Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Te/Ti Ego and Dinosaurs

  1. #1
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,099
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Te/Ti Ego and Dinosaurs

    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  2. #2
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, perfect.

    Te gives you the external form, because they are extraverts, evolution.
    Ti gives you the points, the descriptions that make up that thing.

  3. #3
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Thoughts?
    Sounds very good, yes, but could you please check if it isn't a mistake there? It should be:
    = inductive
    = deductive

    (can this book be found somewhere?)
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  4. #4
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?

    ----->>>> Interpretation of concrete information
    ------>>> Extraction of abstract information

    / Source is always true, interpretation is arbitrary.
    / Source is arbitrary, deduction is always true.

    objectivity----meaningless----factual----<interpretive>----poetic----meaning----subjectivity
    subjectivity----arbitrary----correspondence----<deductive>----analytical----reason---objectivity
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 01-12-2011 at 07:57 AM.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    TIM
    Fe dominant
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?
    I like this. What is written for the rest of the functions?

  6. #6
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,099
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    (can this book be found somewhere?)
    http://www.amazon.com/MBTI-Socionics...4820090&sr=8-1
    Depending on the computer, I have had varied results with pressing the "surprise me" button to preview more pages on amazon, but I bought the book and it's pretty good. However there's nothing about MBTI in it despite the title (He regards them as the same, but uses Socionics functions in the book), and has a 16X16 subtype system with 256 (too) short descriptions that I haven't yet been able to correlate to DCNH because of his confusing system. The descriptions of functions are good but some of his other ideas are strange/interesting. His typings of famous people seemed a bit off however.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  7. #7
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    ----->>>> Interpretation of concrete information
    ------>>> Extraction of abstract information
    That's interesting. I tend to see external as implying internal and I still see it working for Ti/Fe and Si/Ne to an extent, but the abstract/involved might be the missing piece here, one that removes the asymmetry...

    / Source is always true, interpretation is arbitrary.
    / Source is arbitrary, deduction is always true.

    objectivity----meaningless----factual----<interpretive>----poetic----meaning----subjectivity
    subjectivity----arbitrary----correspondence----<deductive>----analytical----reason---objectivity
    I would rather say, "source is always taken as it is" - true as in, "source X saying Y" means exactly this, that source X says Y, while whether it confirms Y or not is a matter of interpretation already. But yeah, that's how I tend to see it in general... except I'd say Ti can imply Fe as in, actions are interpreted in light of explicit principles, examples of which had recently been mentioned by Ti/Fe valuers here. Though abstraction is potentially a better way of looking at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Not bad. Though I'd agree w/ ephemeros about = deductive, = inductive. Not that either is uniquely one or the other… nevermind, fuck too many details. Don't feel like explaining atm.

    Out of curiosity, I did a quick glance for a .pdf version of that book to d/l, but no dice. I did incidentally run into some IE descriptions that were apparently lifted from it though. Haven't read them so I dunno what they say.

    Also that board is way nicer looking than ours. I think the new government should upgrade vB.
    I don't think deductive/inductive works for elements, but rather for their combinations in IM types. LIEs have result (synthetic, inductive) thinking style while ILEs process (analytical, deductive)... so it makes sense that both of you would voice this objection, while for Crispy (LII, result) his base function described as "inductive" might still ring true.

    I've only looked at Ni and Ne descriptions so far and they seem alright.

  8. #8
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,099
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh yes I do believe the closest thing to Inductive/Deductive dichotomy is Process/Result. I just included those cause they looked like a conclusion to the dinosaur example. The author of the book is LII as well so that would explain why he identified with the dichotomy.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  9. #9
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The first one is Dynamic. The second one is Static. That's as far as I'll go at this point.

  10. #10
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?
    Dinosaurs are BIRDS
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  11. #11
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    Dinosaurs are BIRDS
    NO, birds are little dinousaurs actually
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  12. #12
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    NO, birds are little dinousaurs actually
    Dr Geller seal of approval

    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  13. #13
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    uses Socionics functions in the book
    There are some references where some functions match the ones in Socionics while the others differ/opposite (eg. L. Thomson, L. Berens). Some of them introduce new and often useful things, so worth reading, but with great attention.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Out of curiosity, I did a quick glance for a .pdf version of that book to d/l, but no dice. I did incidentally run into some IE descriptions that were apparently lifted from it though. Haven't read them so I dunno what they say.
    Need a bit of thought, but I'm stunned: this is the first time that I don't bind Socionics Si associated with comfort and pleasure, but experience and effects. However, the guy borrowed "subjective/objective" from Jung. If you noticed, for Fields information he talks about "our reality" instead of dealing with the rules, as the Fields aspect are about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I don't think deductive/inductive works for elements, but rather for their combinations in IM types. LIEs have result (synthetic, inductive) thinking style while ILEs process (analytical, deductive)... so it makes sense that both of you would voice this objection, while for Crispy (LII, result) his base function described as "inductive" might still ring true.
    Well that's because you took those thinking styles for granted. I'd not accept your argument for the reason that they're based on something even more ambiguous and (IMO) arbitrary.
    Then, I don't know whether you used real forum users or something else to confirm this for yourself, but in the first case, if Crispy is LIE that would mean that your observations (if they exist) determined this inclination in a Te type again.

    I think that Ti and Te may be necessary and sufficient for deduction and respectively induction. Indeed IRL both Bodies and Fields information is required for both the usage of Logic and to apply those kinds of reasoning, but that's not the point of it. For example the premise of "all people are mortals" requires different processes to appear, but that's out of the scope of the deduction itself.
    If anything, a type may be considered deductive and inductive, from a certain perspective, based on Extroversion (eg EXXx inductive, Bodies observes and Fields assimilates), but in any case I disagree with the idea that it has anything to do with Process/Result.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh yeah. This reminded me of some vs. contrast stevENTj posted once:
    Both look like Te to me. I read the second passage more easily (by a long shot) and am more inclined to write that way.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.
    I agree. The reason is that you can't arrive at a categorical statement without making an induction of some kind. The case-by-case view on the other hand is stand-alone justified. The induction/deduction difference is rather useless, though. The two depend so much on each other that it's hard to even imagine the use of one without a counterpart use of the other. A person that uses one or the other in isolation would be unable to think for him/herself.

    I hate this thread.

  15. #15
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Oh yeah. This reminded me of some vs. contrast stevENTj posted once:
    Something is wrong here, because as usual, my eyes cross after two lines of a Ti example, and the Te is completely clear to me.

    The Ti sample and Te sample seem to be written at different levels of complexity, for different readers or purposes. I prefer the dino example because the two versions are more or less equivalent.

  16. #16
    Creepy-male

    Default

    If Te is the above descriptions, Ti would be like a very elegant formula expression the relationship between one thing and another, and the things affecting that relationship. The Ti information is all heavily packed down, but is rather like a von Neumann machine in that you can unpack it all into an expanded construct.

    Like,

    y2 = 4ax

    That's the equation for a parabola. It's basically the raw materials for constructing relationships that yield more useful information. A mathematician carries around those rules in his head (because high schools and freshman courses love teaching you useless legwork ), but you could just as easily have a rulebook that codifies them, and have a machine extract the information you want. Or a monkey. Or someone with zero mathematics background.

    I agree that the top description from StevENTj just looks like a gigantic Te dump of disembodied factual information (like dates in history).

    I think Te PoLR for me is like, I can never register information unless it's constructed as logical and causal relationships. However, the spirit of the comparison is basically valid, the examples used were just very very weak.

    Sorry about this post being an incoherent tangle.

  17. #17
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Steve's Ti example uses too much specialized language to make it a good comparison. You'd have to know the specialized language to understand it regardless of your type and what you value.

  18. #18
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I agree. The reason is that you can't arrive at a categorical statement without making an induction of some kind.
    So why do you agree then? It's deduction which is categorical, induction is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.
    What the fuck is wrong with you, people?
    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The two depend so much on each other that it's hard to even imagine the use of one without a counterpart use of the other. A person that uses one or the other in isolation would be unable to think for him/herself.
    True but irrelevant. A car without a driver can't run, that doesn't necessarily mean that a car without a driver can't exist. It's ridiculous. The same happens with abstract concepts, and in fact the sciences as well are separated because they deal with different aspects, although they depend on each other (psychology, biology, chemistry, physics). You can't just say that chemistry doesn't exist because it depends on physics.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  19. #19
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thinking in the same vein as posts above, Te seems to employee a 'black box' approach: punch in some data and have it spit out an answer. Ti might be more concerned with evaluating the process within that black box to form a consistent framework that deals with categorical inputs and associated outputs.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  20. #20
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Both look like Te to me. I read the second passage more easily (by a long shot) and am more inclined to write that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden View Post
    Something is wrong here, because as usual, my eyes cross after two lines of a Ti example, and the Te is completely clear to me.

    The Ti sample and Te sample seem to be written at different levels of complexity, for different readers or purposes. I prefer the dino example because the two versions are more or less equivalent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariella View Post
    Steve's Ti example uses too much specialized language to make it a good comparison. You'd have to know the specialized language to understand it regardless of your type and what you value.
    I don't think it has anything to do with socionics elements, ftr. Language and complexity aside, what Ashton and Steve probably attempted to do is show that Te focuses on the function and Ti on the definition - except it fails because the examples don't really fit it, not nearly to the same point as the original one with dinosaurs. Clear Ti style would be closer to formal definition or the formula, not necessarily explanatory like in this case. Similarly, Te isn't limited to dry facts never going beyond the surface, as the second example implies. While in a way both address the functionality as well as nature of TNT, I'd say it isn't really representative of Te, either.

    Also, it might be a case of "I don't like it so it isn't in my quadra" on Steve's and Ashton's part as much as it is on labcoat's or Golden's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    Well that's because you took those thinking styles for granted. I'd not accept your argument for the reason that they're based on something even more ambiguous and (IMO) arbitrary.
    Then, I don't know whether you used real forum users or something else to confirm this for yourself, but in the first case, if Crispy is LIE that would mean that your observations (if they exist) determined this inclination in a Te type again.

    I think that Ti and Te may be necessary and sufficient for deduction and respectively induction. Indeed IRL both Bodies and Fields information is required for both the usage of Logic and to apply those kinds of reasoning, but that's not the point of it. For example the premise of "all people are mortals" requires different processes to appear, but that's out of the scope of the deduction itself.
    If anything, a type may be considered deductive and inductive, from a certain perspective, based on Extroversion (eg EXXx inductive, Bodies observes and Fields assimilates), but in any case I disagree with the idea that it has anything to do with Process/Result.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    So why do you agree then? It's deduction which is categorical, induction is not.

    What the fuck is wrong with you, people?
    ---

    True but irrelevant. A car without a driver can't run, that doesn't necessarily mean that a car without a driver can't exist. It's ridiculous. The same happens with abstract concepts, and in fact the sciences as well are separated because they deal with different aspects, although they depend on each other (psychology, biology, chemistry, physics). You can't just say that chemistry doesn't exist because it depends on physics.
    You could just as well say that I take socionics relations for granted, or clubs, or temperaments, or whatever other aspect of theory I see work in practice.

    It's something that struck me as accurate when I read it and fits rather well with my experiences of real users (and even real people). It's also something that made me realize you're ILE when I first came across it, by the way. I'm not saying it to reaffirm that I agree with the typing or whatever, merely to illustrate with a real... well, forum life example that it's a significant aspect and one often replaced by the view that functions represent a sort of "thought processes", which leads to stereotypes, such as those about ILEs you used to battle against. People expect Ne-egos, especially Ne-dominants, to be something like holographic thinkers, and I suspect it's your rather strict deductive approach of a cause-effect thinker that makes them call you a Ne-PoLR - LSIs represent this style as well, while SLEs and LIIs are holographic thinkers. Disregarding it and projecting thinking style on ego functions directly is probably the reason for at least some misunderstandings.

    Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:
    Together, these relations make the socion an energetically cohesive unit. First of all, we have 8 pairs of dyads, or dual types. The purpose of these relations is to "even out" or balance the individual's life activity. "As far as we are aware, without this, the individual's full-fledged intellectual realization is impossible." Secondly, the 8 dyads split into two energy rings (or tracks) of four dyads apiece. These dyads are connected by a one-way connection; new information only flows in one direction. Information in these two rings flows in opposite directions, creating an "induction" effect between the two.
    These two energy rings are pairs of supervision rings going in the same direction. They correspond to process/result dichotomy (and I don't care if it was Reinin who named it so, he didn't "invent" it), but more importantly they are described as one-way information flow. Sharing a thinking style might be part of the reason why this flow is so effective, and more so in supervision than in benefit, while exact function arrangement explains it being one-directional.

    Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another example of a Te vs Ti explanation:

    How does the watch work?

    Te: the watch works by winding it up

    Ti: the watch works by <explaining the various mechanisms inside>

  22. #22
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Another example of a Te vs Ti explanation:

    How does the watch work?

    Te: the watch works by winding it up

    Ti: the watch works by <explaining the various mechanisms inside>


    That's like the dumbest misrepresentation in this thread, TNT example included.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post


    That's like the dumbest misrepresentation in this thread, TNT example included.
    Yeah it's pretty dumb on it's own. There's also the question. How do I make it go is a request for Te information. If I or someone said you have to wind a watch up to make the hands move then this is a Te response.

    If I asked why I would need to wind it up this is a request for a Ti explanation. If you responded by saying, you need to wind it up to make it go, then this is not a Ti answer. If you said I have to wind it up because there's a spring inside which pushes gears that turn wheels that move the clock hands and you would need to wind up the spring to push the gears then this would be a Ti response. - then you would understand two things, that you need to wind the watch up to make it go and why you need to wind the watch up to make it go.

  24. #24
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aiss, I don't see the support in what you say, neither the connection between your conclusions with this array of statements. Please take is somehow systematically because it's impossible to tell what's a fact, what's observable (with several exceptions) and what does that conclude.

    I don't ask you to take all the types and show how Process/Result applies on them, but first of all please at least point out what understanding of Process/Result you use. The "thinking styles", too.

    For example you say:
    Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:
    How? Where is the reason for which they "exist from the beginning of socionics"? They only coincidentally correspond to one of the many rings of the Socion. I could also invent the "defecating style" and assign it to another ring, does that mean that it's correct and based on Socionics? No. There must be some evidence and explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.
    Either way you take it it's the same thing. Yes, there's a possibility that people don't know what these terms mean, so they use them incorrectly, so they're wrong even more. This is why I quoted Wikipedia, so that any confusion to disappear. Use the dictionary and you get the same thing:
    Quote Originally Posted by deduction
    The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
    ---
    a. a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
    Quote Originally Posted by induction
    The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
    ---
    a. any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
    b. the process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.
    Your relativism is unjustified in this case, IMO. BTW, what users are you talking about?

    The only confusion that I see that can happen is the meaning of "categorical". It has two meanings that however, both apply to how Ti is used. They are related, though, categorical in terms of "categories" means the same "black-or-white" approach, true/false, or the absolute conclusion.
    ---

    So let's put it this way, take your description of Process/Result (or maybe some thinking styles, I didn't figure out what you clearly associate with what) and your understanding of deduction/induction and explain how they emerge from each other. Let's discuss, I'm interested in case you're on something real.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    The actual dichotomy in question is physics geek vs non-physics geek.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is a white box.
    Te is a black box.

    Do I win?

  27. #27
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itdoesntmatter View Post
    Ti is a white box.
    Te is a black box.

    Do I win?
    *throws a candy*

    They may be black and white but it doesn't mean they're white and black box as far as clarity goes. I rather associate internal elements with black box in this sense.

    @Bolt, I'll put replying on my to-do list (with high priority). In the meantime you might brave this machine translation if you haven't yet.

  28. #28
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itdoesntmatter View Post
    Ti is a white box.
    Te is a black box.

    Do I win?
    Now sure what the community is up to, but you have my approval.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  29. #29
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    @Bolt, I'll put replying on my to-do list (with high priority). In the meantime you might brave this machine translation if you haven't yet.
    OK.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    They may be black and white but it doesn't mean they're white and black box as far as clarity goes. I rather associate internal elements with black box in this sense.
    I think he meant these (at least this is what I used):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-box_testing#
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-box_testing#

    Funny thing that they're literally the symbols of these two functions!
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  30. #30
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think the "Ti answer" just sounds like saying what they are which seems more like "Se" if i were to get all "external statics of objects" about it and be all literal like that.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hahahahha uhhhh... i was just kidding. I was just referring to the functions as if they themselves were the symbols that represent them. YOU ALL LOSE

  32. #32
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?
    Yea I think this is good, however I think it suffers in one vein, that being that I don't think Ti or Te egos actually think or talk literally like this. This example is a good example for discerning the difference between the function, but not a very good example when applied to people. So in other words yes I think its good, but its purpose for usefulness in my opinion only really extends into the realm of understanding the theory, and not into anticipating the behavior of individuals with Ti and Te.

    One key element to this is that, any Ti or Te ego will have the other function (Te for Ti-ego or Ti for Te-ego) in their id block as a strong function, but not preferred. A Ti type for example is talent/strong at using their Te and Ti functions, but integrates the Te into a their Ti, because it's there ego preference. A Te type integrates the Ti into their Te, because it's there ego preference.

    This is made more physical by considering a Ti type taking data, facts and statistics (Te) and using them to build a structural/theoretical understanding of something (Ti). They are not poor at understanding data, facts and statistics.... but their urge is to integrate this knowledge into a structural system, a theory. The system they choose is usually a matter of subjective preference (hence the introverted function).

    Te's do the reverse, stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics. They usually look at the subjective systems as being useless in and of themselves, they are only looking to extrapolate the objective facts from the system.

    The point however that I'm making isn't all of that though, its that real Ti and Te types are likely to draw upon both functions from time to time. So a Ti type isn't going to simply be bumbling around claiming everything must fit into a little theory, they may even be big data heads, memorizing tons of objective facts, looking into statistics, be talented at dealing with objective facts.... but more often than not and if given enough time the Ti ego will want to try to systematize these facts into a structural system of their understanding, because its part of their ego, they are more preferential to this form of logical information.

    Really the odd thing is that Te and Ti are the same thing, logical information, but they are two different forms of that information. The nature of the information doesn't change but the nature of the person's perspective of that information does change. The Ti type views the logical information from within a subjective framework. The Te types views the logical information from an immediate objective framework. But its the same information, the distinction in viewpoint is merely an introverted/extroverted difference, the introvert being inward facing, the extrovert being outward. The introvert takes in the information from the logical objects (into their system), the extrovert takes out the information (from their system) or observes the object as is.

  33. #33
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itdoesntmatter View Post
    Hahahahha uhhhh... i was just kidding. I was just referring to the functions as if they themselves were the symbols that represent them. YOU ALL LOSE
    Regardless what you had in mind, your propositions match my older statements (I can find them and paste them here). I recall at least one example, it was about a software patch.

    So you're approved, move along.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  34. #34
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt
    The only confusion that I see that can happen is the meaning of "categorical". It has two meanings that however, both apply to how Ti is used. They are related, though, categorical in terms of "categories" means the same "black-or-white" approach, true/false, or the absolute conclusion.
    "Categorical" refers to the kind of conclusion that you end up with after you perform an induction, i.e. something applicable in general to many instances of a certain generalizing type. So it's neither inductive, nor deductive, but the thing you have after inducing and the thing you need before you can deduce.

    What has always been dead obvious to me about Ti is that IxTjs reach these categorical statements in ways that look rushed and unjustified, hence inductive. These judgments appear seemingly "out of nowhere".

    Now I don't care if someone wants to claim Te types do induction of some variety too, but to call Ti primarily deductive is just patently false. Drop the issue.

  35. #35
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Te's do the reverse, stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics. They usually look at the subjective systems as being useless in and of themselves, they are only looking to extrapolate the objective facts from the system.
    I rather tend to see my own Ti-demonstrative as being demonstrated in using Ti-like models and structures with (relative) ease while not really caring for them, but merely for their usefulness, never considering them "real" but rather a sort of filter which can help assess information, but can also limit perspective. "Ease" is referring less to ability of understanding these or lack thereof, and more to using them confidently, where weak and devalued Ti may be more mistrustful of possible limiting or blinding effect and not even try. I'd say the biggest difference with valued Ti is that I don't try to create a perfect the model or value it in itself, with an attitude that it's impossible to reduce the world (or its aspect) to an explicit formula like this.

    It's not far from what you're saying, really, but I seriously wouldn't describe it as "stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics", nor such systems as "useless" (see above paragraph).

  36. #36
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I rather tend to see my own Ti-demonstrative as being demonstrated in using Ti-like models and structures with (relative) ease while not really caring for them, but merely for their usefulness, never considering them "real" but rather a sort of filter which can help assess information, but can also limit perspective. "Ease" is referring less to ability of understanding these or lack thereof, and more to using them confidently, where weak and devalued Ti may be more mistrustful of possible limiting or blinding effect and not even try. I'd say the biggest difference with valued Ti is that I don't try to create a perfect the model or value it in itself, with an attitude that it's impossible to reduce the world (or its aspect) to an explicit formula like this.

    It's not far from what you're saying, really, but I seriously wouldn't describe it as "stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics", nor such systems as "useless" (see above paragraph).
    Lol alright, how would you describe it I don't really see the difference between what you wrote and essentially stripping down theories for useful information, but whatever, a more pressing issue...

    I don't like the propoganda that Ti is "possibility or perspective limiting". I think this is maybe what it feels like to a Te type but not what the function is about. Jung describes it clearly in his psychological type paper that Ti is subjective, in other words the organization of factual data into systems is a subjective issue, not an objective one. The goal of Ti isn't too build a "theory of everything" and reduce life to some perfect intellectual model. The goal of Ti is to organize information into a structural system that makes sense to that individual. Much like a language has certain rules to its structure. While that structure is useful, ultimately its subjective to a culture. Other languages exist with different structures and word order and rules, its a different framework. Ti isn't about imposing a single minded view to something. Ti is about establish an arbitrary structure, in the same way an architect construct a building, the Ti type constructs theories which store Te data analogous to the room in a building. The Te type differs in that instead they work with this raw data directly instead of pulling it from the framework. The framework itself isn't really that important, the framework is just a matter of introversion. What remains logically valid in either case is the actual factual data, whether in its raw Te form or in its subjective Ti form.

  37. #37
    Imagine Timeless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, CA.
    TIM
    ILE/ENTp
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolt View Post
    What the fuck is wrong with you, people?
    "You people?"


  38. #38
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    "Categorical" refers to the kind of conclusion that you end up with after you perform an induction, i.e. something applicable in general to many instances of a certain generalizing type. So it's neither inductive, nor deductive, but the thing you have after inducing and the thing you need before you can deduce.

    What has always been dead obvious to me about Ti is that IxTjs reach these categorical statements in ways that look rushed and unjustified, hence inductive. These judgments appear seemingly "out of nowhere".

    Now I don't care if someone wants to claim Te types do induction of some variety too, but to call Ti primarily deductive is just patently false. Drop the issue.
    I was never claiming that Ti restricts to deduction. I said that Ti may be necessary and sufficient - that means that deduction can't exist without Ti, that induction is a Ti type of information. That deductive reasoning is in the field of Ti, that's it. I said "may be" because I'm not yet certain about it, I didn't have the time to put it on all sides, just apparently this is it.

    I neither claim that the usage of other functions can't be categorical.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  39. #39
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

    From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

    Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
    Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

    Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

    is procedural and deductive.
    is categorical, formal and inductive.

    Thoughts?
    And they'd both be wrong.

    Dinosaurs evolved from already-terrestrial reptilian species. Furthermore, while the "single meteor" hypothesis is the one most favored by modern evidence, the issue of "what killed the non-avian dinosaurs" is still up for debate, such as with the hypothesis that natural tectonic activity or a multitude of causes ultimately killed the dinosaurs. This brings me to my next point, in that, "dinosaurs" are only extinct by the colloquial definition. From a more accurate phylogenetic standpoint, birds and crocodillians are "modern-day" dinosaurs.

    Just to nit-pick, while anyone with a decent education of Latin knows that "saur" means something along the lines of "lizard," Dinosaurs actually aren't. Dinosaurs are "lizard-like" and, cladistically speaking, diverged from the common reptilian lineage long before the emergence of lizards.

  40. #40
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Lol alright, how would you describe it I don't really see the difference between what you wrote and essentially stripping down theories for useful information, but whatever, a more pressing issue...
    There's a huge difference between using a model and considering it useless. IMO. Also, the way you put it isn't something I'd ever agree with, and I consider it potentially misleading to others. That is, I don't see it apply to myself, but I still think I'm Te-ego and agree with the general point you're making, so while I see what you're getting at I still call it a misrepresentation, if not misconception.

    I don't like the propoganda that Ti is "possibility or perspective limiting". I think this is maybe what it feels like to a Te type but not what the function is about. Jung describes it clearly in his psychological type paper that Ti is subjective, in other words the organization of factual data into systems is a subjective issue, not an objective one. The goal of Ti isn't too build a "theory of everything" and reduce life to some perfect intellectual model. The goal of Ti is to organize information into a structural system that makes sense to that individual. Much like a language has certain rules to its structure. While that structure is useful, ultimately its subjective to a culture. Other languages exist with different structures and word order and rules, its a different framework. Ti isn't about imposing a single minded view to something. Ti is about establish an arbitrary structure, in the same way an architect construct a building, the Ti type constructs theories which store Te data analogous to the room in a building. The Te type differs in that instead they work with this raw data directly instead of pulling it from the framework. The framework itself isn't really that important, the framework is just a matter of introversion. What remains logically valid in either case is the actual factual data, whether in its raw Te form or in its subjective Ti form.
    Yeah, propaganda. Did you read what I wrote, that it's what weak and devalued Ti fears, not strong? I'm using these, but they'd rather not.

    You describe Ti like it is in Ti-ego, but Ti information is external static fields aspect, something which can be called a structure, defined system, a model. When you are describing it in ego function like this, you're necessarily including both Ti and Te aspects, which I thought you were trying to avoid, your point being that all Thinking types "use" both types of information. Ti aspect is such systems, and this highly personalized development of it you describe is in ego function. Te as aspect is concerned with explicit actions (functionality?) of objects, but as ego function, Te has also been associated, by Jung and I think in socionics as well, with external (outside of self) and External (explicit) standards. Yet explicit systems and standards are still Ti aspect; super-id Ti is apt at using and discarding them rather than creating a personalized one of far greater complexity (which you described above as far as I can tell, though I agree "reducing" wasn't a good way to describe it, as much as I tend to perceive Ti information this way). Inner picture of the world for me is Ni, it's personalized intuition that dictates the language I speak, while the Thinking isn't so.

    That is how I understand subjective vs objective difference, as emergent from personalizing or depersonalizing the aspect. It also works to show the difference between introverts and extroverts, the former's primary focus obviously being on the inside (introverted, personalized element in base function) and the latter's on the outside (extroverted, depersonalized element in base function), with the secondary focus reversed.

    (Personalized and depersonalized are probably very bad words again to use apart from describing Thinking, but that's not the point. Don't take it personally, Fe-egos.)

    Also, while your analogy might be descriptive of Ti in general, it's rather against your own point about perspective not being limited by it, seeing as by all accounts, language you use does affect - and in particular, also limits or expands - your perspective. In socionics, probably preferring any information aspect over others does it, but what I was talking about is a specific reaction I've observed in weak Ti-types (esp. some Delta NFs).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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