Te ego types, what is a fact?

[Beautiful sky]

If I say something like, "waxing is painful!" how do you, Te ego types, determine if that's a fact?

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'd examine your mustache area for redness indicative of skin irritation.

[Jonathan]

If I say something like, "waxing is painful!" how do you, Te ego types, determine if that's a fact?

Putting aside the theoretical question of what Te really is and what it has to do with facts, I think the issue is context.

If in a casual/personal conversation you mentioned that it's painful, I might ask "did you experience pain from waxing?" If you said Yes, then it's painful for you. No need to dig deeper unless there were a reason to think you're lying or were confusing another possible source of pain.

If you said something was causing pain, and it seemed indirect, then ruling out other sources might be necessary.

If the context is that one's trying to establish a general statement about how painful it is for people, well then one would need some sort of research on reactions to waxing involving some way of objectively quantifying pain.

[EyeSeeCold]

A fact is an independently affirmative object. There are two kinds of facts: Relational facts and axioms. Relational facts apply to reality and are affirmative because of context(the manipulation of which can make anything applicable and therefore a "fact"); correspondence between perspectives and between expectations and returns. Axioms are affirmative because the nature of their composition makes them self-evident.

Facts are determined by checking, either through experience or knowledge.

The statement "waxing is painful!"(the exclamation mark being extraneous), is not an axiom, and therefore a possible relational fact. I can check this by outside sources or through personal experience. Personally I'd resort to trustworthy sources(in this case, the probability of un-trustworthiness is extremely low, so I'd just google).

So I start by affirming the statement "waxing is painful" by collecting judgments of others, the more positive returns I get, the more confident I am in believing and knowing that waxing is indeed painful, however, a negative return will bring to light a differentiation that lies in the aforementioned statement, 'is waxing always painful'? And more negative returns will affirm that waxing is indeed not always painful. At the end of my search for knowledge, I can rest knowing that 'waxing can be painful, but it is not always painful'. In the case that someone was looking for a constant instead of tendencies, it'd be wise to find out what makes waxing painful, in order to control or possibly eliminate the chances.


Or I can just go to a salon and come out hurting like hell.

[FDG]

I'd wire your pain centres in the brain to a set of electrodes, then proceed at waxing a piece of your skin, and check if the brain response is compatible with the sensation of pain.

[leckysupport]

I'd wire your pain centres in the brain to a set of electrodes, then proceed at waxing a piece of your skin, and check if the brain response is compatible with the sensation of pain.

This^^.

Or I would remember back when I was a kid and got sellotape stuck to my forearm and that ripping it off was painful. Then I make a comparison between how waxing works and my sellotape incident, then conclude that these two processes have significant similar features which would mean both scenarios would be painful for me. I would make the observation that we're the same species and the assumption that you or I have no medical condition that would make it unlikely that we both wouldn't feel pain in the same way. And after all that I could say that there was good chance you could have felt pain assuming you weren't lying.

Or I could think of all the incidents where people have reported that they have felt pain waxing and induce that waxing hurts. Taking into consideration that you are a person with no medical condition which in anyway hinders you from feeling the pain induced by waxing. I'd then be able to say there was a good chance you could have felt pain assuming you weren't lying.

For me to take your word for it I would have to trust you.

[DirectorAbbie]

If I say something like, "waxing is painful!" how do you, Te ego types, determine if that's a fact?

I wax the car. If it causes me pain, it is a fact. If it does not, you are silly.

[Aiss]

Something that doesn't go away when you pretend it isn't true.

[krieger]

a distinction between a pertinent and an impertinent ontologically objective state of affairs.

the interesting thing is that the attention to the fact itself is Ji. Je is the means by which knowledge of pertinence is established.

[tcaudilllg]

If I say something like, "waxing is painful!" how do you, Te ego types, determine if that's a fact?

Putting aside the theoretical question of what Te really is and what it has to do with facts, I think the issue is context.

If in a casual/personal conversation you mentioned that it's painful, I might ask "did you experience pain from waxing?" If you said Yes, then it's painful for you. No need to dig deeper unless there were a reason to think you're lying or were confusing another possible source of pain.

If you said something was causing pain, and it seemed indirect, then ruling out other sources might be necessary.

If the context is that one's trying to establish a general statement about how painful it is for people, well then one would need some sort of research on reactions to waxing involving some way of objectively quantifying pain.

Johnathan this is what I would have said, along with some rambling about subjective vs objective experience. Korpsey probably offered the best answer.

I'll bet you and I are F EM types, and Korpsey is a T EM type. That would explain the differences in observation and approach.

[Slacker]

I really think if I complained to my husband about waxing being painful, he'd be able to imagine it and take it as a fact without having to test it or anything.

[Nico1e]

You can also get around this by saying 'Someone SAID waxing was painful.' It's possible for several people to hear or read about a person saying something, so other people can verify that yes, you did say that. You can gather data about what people say even if you don't gather data about what kind of electrical activity was going on in their brains, or can't see any irritation on the skin. Then you just have to interpret those statements people made.

Anecdotes are useful - if a large number of people are saying something, for instance, people on the internet talking about medical problems, it tells you that SOMETHING is going on, even if you don't understand the causes of it. They experienced something. And it's useful to read about what they did to try to solve the problem, even if nobody did a double-blind placebo-controlled government-sponsored experiment (don't get me started on that subject) to prove that people really can cure an illness that way, or whatever. They might misinterpret the causes or misinterpret why the solution worked, but sometimes the real causes are in there if you analyze what happened or look for other explanations. I don't like how mainstream medicine just totally dismisses 'anecdotal evidence' as being completely worthless. Sometimes they even dismiss a person's sensations - 'I experienced pain' or whatever - as just being not real or not happening or not important.

How do you see with your eyes? Did anybody ever do a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment to prove that yes, there really is a floor beneath your feet when you're walking? Or do your eyes just see that floor there, and you assume that floor is real? Sooner or later, you have to assume that your senses are telling you the truth, and that other people's senses are also telling them the truth.

If a scientist reads a number on a machine that he is using to observe your brain's pain signals, how does the scientist know that his eyes are reading the numbers correctly? Did he do a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment to prove that his eyes are able to see real objects and know that they are there? You can't do an experiment to prove everything - you just trust that people's senses are correct most of the time, even if they don't always understand what's causing them to feel that particular sensation.

Sorry, but this subject is one of my huge pet peeves!

[ashlesha]

this thread is interesting cos people are answering precisely in ways i'd expect for what i think their type is. the question could be in a test or sth d:

i suppose i would either take your word for it or not, or see what came up if i googled it. i don't know, its a hard question for me to answer because it seems like its obvious anyway. but yeah i'm not Te ego.

Or I would remember back when I was a kid and got sellotape stuck to my forearm and that ripping it off was painful. Then I make a comparison between how waxing works and my sellotape incident, then conclude that these two processes have significant similar features which would mean both scenarios would be painful for me.

Te+Si

[Creepy-Snaps]

I believe Te egos think a fact is something that's been proven. Something that someone did, something that's already happened.

[Aiss]

I believe Te egos think a fact is something that's been proven. Something that someone did, something that's already happened.

And Fe is belief in this scenario, I imagine.

[rat1]

No, Fe .. Well Beta Fe is an expected response & an imperative for action. Look at its duality with personal logic. Expectations for others behavior have to assume other people are behaving logically. An imperative for action comes from idealistic reasoning. Alpha Fe I'm not as familiar with. I think it's a sense of safety and a level of free expressiveness.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

what if he gets persuaded that it's a fact?sooner or later he'll find someone who does not mind waxing (we're talking about a Si ego,right?).ok jk.well,you're an intuitive on top of being female ,you should have a sturdy pain threshold in order to brush off the waxing pain -_-'

[The Ineffable]

@OP: while that can qualify as fact in normal language, it is not something related to Te. That is Si information. Te fact would be "waxing *was* painful" (to me/person x, etc) or "all/most people report waxing is painful". ([Dynamic, External] Extroverted [obj, actual, Te] -> Introverted [rule, concept, Si]). Nothing Bodies/Extroverted "always is", it either was/happened or is/happens now.

Something that doesn't go away when you pretend it isn't true.

Interesting definition.

[redbaron]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

[Aiss]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

one of the worst types at getting lost in irrelevant details, not to mention having to relate everything in order lest someone is even slightly confused, is ESE, which happens to have your beloved Fe as a dominant function. you can blame Te if it makes you feel better or something, but it's unfortunately inconsistent with reality. sorry.

[Creepy-]

"Painful" is a subjective experience. "Waxing is painful" is a qualitative, objective declaration. The two are incompatible, at least on a global scale without further specification of which party the act of waxing may or may not be painful to. For example, such might be painful to me, in which case I would say that waxing is painful for me. However, it would be foolish to assume that waxing is painful for others merely because it is painful for me. Perhaps a threshold can be determined or a trend established, but even if every being is tested for waxing being "painful" (even assuming that the ability to objectively measure pain exists), there exists infinite potential for infinite other beings to have existed in the past or to exist in the future which have the opposite reaction to waxing. A person with analgesia would not feel the pain, even if ways to measure the pain such as irritation of the skin as k0rpsey mentioned or the proper neurological response as FDG suggested would indicate that pain is being felt.

One thing that I have learned in the past few years is how predominate subjectivity is in the human experience, especially when considering things dealing with the human experience. I do not see how any clear-cut dichotomies could be safely made in reality, or how some vague principle could actually be "proven" to be true. Proof only exists in singular cases rather than on a global case. Even the basic premise of science is meant to assume the infinite possibility of some natural phenomena which transcends what has been previously found to be true, even over hundreds of years or more.

And so everything becomes wrapped up in subjectivity again. It would be nice to ever feel like humans could be truly objective.

To answer your question outside of the analogy you set up, I consider a fact anything which is purely, objectively true. Hm. Perhaps objectivity is possible. I'm not sure yet.

[DirectorAbbie]

"Painful" is a subjective experience. "Waxing is painful" is a qualitative, objective declaration. The two are incompatible, at least on a global scale without further specification of which party the act of waxing may or may not be painful to.

AMEN!

[Jonathan]

Johnathan this is what I would have said, along with some rambling about subjective vs objective experience. Korpsey probably offered the best answer.

I'll bet you and I are F EM types, and Korpsey is a T EM type. That would explain the differences in observation and approach.

To me, K0rpsey's answer seems to be translating the issue into a sensing one (perhaps Se). In contrast, Nil's points concern the logical/rational element of connecting something to something else (e.g., what does one thing have to do with another). If one simply says look for redness and doesn't say how that answers the original question, that seems more a sensing approach than Te.

Of course some people think logical connections imply Ti, but I don't think you can have Te without them.

[ashlesha]

meh, looking for redness or checking brain response or comparing a similar sensation you've had yourself all seem like reasonable answers that would provide good results and a lot of the other stuff seems like unnecessarily complicating things. which maybe matters if you believe my self-typing.

also k0rpsey's answer i think implies red skin connected to irritation connected to pain, if that's what you mean by connections. i don't think that answering the question in a way that provides the information that actually matters without pedantically connecting every dot is inconsistent with Te. especially if Te is concerned with real world results, etc.

edit: also i'm sure his response would have been different and maybe more detailed if he was giving a serious answer.

[Korpsy Knievel]

If one simply says look for redness and doesn't say how that answers the original question, that seems more a sensing approach than Te.

I'm curious how you expect to analyze the truthfulness of "waxing is painful" without prior personal sensory perception of forcible depilation (deliberate or accidental), or second-hand observation of someone else's reaction to the same.

[717495]

Here is some Te 4 u, I think the others missed:

fact

noun /fakt/ 
facts, plural

1. A thing that is indisputably the case
* - she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public
* - a body of fact

2. Used in discussing the significance of something that is the case
* - the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut

3. A piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article

4. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation
* - there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter

[ragnar]

If I say something like, "waxing is painful!" how do you, Te ego types, determine if that's a fact?

I don't. Too much intellectual effort, much of it of a Ti and hence non-native nature. Unless there was some reward or definite need.

With an NF female I'd probably kind of try to figure out the feelings and any hidden need for sympathy, empathy, validation or something similar behind the statement, and fail.

[1981slater]

Regarding serious types, a fact is whatever a guy with this looks says:



For merry types, reality could be what this guy says:

[Jonathan]

If one simply says look for redness and doesn't say how that answers the original question, that seems more a sensing approach than Te.

I'm curious how you expect to analyze the truthfulness of "waxing is painful" without prior personal sensory perception of forcible depilation (deliberate or accidental), or second-hand observation of someone else's reaction to the same.

Well, quite simply, if the skin is red or looks irritated to an outside observer, that doesn't tell you if it hurts or how much. And sometimes something may hurt a lot even if you can't see much from the outside.

Pain is difficult to observe externally. If you don't want to rely on just asking the person, I suppose you might be able to determine pain through brain imaging. But any studies on brain imaging and pain probably still resort to self-report data in order to establish a link because the brain scan and whether the person is feeling pain.

[redbaron]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

one of the worst types at getting lost in irrelevant details, not to mention having to relate everything in order lest someone is even slightly confused, is ESE, which happens to have your beloved Fe as a dominant function. you can blame Te if it makes you feel better or something, but it's unfortunately inconsistent with reality. sorry.

"your beloved Fe"? wth? Fine, but this guy was not ESE. *shrug* And no it doesn't make me "feel better". I thought Te was related to lots of information. excuuuuuuse me!

[rat1]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

one of the worst types at getting lost in irrelevant details, not to mention having to relate everything in order lest someone is even slightly confused, is ESE, which happens to have your beloved Fe as a dominant function. you can blame Te if it makes you feel better or something, but it's unfortunately inconsistent with reality. sorry.

Aiss, you icon, who decides what's relevant or irrelevant?

You don't seem to understand Fe or Te. Material reality as it's observed externally is associated with both Je functions. Fe is a prospective glance at the outside world. It's actually a modestly objective function. Fe is speculative.. Speculation is based on material observation. Your condescending remark at the end about Fe is really directed at Fi. And most people in this thread are making false associations between Fi an Fe.

The ISTp / ESFj rambling on I think comes from Ne in the superid block.

The way you define reality is flawed, too.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Well, quite simply, if the skin is red or looks irritated to an outside observer, that doesn't tell you if it hurts or how much. And sometimes something may hurt a lot even if you can't see much from the outside.

Pain is difficult to observe externally. If you don't want to rely on just asking the person, I suppose you might be able to determine pain through brain imaging. But any studies on brain imaging and pain probably still resort to self-report data in order to establish a link because the brain scan and whether the person is feeling pain.

All of these data collection methods still require you to perceive sensually prior to making logical judgments, all of which are reliant on assumptions and givens, and none of which are ultimately provable as absolutely real.

And besides which, we're talking about pulling hair out of skin. If we decide to address this case as one belonging to garden variety reality, as we should, then the pertinent givens are straightforward and immediately understood by the vast majority of people who have skin and hair: in all likelihood this practice of depilation hurts, and if the procedure was administered recently (or poorly) then there's probably apparent redness indicating irritation in the treated area. So I see no reason to agonize over the nature of facts or truth when a simple peek at a patch of skin could provide sufficient proof that dermal distress and its typically concomitant pain were experienced, or merely acknowledge that, based upon my past experience and likely neuro-sensory similarity to most humans, getting hair yanked out causes pain. That's truthy enough for this kind of trivial inquiry.

[Beautiful sky]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

one of the worst types at getting lost in irrelevant details, not to mention having to relate everything in order lest someone is even slightly confused, is ESE, which happens to have your beloved Fe as a dominant function. you can blame Te if it makes you feel better or something, but it's unfortunately inconsistent with reality. sorry.

No. What she's describing is of ISTp; she's accurate on that observation. The guy is going into facts; he's not getting lost in irrelevant details.

@ 1981slater,

Those are a nice representation through pictures of those two types.

[ashlesha]

this is Te:

my motorcycle repairman called me today and went through all the friggin details of what he did to test the problems and why and what the result was with each little thing. He took a full ten minutes of my time when all I really needed to hear was "it's prolly X, I'll call you on Monday and let you know for sure, will cost around $300." Just give me the bottom line please. I mean, in a way it was cute. But in another way, annoying. He wants me to know the facts so that I don't think he's making things up or ripping me off but I simply want my motorcycle to run properly.

p.s. He's ISTp

lol SLIs are pretty taciturn ime. imo, based on my experiences w/ my boyfriend and other SLIs, for him to go into that much detail probably had more to do with him being excited about either talking to you or the bike or something...not so much to do w/ making sure you know all the facts. but i could be wrong and thats assuming he's SLI. it doesn't sound at all unusual for LSEs to give that much info for the sake of making sure you know it, though, if thats a possibility. and yeah the million details thing is more indicative of Si creative than of Te ime also. (and even i sometimes find it annoying if i didn't ask for it, ack)

[rat1]

No. What she's describing is of ISTp; she's accurate on that observation. The guy is going into facts; he's not getting lost in irrelevant details.

@ 1981slater,

Those are a nice representation through pictures of those two types.

You are an inspiration to exterminate the human race.

[Beautiful sky]

Which part of that post did you not like?

[rat1]

My experience with you is telling me not to respond to that.

[rat1]

But I do have a lawyer friend I know who's looking for someone to help him select a Jury. He has about 25,000 dollars to spare for the task and I told him I think I know someone in the business of helping lawyers select Juries who's in his price range. So PM me if you're interested.

[Beautiful sky]

But I do have a lawyer friend I know who's looking for someone to help him select a Jury. He has about 25,000 dollars to spare for the task and I told him I think I know someone in the business of helping lawyers select Juries who's in his price range. So PM me if you're interested.

Thanks, but I'm not interested.

@Redbarron,

Your mechanic is recounting his actions, he's neither meaning to show details (because that's what it seems to you), neither are these things irrelevant details, nor are they information. Te is action related.

a distinction between a pertinent and an impertinent ontologically objective state of affairs.

the interesting thing is that the attention to the fact itself is Ji. Je is the means by which knowledge of pertinence is established.

Ok, let me get this right.

To Te types, some part of that sentence must be a fact because it's a reality and that exists; for the subjective person, it's a reality that they have experienced (SiTe) and for the objective (TeSi) it's your reality and if you say so then it must comprise some sort of reality for you outside of them.

Sorry, but everything has to go through a conceptual function that has to do with making or reevaluating my existing concept or views on how I see people and relationships first and I often have to translate that (the new idea) into the context of human relations. Let me know if I have this right.

[Jonathan]

So I see no reason to agonize over the nature of facts or truth when a simple peek at a patch of skin could provide sufficient proof that dermal distress and its typically concomitant pain were experienced, or merely acknowledge that, based upon my past experience and likely neuro-sensory similarity to most humans, getting hair yanked out causes pain. That's truthy enough for this kind of trivial inquiry.

Yeah, my intention really wasn't to nitpick your comment. Your comment was fine. I was just trying to make a point about Te, really. Tcaud seemed to be holding up your comment as a superior example, and he was relating it to his dual type theory. In the context of that analysis, I mentioned that I saw your comment as more angled towards the sensing angle but wasn't saying it wasn't valid...just that it wasn't focusing on the logical aspect. Of course Te makes use of sensing data too; I'm not contesting that. My comment was in the context of analyzing what functions are being emphasized and wasn't trying trash what you were saying. My response was actually equally simple (i.e., just ask the person), and I agree that the level of complexity in inquiry should match the situation.