:laughing:
Haha um what made you think this?


I disagree that Jung meant that the Te characteristics that he described as "the common and therefore typical features" of Te-doms were exaggerated in his portraits. He just meant that his portraits were incomplete, because they didn't include the additional characteristics that would be characteristic of Te-doms with a particular auxiliary.
He said it's general characteristics, so yes, in that sense it will most definitely be exaggerated. I meant nothing more and nothing less. Yes, it will not include the additional characteristics which is what I already said.

So, that's why his Te-dom profile doesn't entirely match ENTJ or ESTJ and this is actually to be expected. Which doesn't mean Jung was right in everything, either. Or MBTI. Etc.


And I had no way of knowing exactly what you meant by your reference to a "pure" type, but there is (as I said) a frequently-encountered canard at internet forums where people refer to "pure" Jungian types as a relatively unusual phenomenon, and claim that those are the only people that are really well captured by Jung's Chapter 10 descriptions.
Well but you understand now that I'm not in that group. Next time maybe you don't want to jump the gun so fast.


And I'm always happy to put in my contrary $0.02 on that issue for any interested thread readers, regardless of whether that group included you in this particular case.
Sure, no problem.


On your last question, in the context of that Te-dom description, yes, when Jung wrote "even when it is subjectively sanctioned," he was just noting that the fact that an individual Te-dom has accepted the idea doesn't keep it from being extraverted if it was essentially "determined by" (or "borrowed from") the outside, rather than being a product of the the internally-focused process that Jung viewed as introverted thinking.

But on the other hand, I certainly assume Jung didn't think that a Ti-dom "thinks of every single idea themselves." That just sounds like a straw-manny question to me. And I assume that he also didn't think that a Te-dom never comes up with an original (individually-sourced) idea.
I was just curious about this phrasing by Jung. Let me explain below but first, yes, I did word it less than perfectly where I referred to it as the Ti-dom thinking of all ideas themselves, I should have said just Ti as in, the Ti function, not Ti-dom. Since, I would think the Te-dom still has Ti too in the "background", the Thinking process is just mainly extraverted in the consciousness. And vice versa, for Ti-dom with Te. IIRC Jung did say something like this, too.

So how the Te-dom accepts the idea subjectively, not simply accepting it, but accepting it subjectively without using the Ti process for that is what I found interesting here. My guess is still that Jung may have meant that the Te will still have the introverted side behind.

There's a model in another theory (Socionics) that says both Ti and Te will be able to take ideas from outside, just Ti will process differently. I would think that's much clearer btw than Jung's model. I would still not see it as a perfect model but I like this change in it.
 

· Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
Haha um what made you think this?

@reckful is a dichotomies guy. He doesn't believe in functions. He squashes functionite's swiftly with 'scientific evidence' and various links and source's. :rolleyes:

I don't hold it against him though, since he does know the theories well, he's probably the most knowledgeable member who posts here.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
@reckful is a dichotomies guy. He doesn't believe in functions. He squashes functionite's swiftly with 'scientific evidence' and various links and source's. :rolleyes:

I don't hold it against him though, since he does know the theories well, he's probably the most knowledgeable member who posts here.
Gotcha. :)

Yeah I can see he knows his facts well.

Tbh I don't believe in functions in such a strict way either, I just see them as parts of cognitive patterns of thinking in general. But I don't entirely dismiss all of the observations like @reckful does, since some of them are valid. The function models I don't really believe in "as is", some ideas are too speculative to me.
 

· Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
Gotcha. :)

Yeah I can see he knows his facts well.

Tbh I don't believe in functions in such a strict way either, I just see them as parts of cognitive patterns of thinking in general. But I don't entirely dismiss all of the observations like @reckful does, since some of them are valid. The function models I don't really believe in "as is", some ideas are too speculative to me.
My answer to your Te vs Ti question would be that Jung believed Te ideas will always fit into the framework of the current objective facts. Anything that appears logical which doesn't fit in that framework, will be dismissed. Ti will place more importance on what appears logical, even if it goes beyond the external framework.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
My answer to your Te vs Ti question would be that Jung believed Te ideas will always fit into the framework of the current objective facts. Anything that appears logical which doesn't fit in that framework, will be dismissed. Ti will place more importance on what appears logical, even if it goes beyond the external framework.
Well, I have such a framework of objectively observed and quantified facts. I don't understand what you mean by going beyond that while still appearing logical, mind saying more on this? I mean, I don't really follow the idea that something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit could still be logical. o_O But let me know if this isn't what you meant.
 

· Premium Member
INTP
Joined
·
19,892 Posts
Well, I have such a framework of objectively observed and quantified facts. I don't understand what you mean by going beyond that while still appearing logical, mind saying more on this? I mean, I don't really follow the idea that something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit could still be logical. o_O But let me know if this isn't what you meant.
I think that's because you're not a Ti dom/aux. That's kind of the point. Ti is a perspective that is outside the awareness of the Te perspective and vice versa. Te sees Ti as "thinking of an idea and then finding the facts to fit". While Ti sees Te as "Not thinking for themselves".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
I think that's because you're not a Ti dom/aux. That's kind of the point. Ti is a perspective that is outside the awareness of the Te perspective and vice versa. Te sees Ti as "thinking of an idea and then finding the facts to fit". While Ti sees Te as "Not thinking for themselves".
OK, however can you say if Ti is really like what I said, something non-quantifiable and thus non-explicit? Or what is this idea of "appearing" logical if I misunderstood that?

Edit: reading IxTP posts that's what it looks like to me, anyway.
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top