-
-
Last edited by Dee; 02-26-2009 at 02:24 AM.
Re: Te/Ti types: how does your T looks @ work (head/outside)
Originally Posted by dee
I have a question, discojoe.
Did McNew really write that in your signature? I find it quite amusing.
Re: Te/Ti types: how does your T looks @ work (head/outside)
umm what?
Sometimes as a decisive reaction to an event that emotionally affects me or a person coversing with me (Fe types particularly).
Sometimes as a 'locking down' of an idea, such that it goes from being a mere picture to an actual verifyable statement that can be built forth upon.
But most of the time, I have no idea how it works.
Te is about what works.
Is it just about what works?
What are you talking about Dee?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Ok, here's the deal.
Te is about seeing the world in factual terms. A purely Te perspective on reality views all information in individual packets, discrete bits of information.
Ti is about seeing the world in terms of how these discrete packets interact or what effect they have on one another. A purely Ti perspective on reality views all facts as inseparable from all others that they potential influence.
That's about as simple as I can possibly make it.
That sounds too static. Te is the external dynamics of objects.
Or in Augusta's own words...
ExTj:
Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things.IxTj:
We shall call 'logical' those feelings that arise in the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of any objective parameter — for example, a feeling of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation that in certain situations help activate or passivate the person experiencing them. Such an individual perceives information from without as a sense of objects' proper or improper correlation/proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between them, or an awareness or unawareness of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that results from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one's own power or powerlessness before different objects.
All these feelings we shall call logical. Their sum is a person's sense of logic. People have differently developed senses of logic. We might say that logical feelings convey information about the knowledge or lack of knowledge of objects, their comparability or incomparability, and the balance or lack of balance between them, as well as about space and objects' position in space. They are objective because they do not take into consideration the interests and needs of people, but only correlations of objective qualities. This perceptual element determines a person's ability or inability to see the objective, logical relations between objects or their components.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to logically evaluate interrelations of objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also the ability to change according to his desires the interrelations between the characteristics of various objects and hence influence the objects themselves that carry these characteristics. Correct evaluation of one's interrelations with other objects helps the individual know which objects should be avoided, and which can be "hunted." Such an individual is able to set his logic — or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world — in opposition to others' knowledge. He has the ability to mould and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people's logic or lack thereof.
Nice summary, Gilly.
There are two links in the post. And if I think of a good example tomorrow I'll post it.
And if it's at all possible that you're a Te type, Socionics is bullshit, completely and utterly worthless.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No. You are the embodiment of weak Te.or rather the conceptions of info elements of many people here?And if it's at all possible that you're a Te type, Socionics is bullshit, completely and utterly worthless.
How can you be so sure that people here are all wrong when you still have no idea what you're talking about?
dee, you have weak Te.
Joy and Thunder, stop teasing him for it.
I keep trying, but (s)he keeps saying stuff that's really difficult (if not impossible) to not criticize.
(btw, this is exactly the type of response I would expect from an ExTp when an IxFp is being criticized by an ExTj)
How incredibly ironic.
Well, I have already put two people on ignore for that reason, but I will refrain from doing so again for the time being.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I think to ignore someone is to cut out potential sources of decent information. It's like closing someone off because a lot of the time they say something useless. It's essentially asserting that they'll never come out with something true or useful, and so blocking them because of it, when in reality, one can never determine that another will always be wrong or useless.
dee isn't arrogant. He's actually quite insecure.
Then do it in a mature manner. What's the use in attacking him? You're initiating an unnecessary argument.
This isn't about expectations. It's about the facts.(btw, this is exactly the type of response I would expect from an ExTp when an IxFp is being criticized by an ExTj)
Poor analysis. Never bring feelings into arguments.
I agree implicitly.How incredibly ironic.
dee, I don't think you're a 6w5. I think if you're a 6, you're a 6w7. 6w5s are much more careful and tidy with their approaches - you are far more scattered. You may even be a 9 who has disintegrated to 6.
Then do it in a mature manner. What's the use in attacking him? You're initiating an unnecessary argument.
Poor analysis. Never bring feelings into arguments.
Now is that new found sense of maturity something you've developed, or just a stance you have taken just now, particularly in regard to defending your dual? (honest question)
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
He can't. Even if he were the most intelligent person on Earth. Ultimately, I think, the individual needs to be convinced of his or her own type. No one knows more about a person than that person. Other people can present reasons why someone else self-concept doesn't seem to fit though.
You don't seem to understand that by asking questions and getting answers, it reveals more about people's type.
Your reaction there even indicates things, in context of other posts here on the forum.
My current thoughts are that you do not seem gamma, you have weak Te, you are looking for Ti, and you could easily be Ezra's dual - if Ezra is the ESTp he claims to be. But that might change depending on what else you reveal about yourself over time, of course.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I'm not sure that their creative-
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I fully agree with you. My own reasons for putting people on ignore have more to do with the persons themselves annoying me, rather than what they have to say. It's a Fi motivation, not Te or Ti.
dee, fwiw, I could sort of see you as an ExFp.
This is almost straight out of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Congratulations. I agree with you too, but I just felt like pointing out one of the names most attached to this line of reasoning.I fully agree with you. My own reasons for putting people on ignore have more to do with the persons themselves annoying me, rather than what they have to say. It's a Fi motivation, not Te or Ti.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Kinda. If you just boil everything down to having weak logic.
INTp
sx/sp
...
You can't approach howis implemented with classical socionics.
You're not INTp. ESFp I would be willing to consider for you though. Not I think you're most likely ESFp, and not that my thinking you're one type or another changes your type. But yeah... Pay attention to which forum members' explanations you find most useful. Your reaction to Te and Ti will be indicative of your type.
But how do you distinguish the two? (It would be better to say which forum members' explanations you understand best. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post your answer on the forum.)
This is a really excellent point. There is a fiction that has been perpetuated on this forum that Ti = logic and Te = raw facts. That view has infected a lot of people here. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of extraverted IM elements being about "objects" and introverted IM elements being about "fields" (or "relations"). Thus, whenever one makes a "connection" between any two things, a number of people here assume "aha, that's an introverted function" (usually the assumption is Ti).That sounds too static. Te is the external dynamics of objects.
...
the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things.
But what they forget is the dynamics part. Obviously, dynamics involves a relationship, so to speak, between things, but it's more of a "temporal" relationship rather than a "static" one.
The idea that people are often missing, also, is that Ti and Te are both "logic" in Socionics. Ti is more about static relationships, such as forming a clear, definitive "map" of how things are (outside of time or any specific application)....such as Model A. Te is still logic, still about rationality, but it deals with questions of how to go about doing thins (e.g., what methods we might use to test Model A; and what research designs are actually valid ways of proving or disproving a given hypothesis).
Where people get confused is that everyone does both and values both to a certain extent. However, extensive focus on Ti without Te may lead to:
1) Not knowing how to test that one's system is valid
2) Believing in a system just because it's symmetrical, internally consistent, and "looks pretty"
3) Trying to educate people on basic knowledge about the system (esp. how it's supposed to work) when that may not be what they need
Focus on Te over Ti doesn't lead to memorizing disconnected facts. In fact, Te helps people organize facts according to what's relevant to the situation, and discard facts that aren't relevant. However, too much emphasis on Te over Ti may lead to:
1) Too narrow a focus...dismissing valid connections because they don't seem relevant to what the person is trying to solve at the moment
2) Solving the same problems over and over instead of seeing the underlying system that explains the issue
3) Failing to recognize various connections that exist
4) Misunderstanding people when systemmatic details are discussed.
Excellent post with equal treatment to both the strengths and weaknesses of
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Thanks.Excellent post with equal treatment to both the strengths and weaknesses ofYeah, sure, you can quote it. Also, if you have comments about LII on Wikisocion, there's a "Discussion" page for each article where you can make comments on that article; there's a special system of indenting to make the "thread" work though.
Okay, I'll be sure to check it out, since while I do think that the forum is here to help understand and discuss the functions and the Socionics theory as best as we can, I also happen to think that we should be taking a more conscious step to expanding it and presenting it on the Wikisocion.Thanks.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Well, sort of, but you have to be careful...this is where a lot of people get messed up. Both Ti and Te behaviors can be described as "logical." Both are "logic." As to efficiency, lots of people say that Te is all about efficiency; but that's not quite the full truth either. For example, LSIs are often very efficient because of how they use Se, organizing it with Ti.
Jonathan, I have to point out again what I see as a consistent flaw in your approach to socionics, which is your inclination to reduce everything to the ego functions. "If someone does something, it has to be in their ego functions", that's what it seems to amount to.
In this case, I agree that Te is not just "all about efficiency". But your LSI argument surely does nothing to disprove it. LSIs have Te as 7th function, so why do you have to attribute their efficiency to their ego functions? If LSIs are efficient, then of course it had to be Se + Ti? They don't use anything else? I know that's not what you think, but that's what your reasoning seems to keep coming back to.
As for my own views.
In the case of Te and Ti here, I also don't see Te as "raw facts". I see Te more as checking your present database against external information, continually, because there is the awareness that they are dynamic. And the "checking" is done by what works in the external world, because what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow (for whatever reason).
Ti is about seeing how information is connected in a static way, which ideally would not change once it's made.
Te or Ti ego types do both with more or less the same confidence, the difference is in what they are inclined to see as more important.
Te HA, Ti PoLR types are more visibly inclined to use external information if it works and, yes, towards efficiency, but not inclined to think much whether what they are doing today because it seems efficient is logically contradictory to what they did yesterday.
Ti HA, Te PoLR types are more inclined to worry about having reached an understanding of how information is connected logically in a static way, but worrying less, or giving less importance, or not truly evaluating well, whether that understanding is confirmed by being checked against external reality, either of dynamic facts and/or as to whether it works or not.
And I don't think this contradicts your main conclusions, except for this -- you seem to be saying, "how can Ti be logic if Te ego types also use logic?"
The answer is, because Te ego types also use Ti well.
They are connected though, that is indisputable. Why challenge it?
Of course there are differences - that's why they're called Introverted and Extraverted Thinking. But they are not unconnected. Nothing in socionics is unconnected.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote