Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Is this an example of Te vs Ti?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Is this an example of Te vs Ti?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    How do you define fact? A statement that is true or statement that is advocated to be true? The former easily persuades me but the latter requires a bit more, especially given that this is the internet. My requirement is not extreme at all. A statement is of the former and will convince if there is absolutely nothing I can come up with that can dispute the validity of the statement.
    Talking about facts in the way that Jung described them in Psychological types.
    Which is??? Please give me a precisely stated definition. If I don't even understand how I am using your words, how can you be certain that I am even answer your questions correctly?
    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
    How would I know whether I am considering the line from which you are drawing your definition. You should just tell me. (N type thinking) I get this feeling that you don't even know what you are talking about and are just throwing the dictionary in an effort to confuse me because your claim that Jung can construct a completely definitions of "facts" is almost nonsensical. "Look it's here, if you can't see it you are blind! What? What? Where? Here!! Are you blind!!!" Anyway you better cough up the exact definition or just admit that my definition were sufficient.


    This is exactly why I am and you are . It happens all the time.

    This is also why and often have trouble communicating their thoughts to one-another.

    Directing people to quotes, pictures, links, articles, etc... is what does (generally without fully explaining it first). In fact, the quote you made up isn't too far from -speak to be honest.

    These are the kinds differences (barriers?) that some people like Pedro realize and as long as we except that in we can understand each other.

    I'm sorry, but before we realize the different types of communication, it would be difficult to get the points across. We could go back and forth forever without getting anywhere if you don't realize this.
    You didn't direct me to a quote, an image, or a short article. I have no trouble reading things myself given those items. What you directed me to is an entire chapter of a complex book and from the looks of it, it appears that I won't be able to even get the definition I wanted (using the reasoning in my previous post). You think I would actually waste a whole night reading it (it's 56 pages!!) for something that probably isn't there when the burden of the proof rests on you? Right... You obviously have a very poor idea of what a debate is.

    If that's your idea of a debate, I should have gotten a bunch of random books of Philosophy and tell you that you are wrong because the argument is in those books. Actually, there is research done on MBTI/Socionics and people have managed to link the theory together. The result is all over here: http://www.bartleby.com/130/. You can ignore the title though because that is just plain deceiving as to the actual content of the book.

    As for the quote, I was mocking you.
    Rocky: it's here, if you can't see it you are blind!
    wym123: What? What? Where?
    Rocky: Here!! Are you blind!!!
    I know you were mocking me, but it was pretty damn accurate, lol.

    : it's here, if you can't see it you are blind!
    : What? What? Where?
    : Here!! Are you blind!!!

    I'm serious.
    Is this an example of vs ?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, but seeing:

    Rocky wrote:
    wym123 wrote:
    Rocky wrote:
    wym123 wrote:
    Rocky wrote:
    wym123 wrote:
    Rocky wrote:
    wym123 wrote:

    reminded me of a really stupid question ...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your idea that discourse is more explicit of the reasoning than sounds nice, except that it seems completely opposite what Dmitri said at oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3360:


    Dmitri Lytov: Something like that. After all, introverted logic is responsible for systematization, while extraverted logic for methodology.
    LIIs are often cathegorical in their sayings, while ILIs tend to see another side of the same thing, to say "yes but...".
    Newton, another ILI, was reluctant to publish his works for a long time - sometimes he waited for 10 or 15 years until he was sure in correctness of his methodology. LIIs, by contrast, often present well-elaborated conceptions and classifications, but very often with poorly developed methodologies (they generously leave solution of this task to their readers).
    So I think Dmitri is saying that discourse is the one that leaves the reasoning up to the reader, not discourse. But what you're saying at least seems to be the exact opposite.

    That's the thing that sometimes drives me crazy about typology, or at least people's understanding of it. What people say about the functions and their definitions isn't only different; it's often opposite.

    Then again, on the other hand, I can see that with may give someone only an intuition that something is true plus a method to prove it, and that person may just mention those things, because the proof isn't actually worked out....perhaps that's what you mean?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I said isn't opposite of what Lytov said.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What Dimitri says about ILI's should probably also apply to ILE's.
    Oh I see, you're saying that the idea of ILI being more explicit regarding methods than LII has mostly to do with T being the 2nd function instead of the dominant? But I thought the idea of having to do with methodology was part of it; after all, he started out by saying "introverted logic is responsible for systematization, while extraverted logic for methodology. "

    So while it's important to recognize that the context was in comparing ILE with LII, it seemed that it was hinging on the idea of being focused on methodology.

    Anyhow, I was just saying that what was written in this thread about leaving the reader to figure out the connections seemed contradictory to what Dmitri was saying, that's all. As I mentioned later on, there are ways one can explain away the apparent contradiction.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    What Dimitri says about ILI's should probably also apply to ILE's.
    Oh I see, you're saying that the idea of ILI being more explicit regarding methods than LII has mostly to do with T being the 2nd function instead of the dominant? But I thought the idea of having to do with methodology was part of it; after all, he started out by saying "introverted logic is responsible for systematization, while extraverted logic for methodology. "

    So while it's important to recognize that the context was in comparing ILE with LII, it seemed that it was hinging on the idea of being focused on methodology.

    Anyhow, I was just saying that what was written in this thread about leaving the reader to figure out the connections seemed contradictory to what Dmitri was saying, that's all. As I mentioned later on, there are ways one can explain away the apparent contradiction.
    Did anyone realize that Rocky was asking for the impossible because the document is quite lengthy and even if I did figure it out, how can I be certain that I got the exact definition that Rocky implied? Part of what I wanted to know is whether actually argue like that because it appears that is incapable of conducting real debates and that only is capable.

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    What Dimitri says about ILI's should probably also apply to ILE's.
    Oh I see, you're saying that the idea of ILI being more explicit regarding methods than LII has mostly to do with T being the 2nd function instead of the dominant? But I thought the idea of having to do with methodology was part of it; after all, he started out by saying "introverted logic is responsible for systematization, while extraverted logic for methodology. "

    So while it's important to recognize that the context was in comparing ILE with LII, it seemed that it was hinging on the idea of being focused on methodology.

    Anyhow, I was just saying that what was written in this thread about leaving the reader to figure out the connections seemed contradictory to what Dmitri was saying, that's all. As I mentioned later on, there are ways one can explain away the apparent contradiction.
    Did anyone realize that Rocky was asking for the impossible because the document is quite lengthy and even if I did figure it out, how can I be certain that I got the exact definition that Rocky implied? Part of what I wanted to know is whether actually argue like that because it appears that is incapable of conducting real debates and that only is capable.
    Don't listen to that shit. I always ask for clarifications about defintions when I see that debates aren't getting anywhere, mostly because the source of disagreement is usually to be found in a lack of agreement on the premises (if both parties are using sound logic, it's actually the only possible source of disagreement).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think we can say that is internal logic, while is external logic.
    In other words, with regards to debates, produces a sense of whether the way ideas and arguments fit together among themselves is internally logical, while reflects whether one fact actually leads to another.

    I think types look for external clarity of ideas, while types look for internal clarity. types like to jump on vague statements that don't reflect real experience, while types like to jump on statements that are internally flawed.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think types look for external clarity of ideas, while types look for internal clarity. types like to jump on vague statements that don't reflect real experience, while types like to jump on statements that are internally flawed.
    That could be true. But I have always thought that I like to jump on both kind of statements. Maybe I have learned to jump on statements that are internally flawed from my philosophical studies, maybe it's not "natural" for me to do it. But I also know some INTjs who don't seem to recognize that some statements they believe in are based on concepts that are internally flawed, as for example the concept of a "free will". Some of the INTjs I know personally are also relativists, and, as I have said elsewhere, every relativism is either trivial or internally flawed. I have never been able to figure out how they still can embrace such "theories", since the INTjs I'm thinking of are all very bright people with an excellent erudition and high IQs.

  11. #11
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here I'm talking about types with and as their leading function. If you're ILI, then your main tool is , not , and you would criticize most things from a perspective.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you're ILI, then your main tool is , not , and you would criticize most things from a perspective.
    So, how would that kind of critique look like? Can you give an example that would illustrate the difference between someone critizing from a perspective and someone critizing from an perspective?

  13. #13
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hm...
    Well, -types have a sort of image of reality in their heads -- an actual complex image or set of images as opposed to networks of facts, arguments, and logic. When people say things that produce a mental image that doesn't jive with their image, they say things like "that's silly" or "that's ridiculous."

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, -types have a sort of image of reality in their heads -- an actual complex image or set of images as opposed to networks of facts, arguments, and logic. When people say things that produce a mental image that doesn't jive with their image, they say things like "that's silly" or "that's ridiculous."
    Do you think that I do that? I must have as a dominant function if Socionics is a true theory of the world, but I can't say for sure if I have that kind of image of reality in my head or not. How do you determine such things when you haven't got any alternative way of thinking to compare it with? Is there really a clear distinction between "an actual complex image or set of images" and "networks of facts, arguments, and logic"? I could have either, or both. But I definitely seem to be an INTp, so why am I not sure that I have the former?

  15. #15
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually, I haven't really looked at your posts, so I can't say. But irrational types tend to think in images and hold images in their minds as they talk about things. When they listen to people, they create an image of what is being talked about in their mind and think about that image more than about the actual words that are being used. If they like or agree with the image, they accept the argument. If not, they reject it. Rational types are more verbally oriented.

    I know that's not a very good explanation. Maybe some -types can contribute.

  16. #16
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, Im pretty sure Im dominant, and I agree with you Rick. People often talk about facts figures etc and seem to see reality through that prism but it seems kind of hard to grasp for me because Im a very visual thinker.

    If this discussion is about vs ... would it be fair to say seeks more to apply and test knowledge, and seeks more to break knowledge down into theories inside one's mind instead of applying it directly to reality?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    would it be fair to say seeks more to apply and test knowledge, and seeks more to break knowledge down into theories inside one's mind instead of applying it directly to reality?
    I'm not sure that's true. In Socionics, it seems to be more than that; if you look at famous people who Socionists say were ILI, such as Newton, Jung, and Socrates, it would seem that can be involved in the formation of theories too...or at least with .

    My observation, based on the people on this forum who are pretty sure they're LII is that they don't want to say anything that's incorrect. Therefore, they're actually less likely to come up with theories (or at least, to talk about them) than ILI people, who seem more likely to articulate a theory based on just an intuition ( ) plus an idea of how the theory may be fleshed out ( ).

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    I think we can say that is internal logic, while is external logic.
    In other words, with regards to debates, produces a sense of whether the way ideas and arguments fit together among themselves is internally logical, while reflects whether one fact actually leads to another.

    I think types look for external clarity of ideas, while types look for internal clarity. types like to jump on vague statements that don't reflect real experience, while types like to jump on statements that are internally flawed.
    i agree.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My observation, based on the people on this forum who are pretty sure they're LII is that they don't want to say anything that's incorrect. Therefore, they're actually less likely to come up with theories (or at least, to talk about them) than ILI people, who seem more likely to articulate a theory based on just an intuition ( ) plus an idea of how the theory may be fleshed out ( ).
    I agree. That is my impression too. And it fits what Paul James says about one difference between INTPs and INTJs at http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html except for the ordering of the functions:

    In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out. On occasion, INTPs may seem brash and tactless, but for themselves it is part of their way of getting closer to the truth. This is another aspect of the Ne grappling with the external world (in this case discussion with another) to understand it. The Ne provides the raw material for the Ti core to analyse. The INTJ, on the other hand, with Ni dominant and Te as secondary, tends to avoid letting uncertain speculative ideas out in the open: he presents a more considered structured viewpoint to the world while holding his private thoughts free for intuitive reasoning.
    As you can see, there seems to be an agreement on which type is which, and on how they behave, and that is more important than the fact that Socionics and MBTT seem to disagree on a theoretical level about how to explain this empirical phenomenon.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As you can see, there seems to be an agreement on which type is which, and on how they behave, and that is more important than the fact that Socionics and MBTT seem to disagree on a theoretical level about how to explain this empirical phenomenon
    I hadn't noticed your answer before; it's actually a good statement of the theoretical problem. I'm leaning towards thinking that the question of whether Ti/Ne or Ni/Te is responsible for these two kinds of behaviors maybe isn't really the question.

    Perhaps there's a third component....either subtypes, or some other factor related to flexibility/inflexibility that isn't explained by the functions.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out. On occasion, INTPs may seem brash and tactless, but for themselves it is part of their way of getting closer to the truth. This is another aspect of the Ne grappling with the external world (in this case discussion with another) to understand it. The Ne provides the raw material for the Ti core to analyse.
    OMG! This is so Te!! Ne? WTF's he talking about?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OMG! This is so Te!! Ne? WTF's he talking about?
    That was a quote from a Myers-Briggs site. Phaedrus was just pointing out how their terminology and reasoning leads them to an opposite analysis from Socionics in analyzing certain behaviors.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote:
    In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out. On occasion, INTPs may seem brash and tactless, but for themselves it is part of their way of getting closer to the truth. This is another aspect of the Ne grappling with the external world (in this case discussion with another) to understand it. The Ne provides the raw material for the Ti core to analyse.

    OMG! This is so Te!! Ne? WTF's he talking about?
    Good that you brought it up again, Rocky. Now, for the first time, I see clearly what he's talking about, even though I have read that passage many, many times before.

    In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there.
    This, and what is directly related to it in the text, is Ni.

    (The word "This" has a double meaning here, since it is also self-referential. It also refers to the sentence written by me, which it is a part of. :wink: )

  25. #25
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "This, and what is directly related to it in the text, is Ni. "

    One of Ni's preoccupations in terms of what it functions as is a means by which to arrive at conclusive beliefs, and as such I highly doubt an introverted intuitive person would argue in such a way. It seems to me that when Ni dominants argue, they do so only when entirely certain of the validity of the point they're arguing. Then again, that is only a general trend and is not neccessarily a rule.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky: OMG! This is so Te!! Ne? WTF's he talking about?
    MysticSonic: It seems to me that when Ni dominants argue, they do so only when entirely certain of the validity of the point they're arguing.
    So it seems we have a pretty direct difference of opinion here.
    I'd agree with Rocky and Phaedrus on this one; in Socionics, ILI is the one who's more like to promote provisional theories, whereas LII is the one who will attempt to say only what he's sure is true.

    Of course, I do both at different times...

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd agree with Rocky and Phaedrus on this one; in Socionics, ILI is the one who's more like to promote provisional theories, whereas LII is the one who will attempt to say only what he's sure is true.
    I think that I agree with you, Rocky and myself here, but I'm not totally convinced yet, because this also could be true:
    Newton, another ILI, was reluctant to publish his works for a long time - sometimes he waited for 10 or 15 years until he was sure in correctness of his methodology.
    That fits me quite well, and it also seems to fit Kurt Gödel, whom I think, after reading a very interesting book (in a Swedish translation) about him by Rebecca Goldstein: http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2005_05_005364.php was probably dominant. I don't know if there really is a clear pattern here or not. Maybe INTjs and INTps are more similar than dissimilar in this respect, or it is rather random.

    On the other hand, what I'm saying above in my first sentence of the reply that I am now writing seems to be an argument for the correctness of your statement in the quote, Jonathan, that is, at least in relation to discussions and debates. Could there be a difference here between preliminary discussions and "definitive" written and published material?

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One of Ni's preoccupations in terms of what it functions as is a means by which to arrive at conclusive beliefs, and as such I highly doubt an introverted intuitive person would argue in such a way.
    This reminded me of something you said about yourself at http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=7...r=asc&start=15 , MysticSonic. Maybe you and I have different conceptions of the function, or at least in our overall pictures of INTps.

    You mention some major reasons why you don't believe that you are an INTp. But at least one of those reasons is in fact a rather strong reason in the opposite direction, i.e. in favour of you being an INTp. I'm thinking of this one:

    -I'm not inclined to reach a practical result or implement my knowledge and use it in some sort of way. I've tried this, and have failed miserably in the past. I just don't have the energy to keep going after all the conceptualizing is over.
    Some of the other major reasons you mention do not point very strongly in either direction, and some others suggest INTp rather than INTj. I have trouble seeing any of the reasons you mention to be an argument for INTj.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was talking about the arguing parts, and the testing out things. But any Introvert it would seem would be reluctant to publish anything official if they knew it had to be definitive.

    In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says.
    Speculative arguments? Outward Thinking. ISTPs have this too.

    In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there.
    This is bullshit because it is another quality shared between INTPs and ISTPs.

    The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out.
    Now it just seems like he's talking out of his ass. "Intuitive" understanding... but then its all about testing logic?

    Te again. He has to "examine" the validity of his logic in "real time" while speaking out? How can this be considered Ti at all?

    On occasion, INTPs may seem brash and tactless, but for themselves it is part of their way of getting closer to the truth. This is another aspect of the Ne grappling with the external world (in this case discussion with another) to understand it.
    *boogle*

    I don't think I'm even going to touch this one because there are so many things wrong with it, it would give me heart burn.

    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Te again. He has to "examine" the validity of his logic in "real time" while speaking out? How can this be considered Ti at all?
    You have to remember that Paul James is trapped in his own faulty model, trying to make his premises (INTp = TiNe) make sense in relation to his empirical observations. I agree that the exact relation between Ni and Te is obscure here, but "Ti" in James's sense is not the same as . It is more like in a probably somewhat obscured sense too. Many MBTI theorists seem to link the "wholeness" thing to Ti.

    I don't know the exact nature of that wholeness thing. I have only an intuitive understanding of what i probably means from the various descriptions of how it feels to be an INTp, and they usually it fit me very well. But I always try to make pieces of information fit into a giant puzzle in which all the parts together form a harmonious whole. The "feeling" of harmony or disharmony when I "look" at the structure has an esthetic side to it.

  31. #31
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky?

    He's clarificating for INTp vs INTj.

    Nothing is said about ISTp, and it's not an "absolute value" description of INTps.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Rocky?

    He's clarificating for INTp vs INTj.

    Nothing is said about ISTp, and it's not an "absolute value" description of INTps.
    But he makes points to Ne. If both ISTPs and INTPs are using the same thing, then it can't be Ne, but its Te.

    Same goes for, say, ENTP. He claims that INTPs are brash and tactless in their outworld to find the truth through logic?? This is of course Te, and we all know that ENTPs are rarely like this, so it can't be Ne like he claims.

    EDIT: he also claims in the link that a personal point of view or opinion is related to the Feeling function. Of course its not, that Introversion. This is why he doesn't think INTPs care for personal interpretation of the facts; posivitism, Te.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  33. #33
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "I'd agree with Rocky and Phaedrus on this one; in Socionics, ILI is the one who's more like to promote provisional theories, whereas LII is the one who will attempt to say only what he's sure is true. "

    I think you misunderstood me; I agree the LII will, more likely than not, only state that which he believes to be true beyond a doubt, but so will an ILI---the matter of fact is, though, that an ILI is more keen to believe or disbelieve something based on less evidence than an LII. Rocky's father, though not neccessarily INTp, exhibits many INTp-like behaviors when he exhibits firm conviction in what he states.

    And Phaedrus, that's a long time ago; I've changed a great deal.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  34. #34
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah. ILI are all over the place. look at how many cant decide on their own type.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky's father, though not neccessarily INTp, exhibits many INTp-like behaviors when he exhibits firm conviction in what he states.
    Care to elaborate?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  36. #36
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That baseball example you used before.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's true.

    Another one I can think of is that he is very picky with what phone he picks up, believe it or not. I think its because the cordless phone we have shows the the person's ID on it before you answer. But if he can't find the cordless phone, he will refuse to pick up the stationary phone near him until he can find where the cordless one is. Weird.

    Same thing goes with what to eat. He "knows" that we all should eat a ton of protein, and carbs are the devil. He also knows that olive oil will keep you alive. And red wine, too. And dark chocolate. But not white wine or light chocolate. Sheash.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    after reading a very interesting book (in a Swedish translation) about him by Rebecca Goldstein: http://www.bookslut.com/nonfiction/2005_05_005364.php
    Wow...That sounds like everything you've been saying. The reviewer didn't like her connection between logical positivism and subjectivism, but apparently you've found a type-based connection.

    I think that philosophical attitudes are related to type in that the same structures that mold the types also affect the phenomena of possible philosophies (that is, the structure of the possible philosophies which, in a certain sense, exist even before people come up with them). However, I don't think that actual people of a given type will necessarily hold those philosophies exactly.

    Could there be a difference here between preliminary discussions and "definitive" written and published material?
    I tend to constantly revise (everything's negotiable) with an eye towards a "perfect" future (the definitive version which never materializes because it must be perfected first...well, sort of...I'm not that bad. .) Is that a trait of ILI? (or of Ip in general?) Or, as Rocky suggests, just a trait of introverts?

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow...That sounds like everything you've been saying. The reviewer didn't like her connection between logical positivism and subjectivism, but apparently you've found a type-based connection.
    Actually, I tend to agree with what the reviewer says to a certain degree, but not for the exact same reasons. The word "positivism" can mean different things. If we are talking about logical positivism at the time when Gödel published his theorem, then I believe that we could find many formalists among those positivists. But today, after postmodernism (in the philosophical sense of the word I am interested in it) has been properly introduced, the word "positivism" is often used in a much broader sense. Nowadays it is usually contrasted with hermeneutics, relativism, postmodernism, Kuhnian perspectives, and so on. Karl Popper has been associated with a positivistic attitude towards science, even though (according to himself) he was the one who killed logical positivism for good. Maybe Popper was critical towards positivism for the same reasons Gödel was. I'm not sure about Popper's type, but he was not a formalist. As is well known, he also believed that mathematical truths are objective, existing in his (platonic) World 3.

    So, one can say that today positivism stands for a critical, scientific attitude often found among natural scientists in contrast to a more relativistic, hermeneutic approach often found among behavioural scientists, feminists and others.

    I tend to constantly revise (everything's negotiable) with an eye towards a "perfect" future (the definitive version which never materializes because it must be perfected first...well, sort of...I'm not that bad. .) Is that a trait of ILI? (or of Ip in general?) Or, as Rocky suggests, just a trait of introverts?
    Are you always asking rhetorical questions, Jonathan? You describe my own behaviour almost exactly as I would describe it myself. So, yes it is definitely a trait of ILI, at least of the intuitive subtype, which you and I belong to if there is such a thing. It could also apply to other introverted types, but I suspect that it is more pronounced in our type.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you always asking rhetorical questions, Jonathan?
    You have to be careful when talking about Gödel....The self-reference bug is very catchy.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •