Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay you are an intuitive. Intuitive=Concept. A concept is a grouping of things, and with Ti this essentially becomes a deductive process where concepts are grouped according to their logical qualities or principles.

Ti's relation with the world goes like this:
*reads dictionary definition of stress*
INTP: I don't like that, stress is actually "x"

You have made a brand new definition in your head of what stress means. Other people do not share this definition...and it isn't entirely true it's just what you have personally defined it as according to your experiences. But Ti in the moment doesn't tend to catch this when they are talking with others because think about that...you would literally have to think about how every single thing you are talking about could be translated into the language of the other person. It'd be like being both the speaker and the translator. Ofc this would lead to slow responses and thinking time.

Now with the concepts in your head, use stress for now, think about this shit. A CEO, a firefighter, a cop, a soldier. All details. In your mind though, like mine, you probably actually see each of these as concepts. This is not how others see them. In your mind a CEO is a list of qualities and the concept of the CEO is simply a sum of those qualities. Jobs are a concept. Now what is common about all of those things? They are all stressful. So when you are talking to someone about stress, too illustrate a point about stress when they aren't getting it, you may turn to the example of a hypothetical CEO and then mabye make a small story that conveys the conceptual relations of things in terms of details. In your mind at that current moment, you have equated the CEO job to stress. Stress=CEO(or at least a part of the concept of a CEO) So the concept of a ceo=stress and because of that you may then use logic with the concept of stress as it relates to anything else. Why are you able to do this? Because in your Ti mind you have assumed CEO is a subset of stress. This is why when you are talking to people they might say "susie Q picked up this huge revolver, black actually, and it had 4 bullets in it, and he brought it up to meet her head and then fired her gun" and you hear "susie shot her." You simplified everything she said into a more conceptual essence, eliminated all of the details of it and then in your mind you might think "what is the essence of 'shot'" and then go from there into your huge Ti personalized conceptual map of things. To better communicate with others you need to literally make it into a story that conveys all of the concepts together. When you have trouble communicating to someone those details are your relief or help, and you typically only use it to illustrate one piece of the puzzle BECAUSE it isn't your natural mode of communication. It's a relief, used briefly to fix one small piece of communication and once it is fixed you go back to how to naturally speak. The problem is then you might come in with a whole separate hypothetical to illustrate a new concept. It's TOOO MUCHH for them. To much jumping around with concepts.

To illustrate this miscommunication let me show you how an INTP can more effectively communicate with a sensory type, showing both Ne and Ti:

INTP conceptual talking: Hmm, why would someone be attracted to a dominatrix. Well mabye it is related to responsibilities(concept), a relief of those responsibilities mabye? Well responsibilities entail stress(this is Ti..it's a personal evaluation of what the essence of stress and responsibilities, you have assumed because of your personal map of definitions that the definition of stress is in essence a natural outcome of responsibilities. This might not actually match up in dictionary definitions). So if stress entails responsibilities then a ceo=stress(again Ti deduction and assumption, the assumption being that all CEO positions are stressful and that because they are stressful a part of a CEO's essence is stress, therefore CEO=Stress temporarily). If CEO=stress then stress=dominatrix therefore CEO=dominatrix.

Now the more efficient way to talk to a sensor would be like this: I have a friend Jim. Jim is a CEO so he MUST be super stressed all the time(so that you make it clear you believe CEO=Stress). He has to tell everyone around him what to do all the time so he has a ton of responsibilities and he needs some sort of relief when he is coming home being so worked up all the time. He probably liked dominatrix's because it allows him to come home and let someone else take the stress off of him by putting himself in a position where if she says "jump" he says "how high." I wonder if all CEOs are like this...or what if it is all stressful positions. Anyone that comes home and is just exhausted mabye.

Help at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Okay you are an intuitive. Intuitive=Concept. A concept is a grouping of things, and with Ti this essentially becomes a deductive process where concepts are grouped according to their logical qualities or principles.

Ti's relation with the world goes like this:
*reads dictionary definition of stress*
INTP: I don't like that, stress is actually "x"

You have made a brand new definition in your head of what stress means. Other people do not share this definition...and it isn't entirely true it's just what you have personally defined it as according to your experiences. But Ti in the moment doesn't tend to catch this when they are talking with others because think about that...you would literally have to think about how every single thing you are talking about could be translated into the language of the other person. It'd be like being both the speaker and the translator. Ofc this would lead to slow responses and thinking time.

Now with the concepts in your head, use stress for now, think about this shit. A CEO, a firefighter, a cop, a soldier. All details. In your mind though, like mine, you probably actually see each of these as concepts. This is not how others see them. In your mind a CEO is a list of qualities and the concept of the CEO is simply a sum of those qualities. Jobs are a concept. Now what is common about all of those things? They are all stressful. So when you are talking to someone about stress, too illustrate a point about stress when they aren't getting it, you may turn to the example of a hypothetical CEO and then mabye make a small story that conveys the conceptual relations of things in terms of details. In your mind at that current moment, you have equated the CEO job to stress. Stress=CEO(or at least a part of the concept of a CEO) So the concept of a ceo=stress and because of that you may then use logic with the concept of stress as it relates to anything else. Why are you able to do this? Because in your Ti mind you have assumed CEO is a subset of stress. This is why when you are talking to people they might say "susie Q picked up this huge revolver, black actually, and it had 4 bullets in it, and he brought it up to meet her head and then fired her gun" and you hear "susie shot her." You simplified everything she said into a more conceptual essence, eliminated all of the details of it and then in your mind you might think "what is the essence of 'shot'" and then go from there into your huge Ti personalized conceptual map of things. To better communicate with others you need to literally make it into a story that conveys all of the concepts together. When you have trouble communicating to someone those details are your relief or help, and you typically only use it to illustrate one piece of the puzzle BECAUSE it isn't your natural mode of communication. It's a relief, used briefly to fix one small piece of communication and once it is fixed you go back to how to naturally speak. The problem is then you might come in with a whole separate hypothetical to illustrate a new concept. It's TOOO MUCHH for them. To much jumping around with concepts.

To illustrate this miscommunication let me show you how an INTP can more effectively communicate with a sensory type, showing both Ne and Ti:

INTP conceptual talking: Hmm, why would someone be attracted to a dominatrix. Well mabye it is related to responsibilities(concept), a relief of those responsibilities mabye? Well responsibilities entail stress(this is Ti..it's a personal evaluation of what the essence of stress and responsibilities, you have assumed because of your personal map of definitions that the definition of stress is in essence a natural outcome of responsibilities. This might not actually match up in dictionary definitions). So if stress entails responsibilities then a ceo=stress(again Ti deduction and assumption, the assumption being that all CEO positions are stressful and that because they are stressful a part of a CEO's essence is stress, therefore CEO=Stress temporarily). If CEO=stress then stress=dominatrix therefore CEO=dominatrix.

Now the more efficient way to talk to a sensor would be like this: I have a friend Jim. Jim is a CEO so he MUST be super stressed all the time(so that you make it clear you believe CEO=Stress). He has to tell everyone around him what to do all the time so he has a ton of responsibilities and he needs some sort of relief when he is coming home being so worked up all the time. He probably liked dominatrix's because it allows him to come home and let someone else take the stress off of him by putting himself in a position where if she says "jump" he says "how high." I wonder if all CEOs are like this...or what if it is all stressful positions. Anyone that comes home and is just exhausted mabye.

Help at all?
I mean no offence, but I find what you've written absolutely hilarious. You're like an ignorant synthesis of John Locke, V.W.O. Quine, Gottlob Frege and Kant. I wish to emphasise that I mean that as a compliment. Incidentally, the aforementioned people were all INTPs.

Let's just say that the problems you're describing (e.g. the problem of systematically miscommunicating due to you meaning something slightly different by a word than what other people mean by it, and the idea that we 'translate' other people's 'languages' into own 'language' ( If you came up with that idea on your own I am actually impressed. You should read Quine's Word and Object. That's literally the way he understands linguistic communication)) have been discussed. Quine's view has been refuted. However, no good solution exists for your first problem. It persists and is subject to intense debate to this day.

Also, I feel I should mention that concepts are not simply lists of properties. That view has been empirically debunked. However, your view that the content of concepts can change frequently, and adjust itself relative to particular circumstances, is actually very sophisticated. I don't think you realise that it implies that there is no such thing as 'stable' and 'constant' conceptual content. On your view, concepts do not have essential properties. Furthermore, you're wrong to think that this kind of conceptual processing (i.e. generating conceptual content appropriate to the situation) is somehow unique to INTPs. The evidence suggests that it's a quite general way for people to think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I mean no offence, but I find what you've written absolutely hilarious. You're like an ignorant synthesis of John Locke, V.W.O. Quine, Gottlob Frege and Kant. I wish to emphasise that I mean that as a compliment. Incidentally, the aforementioned people were all INTPs.

Let's just say that the problems you're describing (e.g. the problem of systematically miscommunicating due to you meaning something slightly different by a word than what other people mean by it, and the idea that we 'translate' other people's 'languages' into own 'language' ( If you came up with that idea on your own I am actually impressed. You should read Quine's Word and Object. That's literally the way he understands linguistic communication)) have been discussed. Quine's view has been refuted. However, no good solution exists for your first problem. It persists and is subject to intense debate to this day.

Also, I feel I should mention that concepts are not simply lists of properties. That view has been empirically debunked. However, your view that the content of concepts can change frequently, and adjust itself relative to particular circumstances, is actually very sophisticated. I don't think you realise that it implies that there is no such thing as 'stable' and 'constant' conceptual content. On your view, concepts do not have essential properties. Furthermore, you're wrong to think that this kind of conceptual processing (i.e. generating conceptual content appropriate to the situation) is somehow unique to INTPs. The evidence suggests that it's a quite general way for people to think.
Hahaha, well thank you even if it is halarious. I'm surprised there are so many philosophers on that list lol. I will say that I owe some of the language thing to my dad because we stuck through a pretty heated debate to solve what was happening between the N and the S. I had a hard time seriously entertaining the thought of someone needing to actually match situations to concepts because it seemed so wildly inefficient(I know that sounds mean, I don't intend it to) while the S to N translation was more of a "I've summed up what you've said into a concept to handle it more easily in a variable way". So I can't say I'm quite the young kant, as much as I'd love to stroke my huge ego, but I can say there was a serious suspicion that was held back by seeing S thinking as inefficient(but it's only inefficient if trying to understand things conceptually...duh).

As for the thing about the lists of properties, I find it hard to agree despite your empirical claim. To me if you can define it, it must inherently be composed of a set of qualities yes? As to not say that it does would mean being unable to define it fundamentally. If you could elaborate on your last paragraph a little more it'd be awesome! Can't tell specifically what part you are referencing which would make it easier to answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,367 Posts
you would literally have to think about how every single thing you are talking about could be translated into the language of the other person. It'd be like being both the speaker and the translator.
I think more people should do this actually. Communication goes both ways and both parties need to make an effort to make sure they understand each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Be specific, use examples and don't skip steps. That's usually all you need.

Apart from that, remember that 'sensors' are just people and they're not that different from 'intuitives'. There's smart ones and less smart ones and there's people that like metaphors and ones that don't, even across types. Don't assume things about people just because their type has a different letter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I think more people should do this actually. Communication goes both ways and both parties need to make an effort to make sure they understand each other.
Yep. It just takes a little more time. That specific language translation though is actually impossible. There are 4 languages spoken about in the above post. The thing you are referencing should be more the N and S dynamic trying to be bridged. The other language is a fundamental language of how a thing is grouped. I.e. my definition of stress may be slightly different from your definition of stress. Typically the only way around this is through vocalizing definitions like in philosophy papers. It'd be too slow to talk like that though. So I both agree and disagree :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Be specific, use examples and don't skip steps. That's usually all you need.

Apart from that, remember that 'sensors' are just people and they're not that different from 'intuitives'. There's smart ones and less smart ones and there's people that like metaphors and ones that don't, even across types. Don't assume things about people just because their type has a different letter.
TYPICALLY this is all you need, but the greater the concept complexity the more you are going to have to keep referencing that relief language to convey your point to them in their language. The problem is we don't think, typically, along that line of thinking. Since it's a relief we turn to thought experiments or hypothetically made situations to illustrate our point. If the complexity is high enough the sensor will have to be okay with you hopping between so many hypothetical stories. They will more than likely find it confusing. So you also have to put emphasis on synthesizing the details that you are using into a cohesive story/whole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
TYPICALLY this is all you need, but the greater the concept complexity the more you are going to have to keep referencing that relief language to convey your point to them in their language. The problem is we don't think, typically, along that line of thinking. Since it's a relief we turn to thought experiments or hypothetically made situations to illustrate our point. If the complexity is high enough the sensor will have to be okay with you hopping between so many hypothetical stories. They will more than likely find it confusing. So you also have to put emphasis on synthesizing the details that you are using into a cohesive story/whole.
I agree with you, although I must stress that this kind of thing works both ways. It's natural for S-types to start with the facts and work towards an idea, while for N-types it's natural to start from an idea and work towards fitting it to the real world. The end result is the same (given equal intelligence), but the process is just different.
I've spent a lot of conversations with Si-doms where they're building up their argument and I'm just dumbfounded as I have no idea where they're going with all of it. When they finally reach their conclusion I have to start working backwards from there to see how they got there in the first place.

It's a hard communication issue for both sides and I think being able to follow the other can be tied to intelligence for both sides (For example, my ISFJ has no trouble following my train of thought most of the time, although she has fun letting me know when I'm skipping steps).

In an actual conversation, both parties will have to make an effort for this to make something work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
As for the thing about the lists of properties, I find it hard to agree despite your empirical claim. To me if you can define it, it must inherently be composed of a set of qualities yes? As to not say that it does would mean being unable to define it fundamentally. If you could elaborate on your last paragraph a little more it'd be awesome! Can't tell specifically what part you are referencing which would make it easier to answer.
You said:

In your mind a CEO is a list of qualities and the concept of the CEO is simply a sum of those qualities.
This is a familiar view, but it's wrong. Concepts aren't just the sum of qualities that we think go into them. Consider your concept of 'aircraft'. When you compute that concept, you're probably going to picture something that flies in the air, as opposed to something that stands on the ground. That's known as a 'typicality effect' in the technical literature on concepts. Another example is something like me saying "I painted my house brown". When you compute this sentence, you're going to picture me painting the outside of my house brown. Not the inside. These effects show that the properties that go into concepts have a particular structure. Thus, they're not just lists of such properties.

Regarding your comments about being able to define concepts, I once wrote something on this in another thread. I'll just quote myself:

Seq said:
Concept acquisition is interesting, but probably a quite different process than that which enables us to attribute mental states to other agents. When it comes to a concept like 'general relativity', humans typically have to spend years studying in order to acquire the concept, and some people can never actually even do so. The concept describes exactly one phenomenon in the world (gravity) and has no real applicability to anything else. That's why it's 'technical', i.e. constructed for a specific purpose. Ordinary concepts are acquired very differently. You're not taught ordinary concepts in the conventional sense of 'taught', but you learn them somehow. Thus when you were young, you acquired concepts like 'chair', 'table', 'seat' and 'home'. Unlike technical concepts, these ideas are extremely flexible in their use. A house can be my home, but so can a country, Earth or a galaxy be. Furthermore, ordinary concepts are transparent in a way that ordinary concepts are not. Everyone knows what 'home' entails, even though nobody has ever managed to capture its meaning in a definition. By contrast, nobody knows what 'general gravity' means without knowing its definition and all the (additional) technical concepts that comprise that definition.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top