Sciences/Majors/Careers and Functions

[DividedsGhost]

Te - Physics, chemistry, macroeconomics
Ti - macroeconomics
Fe - microeconomics, marketing
Fi - Biology, Sociology

Now you continue

[EyeSeeCold]

Eh. Too many interrelations..unless you want to be one-dimensional.

[Crispy]

Macroeconomics is disgusting. Chemistry (or at least the way I'll be using chemistry) seems pretty Ne to me.

[EyeSeeCold]

Macroeconomics is disgusting. Chemistry (or at least the way I'll be using chemistry) seems pretty Ne to me.

All subjects that attempt to externalize and objectify ideas or concepts of the human experience are , in my opinion. Science is all .

[Suz]

Macroeconomics is disgusting. Chemistry (or at least the way I'll be using chemistry) seems pretty Ne to me.

that would explain my chem major

and my complete retardedness where any sort of econ is concerned. Got A's and B's in all my courses in college but almost failed microeconomics (is it really Fe-centered?? how??)

[Suz]

All subjects that attempt to externalize and objectify ideas or concepts of the human experience are , in my opinion. Science is all .

I approve.

[DividedsGhost]

that would explain my chem major

and my complete retardedness where any sort of econ is concerned. Got A's and B's in all my courses in college but almost failed microeconomics (is it really Fe-centered?? how??)

I don't know, brawh. I assumed the application of it was more Fe than anything else, but I guess the concept of microeconomics (in retrospect) is more of a Te study. I'm not really sure since I steer clear of sciences that seem strictly business to me. So you is prolllllaby ripettt.

[FDG]

I liked (like) physics, game theory, computational economics. Macroeconomics is really interesting, but you can't mathematically formalize most of its relationships, thus it's more apt to be treated via socratic debate or such.

[eunice]

Te - Physics, Chemistry
Fi - Biology

Lol.....They are my worst subjects, so I don't agree with the IMs been tagged to them.I can never really appreciate these subjects. My strongest subjects i.e. the ones which I can understand more easily and enjoyed the most are Maths and Foreign Languages (particularly Korean) as they seem to follow a certain logic.

[krieger]

I'm not into pure sciences much. The relevance always escapes me.

[eunice]

I'm not into pure sciences much. The relevance always escapes me.

+1, except Mathematics.

[Timeless]

= Photography, Film-making, Astronomy, Advertising, Interdisciplinary Studies
= Philosophy, Author, Writer, History, Journalism, Archaeology

= Military, Sports, Gymnastics, Stuntman, Security, Geology, Trainer
= Culinary, Hospitality, Health & Fitness, Design, Fashion, Dance, Gardener

= Acting, Theatre, Music, Entertainment, Speech, Linguistics
= Human Services, Counseling, Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Humanities

= Business, Marketing, Management, Political Science, Accounting, Statistics
= Law, Engineering, Architecture, Psychology, Computer Programming

[tcaudilllg]

I'd like to make a point: whenever I don't comment about (socionics-related) ideas for a long time, that doesn't mean I agree with them. Rather, it's more likely that I find them the product of disgusting ignorance, and so would prefer not to associate with their creators.

[Crispy]

Why would anyone ever take silence as an indication of agreement? Sounds a bit contrived.

[krieger]

you'd be surprised to what extent people see the absence of voiced disagreement as an indication of unanimity.

[Crispy]

Unanimity of the voiced I guess. Whenever I see people avoiding certain topics I assume they find them uninteresting or lacking potential. Disagreement is always good to show, but I thought it was worded strangely

[Suz]

I liked (like) physics, game theory, computational economics. Macroeconomics is really interesting, but you can't mathematically formalize most of its relationships, thus it's more apt to be treated via socratic debate or such.

Thus Ti/Fe...I see.

The thing i was thinking about microeconomics being Fe is it's a manifestation of what happens when individuals "want" to buy something, and can be emotionally driven?

[717495]

= Photography, Film-making, Astronomy, Advertising, Interdisciplinary Studies
= Philosophy, Author, Writer, History, Journalism, Archaeology

= Military, Sports, Gymnastics, Stuntman, Security, Geology, Trainer
= Culinary, Hospitality, Health & Fitness, Design, Fashion, Dance, Gardener

= Acting, Theatre, Music, Entertainment, Speech, Linguistics
= Human Services, Counseling, Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Humanities

= Business, Marketing, Management, Political Science, Accounting, Statistics
= Law, Engineering, Architecture, Psychology, Computer Programming

Out of these I like the concept behind film making and music the most: coming up with imaginative and personal ideas, and secondarily making my vision enjoyable to people. I also used to really be into basic architecture/engineering back when I was like 2 years old. But I think I'm more of the artist/composer/fantasist type, if there were that option. I thought would be a little more creative than photography, astronomy, and interdisciplinary studies, but then again I guess you have to compensate with all the real / boring careers normies have.

[Wynch]

Most disciplines have multiple approaches. Especially when you get into something like a social study, humanities, liberal arts in general. Consequently it's a major problem to try and pigeon-hole a subject to a type or an information element. It really depends on why and how you study a given topic that is indicative of type.

[DividedsGhost]

Most disciplines have multiple approaches. Especially when you get into something like a social study, humanities, liberal arts in general. Consequently it's a major problem to try and pigeon-hole a subject to a type or an information element. It really depends on why and how you study a given topic that is indicative of type.

Right, but some disciplines are incredibly geared towards certain IMs. The whole reason I wanted to start this topic is because I realized the incorrect methodologies of say assigning 'logic' or 'math' to say Ti, when that really has nothing to do with the basic premise of the theory with the most basic definitions, and inherently belongs to none of the functions.

Ti - what not to do and how not to do something with people and other-life (unemotional receptive-organizational subjects).
Te - how to do something and what to do with the surroundings and its various relationships (unemotional directive-organizational objects).
Fi - what not to do and how not to do something with the surroundings and its various relationships (emotional receptive-organizational objects).
Fe - how to do something and what to do with people and other-life (emotional directive-organizational subjects)

This should be more than possible to explain and group with. Although granted, the perceiving functions will require context, which is why I have left them out, but it should not matter because every career and science has a rational focus, regardless of the state of its perceiving elements employed to accomplish its rational focus. How one wishes to focus on and explain the main-focuses and sub-focuses of different majors and careers is mainly what the thread is for.

Edit: I added receptive-directive...and re-clarified again.

[Jarno]

I once read on an MBTI site, that xNxP is most seen in sociology sciences.

[entj]

Right, but some disciplines are incredibly geared towards certain IMs. The whole reason I wanted to start this topic is because I realized the incorrect methodologies of say assigning 'logic' or 'math' to say Ti, when that really has nothing to do with the basic premise of the theory with the most basic definitions, and inherently belongs to none of the functions.

Ti - what not to do and how not to do something with people and other-life (unemotional receptive-organizational subjects).
Te - how to do something and what to do with the surroundings and its various relationships (unemotional directive-organizational objects).
Fi - what not to do and how not to do something with the surroundings and its various relationships (emotional receptive-organizational objects).
Fe - how to do something and what to do with people and other-life (emotional directive-organizational subjects)

This should be more than possible to explain and group with. Although granted, the perceiving functions will require context, which is why I have left them out, but it should not matter because every career and science has a rational focus, regardless of the state of its perceiving elements employed to accomplish its rational focus. How one wishes to focus on and explain the main-focuses and sub-focuses of different majors and istp careers is mainly what the thread is for.

Edit: I added receptive-directive...and re-clarified again.

I think that's a good explanation of Te and Fi, but for Ti and Fe I'm not sure

[Absurd]

= Photography, Film-making, Astronomy, Advertising, Interdisciplinary Studies
= Philosophy, Author, Writer, History, Journalism, Archaeology

= Military, Sports, Gymnastics, Stuntman, Security, Geology, Trainer
= Culinary, Hospitality, Health & Fitness, Design, Fashion, Dance, Gardener

= Acting, Theatre, Music, Entertainment, Speech, Linguistics
= Human Services, Counseling, Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Humanities

= Business, Marketing, Management, Political Science, Accounting, Statistics
= Law, Engineering, Architecture, Psychology, Computer Programming

Hmm, only ones that fit me are: Te, Se, Fi, Ni, Si, Fe, Ti, Ne - in that order, I think

[DividedsGhost]

I think that's a good explanation of Te and Fi, but for Ti and Fe I'm not sure

Yeah, I could reword it, but I'm not entirely sure either, although this is the most objective (and when I say objective I mean in terms of creating conclusions that have reasonable consistency) base definitions I have come to create.

Ti - what not to do and how not to do something with the surroundings and its individual people and other individual life (unemotional receptive-organizational subjects).
Te - how to do something and what to do with the surroundings and its various relationships (unemotional directive-organizational objects).
Fi - what not to do and how not to do something with the surroundings and its various relationships (emotional receptive-organizational objects).
Fe - how to do something and what to do with the surroundings and its individual people and other individual life (emotional directive-organizational subjects).

Is that better? I guess I kind of see it as Te/Fi creating an overall undertanding and implementation of the world from an 'applicable to everything' standpoint, whereas Ti/Fe creates an understanding of individual things and implements each one differently with their unique characteristics from a 'nothing is always applicable' standpoint.

One assumes to pursue the predictable and the other assumes to pursue the unpredictable, essentially. It's as if they exist in two entirely different dimensions of thought.

[DividedsGhost]

You mean the exact opposite, right?

'fraid not.

[MatthewZ]

My physics, MINE!

[FDG]

Thumbs up to Ashton's above post.

[The Ineffable]

Thus Ti/Fe...I see.

His Ti seems to have been always the strongest and he'd IMO be welcome to Alpha/Beta, though I doubt he'll change his mind after all this time, especially as a Rational.

My physics, MINE!

Give me mechanics and you're free to go.
---

I disagree with the OP that macroeconomics is Ti. This macrogibberish was always a moving target, no strict rules, no real predictions, just a bunch of smart guys for whose expertise there are not even criteria for evaluation defined, apart for big words, large smiles and handshakes.

[DividedsGhost]

But the bit with "Ti = nothing is always applicable" doesn't make sense at all to me. Ti types are notorious for wanting consistency, and XEEs love to point out exceptions to rules, and that whatever piece of data doesn't fit neatly into the simple Ti structure.

Why not? If they love to point out exceptions, aren't they pointing out how some Te construct "will not work or can not be used". It's this pointing out that I can't help but focus on. It's really their primary role. I can understand how having such a mental role might lead to a big complex and architectural, albeit not necessarily complete or ever complete, 'system' or 'structure' or 'logic' if you will from this, but it doesn't negate my definition. The focus becomes that of one that searches for the individual eccentricities and idiosyncrasies of things to show the world how universally understood concepts, applications, and ideas are wrong, insufficient, or incomplete.

I guess if you want to think about it another way, you could look at Ti and Fi from their conflicted, nit-picking, extroverted perspectives.
Ti undermines Te - where universal ideas are useless.
Te undermines Ti - where unique details are useless.

Fi undermines Fe - where persona is useless.
Fe undermines Fi - where karma is useless.

It seems we both understand the same things here, but misinterpret each other?

I also don't understand why the word "relationships" is associated with Te rather than Ti. And I think you're trying too hard to make the Te and Fi definitions similar. They're diametrically opposed (external dynamics of objects vs. internal statics of fields) - they complement each other, yes, but they have very little overlap definitionally speaking.

Perhaps. But if you want to think about Fi another way, think about it as karmic. It weighs the complexity of how are 'decisions' affect each other. Itself is also a big complex and architectural, albeit not necessarily complete or ever complete, 'system' or 'structure' or 'logic' like Ti. It will learn what not do and how not to do things with people in a karmic understanding. But it ends up with the same role as Ti explained above, but in relation to looking at people and their actions as a whole (an objective outlook).

I don't think that's the right contrast. I for one denounce the notion that things ought to be pursued merely because they are predictable and/or are believed to have practical applicability. Given that:

1) Predictable things are boring. Chaotic novelty and discovery of the unexpected makes life worth living.

2) So-called "practicality" is a subjective bias; practicality ≠ reality. Something may be true regardless of its esteemed practical worth and often he who recognizes that, wins (see entrepreneurs). Aside from that, what is true is worth knowing in and of itself—simply because, well… it's true. Science and pure knowledge are worthy of pursuit for their own sake, and shouldn't be hemmed in under arbitrary dogmas of practicality. This would make me rightfully paranoid; we're better off letting inventors and entrepreneurs contend with matters of application. Creative visionaries are considered as such given their knack for finding tangible uses for things nobody could foresee, and/or for which there wasn't yet a necessity. For example, many branches of esoteric mathematics which at the time of their inception had no realizable connection any way whatsoever to the real-world, often find tangible value in scientific work centuries later.

3) We only learn from our mistakes and events/circumstances which defy our predictions. Allowing us to correct errors and retire older knowledge into limiting cases. The things we don't know that we do not know—'hidden premises' swirling in mystery out there somewhere in a metaphysical no man's land of the universe, far beyond our fathoms of imaginative comprehension to confirm nor deny in the present state of knowledge—these things have always been humanity's most invaluable resource.

4) Progress cannot be planned for. Nobody accurately foresees the emergence of new ideas, political revolutions, or the advent of life-changing technology. Let alone how these will synergistically evolve in tandem with myriad other coexisting variations, and what their manifold cascades of direct and indirect consequence will be. The complexities of reality make humans demonstrably useless at predicting its future, except in very simple and immediate 1st-hand scenarios, or in narrowly specialized vectors of potential development where informed intelligent experience on a matter can at least increase the odds of correct prediction. In any kind of broader macro-social scope though—we suck. Hence why futurologists and socialists have and always will be categorically full of shit.

The fact of life is flux; a predictable future exhorts an end to history, and implies the 'establishment of a final, permanent calm' as it were (Mises).

Well, to be fair, I don't believe I associated anything with practicality in the way that you are implying.

But basically, Te and Fi are concerned with universally applicable concepts. It doesn't mean that what they employ necessarily is, but that their interactions with the world have this underlying desire to employ such above all else; everything guides towards this desire; the way of treating things as objects ends up being part of that desire. It's natural treating the world as a puzzle of objects to solve. So its essence is practicality and predictability, but no, you're right, it's search and experience to find such isn't necessarily about practicality and predictability; but it yearns to find, utilize, and bring such to the world. It's nature is to bring an overall coherent structure of the world that is it's predictability and practicality. That's what I mean.

Fe and Ti attempt to bring about specific structures and understandings of the world that makes it not as practical and of a much more unpredictable nature since its focus is on showing and explaining how individual things are different and unique from what is universally understood or accepted. The search itself to bring such about also isn't necessarily about practicality and predictability. And I can understand why this might get confused as a person that wants to find the deeper truth of things, as is described in profiles and quoted by various people here, but philosophically speaking, that is very relative. Ti and Te see different truths.