an example of Ti vs Te

[Myst]

I didn't get into the debate you and Myst had, but there was something that bothered me with this statement, so I'll try to figure it out what it was.

I understand what you mean in the sentence above, but without, the convictions one would need to take a firm stance (since we are against any convictions, when we lose faith), would it be a firm stance?

I might started to mix faith and meaning somewhere above, and use it here incorrectly, but let me try. I guess it all boils down to the question how faith and convictions are connected to meaning.

So a stance needs either faith or convictions. Faith I think is a form of search for meaning. One can say convictions doesn't need faith, only facts, but I think accepting facts as facts needs a kind of faith (for example accepting certain reality as reality).

Yeah the attitude/mind state needed for truly taking on nihilism excludes faith+conviction, that's a good point, I originally just reasoned logically against its utilizing (while retaining conviction etc) lol

And btw I see it as not actually possible to live this way lol, but that might be type bias speaking here

I can't add much to the type and function debate that's been going on, but this sentence really reminds me for some reason a Ti and Te viewpoint of difference.

Any chance you can elaborate on what you saw as Ti vs Te?

And the pic is a good point lol

[WVBRY]

@Kara

I didn't get into the debate you and Myst had, but there was something that bothered me with this statement, so I'll try to figure it out what it was.

About the statement I made?

I understand what you mean in the sentence above, but without, the convictions one would need to take a firm stance (since we are against any convictions, when we lose faith), would it be a firm stance?

It would not. It would not be a stance at all. You are right here.

I'm just saying that one can take a stance that is contradictory (as a denial of reality claiming to be real would be) and be firm in how one expresses that stance.

I might started to mix faith and meaning somewhere above, and use it here incorrectly, but let me try. I guess it all boils down to the question how faith and convictions are connected to meaning.

So a stance needs either faith or convictions. Faith I think is a form of search for meaning. One can say convictions doesn't need faith, only facts, but I think accepting facts as facts needs a kind of faith (for example accepting certain reality as reality).

I would say the difference between faith and convictions is that faith is a belief in something that has no identity. I'm not trying to offend you if you are religious, but the problem with faith is that one places belief in something that is not perceived. Everything that is perceived has an identity. That flower is pink, and its stalk is green and tall, the lawn is green and the surface it covers is flat etc, the cement that a bridge is made of grey etc. These things have an identity, they are distinguishable from other things due to their properties, which define their identity. But faith means belief in something that has no properties, since it is not perceived.

Now, you're saying: accepting facts as real requires faith. I disagree, as reality cannot be something one has faith in. The idea that consciousness precedes perception, and thus that all reality is a creation of the contents of our minds, is called primacy of consciousness. The opposite stance is called primacy of existence, reality precedes our percpetion of it, reality is not created by our minds, but exists whether we want it to or not. I think primacy of existence is correct, because all consciousness is consciousness of something. Try to imagine being conscious of something with no properties, no identity, you just can't. I bet you can't imagine consciousness without something to be conscious of either. The idea that it is our minds that create reality is a contradiction because it means that the statement "our minds create reality" has objective reality! If the statement "our minds create reality" is true, then it is itself a reality, which negates the very statement!

So since you cannot conceive of an object with no properties, and reality cannot be a creation of our minds, there is a difference between faith and fact (what you are calling conviction). That's the meaning behind my quoting the Marilyn Manson lyrics earlier in this thread "God is a number you cannot count to" - the existence of God cannot be proven, if it were, there would be no debate about his supposed existence.

I didn't want to derail your debate though, sorry, I just wanted to add this question/comment.

It's ok, I found your comments interesting. Thanks.

I can't add much to the type and function debate that's been going on, but this sentence really reminds me for some reason a Ti and Te viewpoint of difference. And also this picture:

Fair enough.

[0i0]

@Kara About the statement I made?

Oh, I meant the quoted sentence.

It would not. It would not be a stance at all. You are right here.

I'm just saying that one can take a stance that is contradictory (as a denial of reality claiming to be real would be) and be firm in how one expresses that stance.

Sure, I agree with that.

I would say the difference between faith and convictions is that faith is a belief in something that has no identity. I'm not trying to offend you if you are religious, but the problem with faith is that one places belief in something that is not perceived. Everything that is perceived has an identity. That flower is pink, and its stalk is green and tall, the lawn is green and the surface it covers is flat etc, the cement that a bridge is made of grey etc. These things have an identity, they are distinguishable from other things due to their properties, which define their identity. But faith means belief in something that has no properties, since it is not perceived.

Oh, no, even if I'd be religious, this wouldn't be offensive, we are having a debate. I understand what you say about faith/belief and convictions base on what you call identity. My issue with the above is that what is percieved can be distorted by the subjective as well, and that there are things in my opinion that have "identities", and can be percieved, but in a different way and level. Think about patterns, symbols, connections you draw without realizing why, or any perception beyond our senses. To me this makes it complicated to separate convictions and faith/beliefs so clearly. I understand what you mean though, and if it would be a situation, where I would have to quickly make a decision based on the logic about (what we are able to percieve and see as facts vs not), it would be probably more practical and useful to use this formula. However in a debate, I wanted to explain, why I see the line more blurry between conviction and faith.

Now, you're saying: accepting facts as real requires faith. I disagree, as reality cannot be something one has faith in. The idea that consciousness precedes perception, and thus that all reality is a creation of the contents of our minds, is called primacy of consciousness. The opposite stance is called primacy of existence, reality precedes our percpetion of it, reality is not created by our minds, but exists whether we want it to or not. I think primacy of existence is correct, because all consciousness is consciousness of something. Try to imagine being conscious of something with no properties, no identity, you just can't. I bet you can't imagine consciousness without something to be conscious of either. The idea that it is our minds that create reality is a contradiction because it means that the statement "our minds create reality" has objective reality! If the statement "our minds create reality" is true, then it is itself a reality, which negates the very statement!
I had a hard time following what you wrote about, because English is my second language (it was also a clever argument), so sorry if I got this wrong, let me try.
By saying accepting facts as real requires faith, I meant that accepting a coherent reality between all of us, but I didn’t say it would mean solipsism, or that we create reality by our mind necessarily, at least not more than being subjective from time to time – consciousness doesn’t have to precede perception, I think. There can be a reality, that we see differently, or it is a paradox by nature – wouldn’t that mean this thing precedes our consciousness?

So I think my question is – if we percieve something totally differently, does that mean our perception precedes it (reality)?
I think I didn’t understand the primacy of existence argument, if it doesn’t tire you, explain it to me. I understand if you’d skip this though.
Yes, saying our minds create reality would be a paradox, but I think the very edge, the center of things are built on paradoxes. Of course this is something I can’t use as an argument, because all logic would become totally useless, or any analysis about anything, so I know this is not an argument in this case.

So since you cannot conceive of an object with no properties, and reality cannot be a creation of our minds, there is a difference between faith and fact (what you are calling conviction). That's the meaning behind my quoting the Marilyn Manson lyrics earlier in this thread "God is a number you cannot count to" - the existence of God cannot be proven, if it were, there would be no debate about his supposed existence.

I think I’m getting there to put together your argument as a whole, and find my points if there’s any, so I’ll try to reread it a few times later, and come back, when I figured this out. I don’t want to say something stupid, or ignore it, I’d rather take some time.

Fair enough.

I kind of forgot about the condescending tip at the bottom of the picture, haha.

Any chance you can elaborate on what you saw as Ti vs Te?

This won't be based on hard facts, as I haven't read my way through all the function descriptions, but it seemed to me, that Avebury foucsed (or mentioned) the outcome and the externalized appearance of the logical system one has built, you were coming from an inner-coherence type of view.

But his quote:

I'm just saying that one can take a stance that is contradictory (as a denial of reality claiming to be real would be) and be firm in how one expresses that stance.

might be against what I've felt as a Te and Ti difference. I also didn't read your guys' arguments well enough, so it was just a small impression, nothing serious.

[Aramas]

What you see as being imposed needlessly by some people and what your nihilism tries to ignore is what I'm speaking of here (and no, I do not think it's an all-unhealthy approach, it is very needed for some things, even if it can have unhealthy manifestations that you rightly complain about). Instead you are trying to go for the idea of complete relativism without there being any point to anything. You can say you intend to consistently stick to this overall idea but beyond this idea, what can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world? It would contradict your overall idea here.

This is why I said it flies in the face of the typing in your profile. I do know you are not taking that typing too seriously so I didn't assume you would be insulted by me questioning it here, again, I intended no bad attitude about it.

If this post doesn't clarify my pov on all this, then I won't try at communicating it to you again, unless you genuinely want to understand.

Relativism =\= Nihilism

[Myst]

Relativism =\= Nihilism

No, but the way you expressed your viewpoint, it does sound like heavy relativism too.

[WVBRY]

@Kara I think you are totally right in that in the debate between @Myst and myself, I focused more on behaviors and she focused more on the internal consistency or coherence.

I suspect this may have been a misundestanding, possibly between Te and Ti, case in point to the title of the thread, lol. I also feel like there has been a misunderstanding of @Aramas's views, since he wasn't saying anything about relativism generally, just nihilism when it came to ethics/morals. You can for instance believe that scientific facts are real and not relative and also believe that there simply is no basis for establishing a morality. I don't agree with this view, I believe there is an ethical stance which is metaphysically correct, but I won't get into it here, just saying. Edit: nevermind, he has addressed the question while I was writing this up, lol.

[Myst]

@Aramas, also you forgot to address the rest of my points too.
@Avebury I addressed that just now. He sounds like a moral relativist too to me. On one hand he says don't stick to anything as correct/right, and on the other hand he says you are free to make up whatever for yourself.

[Myst]

@Avebury @Kara interesting discussion Just a few little comments

I would say the difference between faith and convictions is that faith is a belief in something that has no identity. I'm not trying to offend you if you are religious, but the problem with faith is that one places belief in something that is not perceived. Everything that is perceived has an identity. That flower is pink, and its stalk is green and tall, the lawn is green and the surface it covers is flat etc, the cement that a bridge is made of grey etc. These things have an identity, they are distinguishable from other things due to their properties, which define their identity. But faith means belief in something that has no properties, since it is not perceived.

Feelings and visions about things that are not in front of you (because, say, they do not exist yet) are perceived inside your mind but do not have a concrete or quantifiable identity that can be shown to others like in your examples. Is belief in them faith or a conviction to you?

Now, you're saying: accepting facts as real requires faith. I disagree, as reality cannot be something one has faith in. The idea that consciousness precedes perception, and thus that all reality is a creation of the contents of our minds, is called primacy of consciousness. The opposite stance is called primacy of existence, reality precedes our percpetion of it, reality is not created by our minds, but exists whether we want it to or not. I think primacy of existence is correct, because all consciousness is consciousness of something. Try to imagine being conscious of something with no properties, no identity, you just can't. I bet you can't imagine consciousness without something to be conscious of either. The idea that it is our minds that create reality is a contradiction because it means that the statement "our minds create reality" has objective reality! If the statement "our minds create reality" is true, then it is itself a reality, which negates the very statement!

For the last part: the statement was also created by our minds in that case, no?

BTW I can be conscious without actually perceiving anything concrete or any other identified thing, sometimes. Idk if that makes sense

So since you cannot conceive of an object with no properties, and reality cannot be a creation of our minds, there is a difference between faith and fact (what you are calling conviction). That's the meaning behind my quoting the Marilyn Manson lyrics earlier in this thread "God is a number you cannot count to" - the existence of God cannot be proven, if it were, there would be no debate about his supposed existence.

Like the bolded

This won't be based on hard facts, as I haven't read my way through all the function descriptions, but it seemed to me, that Avebury foucsed (or mentioned) the outcome and the externalized appearance of the logical system one has built, you were coming from an inner-coherence type of view.

But his quote: might be against what I've felt as a Te and Ti difference. I also didn't read your guys' arguments well enough, so it was just a small impression, nothing serious.

Ah, ok, last question , outcome, like?

[Computer Loser]

yea pretty much as mentioned, Ti is about internal consistency/coherency... therefore a lot of ti people will say things/make over-arching rules with total conviction whether or not there is a backing of external sources

te-people will clash with ti-people, saying the ti people are too rule based and they'll go on to point out all these exceptions and complain how the ti people's definitions aren't precise enough and how this and that aren't type-related because it doesn't fit 100% etc etc

its funny lol

[0i0]

Ah, ok, last question , outcome, like?

My impression was mainly coming from this:

Because you're thinking firm stance in a philosophical sense, for example the law of non-contradiction.

This is the internal consistency (Ti).

I meant it in the sense of what expressing opinions firmly means from the standpoint of psychology, which is type related. It is not the contents of those opinions which matter, since that is not type related. It is the manner in which it is forumulated and expressed I am talking about.

Somehow this seemed to be the difference, how Avebury was writing pointing out the way of expressing opinions, and the usage and practical appearance of one's system, how it became a reality, and how he was manifesting it. It might not be Te, but it seemed to be on the extraverted scale, that's why I had this impression, I guess.

The above quote is what I mentioned as "outcome".

[Myst]

My impression was mainly coming from this:

(...)

Somehow this seemed to be the difference, how Avebury was writing pointing out the way of expressing opinions, and the usage and practical appearance of one's system, how it became a reality, and how he was manifesting it. It might not be Te, but it seemed to be on the extraverted scale, that's why I had this impression, I guess.

The above quote is what I mentioned as "outcome".

Oh yeah that was a part where I definitely didn't see it the same way as he did.

[Bertrand]

people are falling back into stereotypes, what distinguishes Ti is intensity v the extensity of Te. an expressed desire for "non-contradiction" could easily be a concession to an extroverted standpoint because its such a meme. at this point sophisticated thinking marked by intensity over extensity is almost certainly going to transcend such normative principles and probably appear in violation of them when it is in fact an exception (how else could it progress the situation--think of how any paradigm shift is invalid from the perspective of the prevailing view). this is the problem when people try to evaluate functions with recourse to such shallow concepts. ultimately non contradiction is a statement of a thinking norm, meaning anyone who strives for it consciously probably has some form of thinking role function. internal consistency is never a product of syntax only anyway since you can structure the same truth in a way that appears both internally inconsistent or consistent and at the same time be its opposite. in other words, whether someone else is exhibiting internal consistency lies almost entirely in the meaning of the signs we attribute to them. if I say the sky is not blue it depends on what I mean, that can be either an indication of a sophisticated consistency or a banal contradiction. if you can't see that "internal consistency" does almost no work, quite the opposite in fact, it can be downright misleading

[Aramas]

people are falling back into stereotypes, what distinguishes Ti is intensity v the extensity of Te. an expressed desire for "non-contradiction" could easily be a concession to an extroverted standpoint because its such a meme. at this point sophisticated thinking marked by intensity over extensity is almost certainly going to transcend such normative principles and probably appear in violation of them when it is in fact an exception (how else could it progress the situation--think of how any paradigm shift is invalid from the perspective of the prevailing view). this is the problem when people try to evaluate functions with recourse to such shallow concepts. ultimately non contradiction is a statement of a thinking norm, meaning anyone who strives for it consciously probably has some form of thinking role function. internal consistency is never a product of syntax only anyway since you can structure the same truth in a way that appears both internally inconsistent or consistent and at the same time be its opposite. in other words, whether someone else is exhibiting internal consistency lies almost entirely in the meaning of the signs we attribute to them. if I say the sky is not blue it depends on what I mean, that can be either an indication of a sophisticated consistency or a banal contradiction. if you can't see that "internal consistency" does almost no work, quite the opposite in fact, it can be downright misleading

Yeah. Ti as internal consistency is kind of a dead horse. There are other kinds of logic out there that view gradations of true and false as valid, like fuzzy logic for example. Then there's the unprovability of some of the axioms that form the basis of binary Aristotelian logic, like the laws of identity and non-contradiction. People with strong logic are often liable to break the rules of logic and end up still being successful in that domain.

It's better to go based on the definitions of Te and Ti if you want to find out more about them. The first is dynamic and the second static. I often think of Te as algorithmic logic, and Ti as categorical logic. Those are oversimplifications and not full definitions, but it helps people get the picture sometimes.

[Aramas]

@Aramas, also you forgot to address the rest of my points too.
@Avebury I addressed that just now. He sounds like a moral relativist too to me. On one hand he says don't stick to anything as correct/right, and on the other hand he says you are free to make up whatever for yourself.

"What can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world?"

This is exactly the kind of question someone with Fi in the ego would ask, especially Fi creative. Te is often extremely concerned with the practical applicability of knowledge, while Ti is often about knowledge for its own sake with no need of external practicality or implemention.

There was this IEE I used to know who always asked that kind of question whenever I told him some conclusion I'd reached or something new I'd learned.

The reason you're able to do whatever you want with meaning is that there is no external absolute meaning. There's no contradiction there. One is a consequence/implication of the other.

[Bertrand]

Ti can apply leverage anyway, if its accurate, often more powerfully than Te, since Te is often just using prefabricated tools not really generating their own (strong thinking can, of course, do this regardless of attitude). But its Ti egos that stand the best chance of developing something fundamentally new with sufficient power to leverage something that otherwise never would be. Skepticism about it arises precisely from the fact it hasn't been done before. But there's a first time for everything. Gulenko distinguishes between "heavy" and "light" with exactly this sort of metaphor, with Ti giving rise to "heavy" subset of club (heavy can leverage more)

[Computer Loser]

Yeah. Ti as internal consistency is kind of a dead horse. There are other kinds of logic out there that view gradations of true and false as valid, like fuzzy logic for example. Then there's the unprovability of some of the axioms that form the basis of binary Aristotelian logic, like the laws of identity and non-contradiction. People with strong logic are often liable to break the rules of logic and end up still being successful in that domain.

It's better to go based on the definitions of Te and Ti if you want to find out more about them. The first is dynamic and the second static. I often think of Te as algorithmic logic, and Ti as categorical logic. Those are oversimplifications and not full definitions, but it helps people get the picture sometimes.

Ti people prioritize their own opinions and knowledge over external sources/authority. They also aren’t overly concerned with precise definitions. Thats why they clash so much with Te types. I’ve debated with countless Te people over the years and it’s something I can pick up on right away. I don’t feel this clash with LIIs even though our opinions may differ.

You’re like the Caitlyn Jenner of LSIs. you ain’t foolin nobody with that post. don’t try to hide that sausage

There’s Te coursing through your veins. Admit it

I’m eagerly checking off the calendar days until you retype to some Te type. I’ll be sure to congratulate you by copying and pasting this post to you :-)

[Computer Loser]

ps: stereotypes are awesome

[Aramas]

Ti people prioritize their own opinions and knowledge over external sources/authority. They also aren’t overly concerned with precise definitions. Thats why they clash so much with Te types. I’ve debated with countless Te people over the years and it’s something I can pick up on right away. I don’t feel this clash with LIIs even though our opinions may differ.

You’re like the Caitlyn Jenner of LSIs. you ain’t foolin nobody with that post. don’t try to hide that sausage

There’s Te coursing through your veins. Admit it

I’m eagerly checking off the calendar days until you retype to some Te type. I’ll be sure to congratulate you by copying and pasting this post to you :-)

If you're thinking that my calling attention to the definition of words somehow makes me a Te type, you're wrong. Both Te and Ti types are interested in the idea of definition. They tend to regard definition of words according to their distinction as either subjectivist or objectivist. That is, Te types are more likely to believe that words have objective definition, whereas Ti types can understand words as simply vehicles of communication that rely upon shared meanings. In essence, Ti types are more likely to understand that the meaning of words is arbitrary, but it's good to know that someone you're talking to knows what you mean when you use certain words.

From the Te perspective, words have meaning.
From the Ti perspective, people have meanings that they communicate using words.

I like to use the standard definition of Te and Ti as a starting point, because those definitions are really useful and helpful to get people to understand Socionics.

[Computer Loser]

If you're thinking that my calling attention to the definition of words somehow makes me a Te type, you're wrong. Both Te and Ti types are interested in the idea of definition. They tend to regard definition of words according to their distinction as either subjectivist or objectivist. That is, Te types are more likely to believe that words have objective definition, whereas Ti types can understand words as simply vehicles of communication that rely upon shared meanings. In essence, Ti types are more likely to understand that the meaning of words is arbitrary, but it's good to know that someone you're talking to knows what you mean when you use certain words.

From the Te perspective, words have meaning.
From the Ti perspective, people have meanings that they communicate using words.

[Number 9 large]

"What can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world?"

This is exactly the kind of question someone with Fi in the ego would ask, especially Fi creative. Te is often extremely concerned with the practical applicability of knowledge, while Ti is often about knowledge for its own sake with no need of external practicality or implemention.

There was this IEE I used to know who always asked that kind of question whenever I told him some conclusion I'd reached or something new I'd learned.

The reason you're able to do whatever you want with meaning is that there is no external absolute meaning. There's no contradiction there. One is a consequence/implication of the other.

Saying theres no external absolute meaning is quite ni devaluing

[WVBRY]

@Myst

Feelings and visions about things that are not in front of you (because, say, they do not exist yet)

Why do they not exist yet?

are perceived inside your mind but do not have a concrete or quantifiable identity that can be shown to others like in your examples.

But they do! For example I can imagine things I have not seen, but this is always based on things I have seen. I can imagine a mutant creature, but it's morphology would at best have to be a synthesis of existing creatures? Like Alien was imagined from the parts of real insects.

Is belief in them faith or a conviction to you?

It is possible to imagine, and thus believe in, things that don't exist. If you can imagine it, you can believe it (doesn't mean you will believe it) but this in itself is not a creation of a reality, rather it is a conceptual synthesis of existing things.

For the last part: the statement was also created by our minds in that case, no?

Right, so if it created by our minds, it has no objective reality? It is completely subjective, while I am open to considering I could be wrong on this, I don't think this proves it? (not that you are saying it does prove it, just saying)

BTW I can be conscious without actually perceiving anything concrete or any other identified thing, sometimes. Idk if that makes sense

Really, what are you conscious of in these cases? I am genuinely curious as I cannot imagine this.

Like the bolded

[Aramas]

Saying theres no external absolute meaning is quite ni devaluing

No, it's not.

[Bertrand]

relativism has both Ne and Ni and ultimately there are just different versions of the same idea that put the accent on either the Ne or Ni side. In essence the side that says "everyone has a sense of personal meaning, the goal is to get beyond that" is more the Ne version. the side that says "everyone has a right to develop their sense of personal meaning to the exclusion of others" is more Ni, but its also got shades of democracy v aristocracy. in this sense you can see its a 4 way split. every quadra in that sense has a kind of "take" on the significance of relativism. you have Ne collectivism which tries to moderate fanaticism, you have Ni democratism which promotes egoism, Ni collectivism which tries to rank various meanings, Ne democratism which promotes creativity and divergence .. I mean this could be a very protracted discussion, but an idea like relativism is a product of strong functions which naturally incorporate both attitudes. it didn't catch on because it was a weak idea, and part of being strong is norms on both sides are accounted for. this leaves the difference as one of accent. you could say cultural relativism is an expression of this dynamic as well as we move up or down the rungs of abstraction

[Exodus]

The whole concept of meaning in the first place is Ni. "Everything is meaningless!" is just as much an Ni philosophy as seeing profound meaning in everything. (Which is clear if you read existentialists like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. who are almost invariably Ni ego types.)

For Ne, the question of meaning in the sense of purpose doesn't even come up because Ne doesn't need a fixed purpose, or rather it's indifferent to purpose. But Ne can certainly lead to another kind of relativism, in seeing all opinions as having some truth to them.

[Kill4Me]

In a nutshell, Ti-lead equals hard-headed data collection. In contrast to the Te-lead, the Ti-lead gets more bogged down in collecting data. It's serious business. Te-lead has a cognition for effecting a quick, immediate solution and successfully applying common sense practicality.

Ti-leads are looking to get the most fundamental truths (axioms) and then build knowledge from the ground up. See that, I just cracked the nutshell. In contrast, good old fashioned common sense trumps a more scientific approach for Te cognition. [if I'm to contrast Ti-lead with Ni-lead, that's simple, because Ni-lead does not have a cognition or concern for objective, scientific truth but one's own rich, unconventional, highly nuanced inner world (Ni-lead annihilates objective reality). Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought. Ni/Fe converts inner worlds into new modes of expression....in contrast to Ti and Ne, Ne-lead mistakes their own ideas and opinions as reality itself, you're more likely to get the 'you're out of touch with reality' disagreeing with a Ne-lead's opinions than you are disagreeing with a Ti-lead's opinions.]

Ti-dom is looking more for the unknowns and perpetually involved in looking for and identifying problems that go into the deeper "undercurrents" of an outward structure. Te-dom revolves entirely around external order/functionality and presents a nice cognition for problems and solutions distinctly found "above ground" -- practical stuff that the others are too impractical or undisciplined to spot or care about.

No discussion proceeds without the best go-to: Jung. In this landmark work, the Gulenko has convincingly made the case that socionics, like MBTI, is rooted in Jung. Jung writes of Te-dom, as follows:

When thinking holds prior place among the psychological functions, i.e., when the life of an individual is mainly governed by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds, or is intended to proceed, from intellectually considered motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type.

Their sanction is: the ends justify the means.

"Oughts" and "Musts" bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscious, or as the proponent of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould.

desired action proceeds from reflection, Te is a forceful function.

Te-lead values common sense as a compass for the implementation of solutions....it's not trying to mine data for first principles. Managers and taskmasters abound, the problem-solving cognition occurs in identifying hazards in the areas of behavior, timing, work, pace, action..."You're supposed to be doing this" "this needs to be coming out faster". These imperatives also plays out in the domain of behavior.

Having established the only valid breakdown for every enneagram type, wing and stack, I would point out that Te-dom has overtones of 1ishness. Type 1's fundamental rigidity parses the world out into black and white. For example, in the case of a 6w5 sp/so like Bill O'reilly, we see that the exaggerated againstness of the contraphobic fear type on behalf of the little guy towards abuses of power when combined with the oughts and shoulds of the Te-dom cognition makes for a tyrannical crusader. [In contrast to type 1, though, a Te-dom does not make for an ideological fanatic (1w9) or a conscientious do-gooder (1w2).]

Fire Marshall Bill is an insanely great fictional caricature of Te-dom cognition known. LSE, for example, can typically effect quick solutions because Ti-ignoring makes general criteria and "golden rules" a desirable trump card to yank out of their back pocket when they want to impose order.

That's not say Te-leads don't ever gravitate towards hard sciences or that Ti-leads don't ever gravitate towards enterprising ventures or leadership positions. If you're contrasting a Ti-lead business owner with a Te-lead business owner, the Ti-lead is going to have a grasp on every single detail of their business (that's why big picture jobs aren't as typical for Ti-leads; they specialize more often). Te-lead has a better cognition for the business end of things but doesn't take in every detail so will be less effective in more unconventional scenarios. Ti-lead cognition takes in an abundance of detail.

As to the OP this is blatantly wrong and a similar mistake as made by people who tell a story about Fi having to do with morals:

Both are designed to help people to choose the morally right option out of the various possibilities they have. But they work in quite different ways.

Te, Ti, Fi are not value judgments....it does not fall into some moral domain. Socionic functions are information processors. Ti and Te are information processors. That means value neutral. The butchering of any socionics function into a conflation with morality must end.

[Aramas]

In a nutshell, Ti-lead equals hard-headed data collection. In contrast to the Te-lead, the Ti-lead gets more bogged down in collecting data. It's serious business. Te-lead has a cognition for effecting a quick, immediate solution and successfully applying common sense practicality.

Ti-leads are looking to get the most fundamental truths (axioms) and then build knowledge from the ground up. See that, I just cracked the nutshell. In contrast, good old fashioned common sense trumps a more scientific approach for Te cognition. [if I'm to contrast Ti-lead with Ni-lead, that's simple, because Ni-lead does not have a cognition or concern for objective, scientific truth but one's own rich, unconventional, highly nuanced inner world (Ni-lead annihilates objective reality). Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought. Ni/Fe converts inner worlds into new modes of expression....in contrast to Ti and Ne, Ne-lead mistakes their own ideas and opinions as reality itself, you're more likely to get the 'you're out of touch with reality' disagreeing with a Ne-lead's opinions than you are disagreeing with a Ti-lead's opinions.]

Ti-dom is looking more for the unknowns and perpetually involved in looking for and identifying problems that go into the deeper "undercurrents" of an outward structure. Te-dom revolves entirely around external order/functionality and presents a nice cognition for problems and solutions distinctly found "above ground" -- practical stuff that the others are too impractical or undisciplined to spot or care about.

No discussion proceeds without the best go-to: Jung. In this landmark work, the Gulenko has convincingly made the case that socionics, like MBTI, is rooted in Jung. Jung writes of Te-dom, as follows:

When thinking holds prior place among the psychological functions, i.e., when the life of an individual is mainly governed by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds, or is intended to proceed, from intellectually considered motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type.

Their sanction is: the ends justify the means.

"Oughts" and "Musts" bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscious, or as the proponent of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould.

desired action proceeds from reflection, Te is a forceful function.

Te-lead values common sense as a compass for the implementation of solutions....it's not trying to mine data for first principles. Managers and taskmasters abound, the problem-solving cognition occurs in identifying hazards in the areas of behavior, timing, work, pace, action..."You're supposed to be doing this" "this needs to be coming out faster". These imperatives also plays out in the domain of behavior.

Having established the only valid breakdown for every enneagram type, wing and stack, I would point out that Te-dom has overtones of 1ishness. Type 1's fundamental rigidity parses the world out into black and white. For example, in the case of a 6w5 sp/so like Bill O'reilly, we see that the exaggerated againstness of the contraphobic fear type on behalf of the little guy towards abuses of power when combined with the oughts and shoulds of the Te-dom cognition makes for a tyrannical crusader. [In contrast to type 1, though, a Te-dom does not make for an ideological fanatic (1w9) or a conscientious do-gooder (1w2).]

Fire Marshall Bill is an insanely great fictional caricature of Te-dom cognition known. LSE, for example, can typically effect quick solutions because Ti-ignoring makes general criteria and "golden rules" a desirable trump card to yank out of their back pocket when they want to impose order.

That's not say Te-leads don't ever gravitate towards hard sciences or that Ti-leads don't ever gravitate towards enterprising ventures or leadership positions. If you're contrasting a Ti-lead business owner with a Te-lead business owner, the Ti-lead is going to have a grasp on every single detail of their business (that's why big picture jobs aren't as typical for Ti-leads; they specialize more often). Te-lead has a better cognition for the business end of things but doesn't take in every detail so will be less effective in more unconventional scenarios. Ti-lead cognition takes in an abundance of detail.

As to the OP this is blatantly wrong and a similar mistake as made by people who tell a story about Fi having to do with morals:



Te, Ti, Fi are not value judgments....it does not fall into some moral domain. Socionic functions are information processors. Ti and Te are information processors. That means value neutral. The butchering of any socionics function into a conflation with morality must end.

I'm not sure why anyone would have to make a case that MBTI and Socionics are both from Jung. That's obvious.

And yeah, at their core, none of the information elements has anything to do with morality.

Edit: Here's a thought: Ti could be better thought of as exogenous symmetry rather than internal consistency.

[Eos]

In a nutshell, Ti-lead equals hard-headed data collection. In contrast to the Te-lead, the Ti-lead gets more bogged down in collecting data. It's serious business. Te-lead has a cognition for effecting a quick, immediate solution and successfully applying common sense practicality.

Ti-leads are looking to get the most fundamental truths (axioms) and then build knowledge from the ground up. See that, I just cracked the nutshell. In contrast, good old fashioned common sense trumps a more scientific approach for Te cognition. [if I'm to contrast Ti-lead with Ni-lead, that's simple, because Ni-lead does not have a cognition or concern for objective, scientific truth but one's own rich, unconventional, highly nuanced inner world (Ni-lead annihilates objective reality). Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought. Ni/Fe converts inner worlds into new modes of expression....in contrast to Ti and Ne, Ne-lead mistakes their own ideas and opinions as reality itself, you're more likely to get the 'you're out of touch with reality' disagreeing with a Ne-lead's opinions than you are disagreeing with a Ti-lead's opinions.]

Ti-dom is looking more for the unknowns and perpetually involved in looking for and identifying problems that go into the deeper "undercurrents" of an outward structure. Te-dom revolves entirely around external order/functionality and presents a nice cognition for problems and solutions distinctly found "above ground" -- practical stuff that the others are too impractical or undisciplined to spot or care about.

No discussion proceeds without the best go-to: Jung. In this landmark work, the Gulenko has convincingly made the case that socionics, like MBTI, is rooted in Jung. Jung writes of Te-dom, as follows:

When thinking holds prior place among the psychological functions, i.e., when the life of an individual is mainly governed by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds, or is intended to proceed, from intellectually considered motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type.

Their sanction is: the ends justify the means.

"Oughts" and "Musts" bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscious, or as the proponent of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould.

desired action proceeds from reflection, Te is a forceful function.

Te-lead values common sense as a compass for the implementation of solutions....it's not trying to mine data for first principles. Managers and taskmasters abound, the problem-solving cognition occurs in identifying hazards in the areas of behavior, timing, work, pace, action..."You're supposed to be doing this" "this needs to be coming out faster". These imperatives also plays out in the domain of behavior.

Having established the only valid breakdown for every enneagram type, wing and stack, I would point out that Te-dom has overtones of 1ishness. Type 1's fundamental rigidity parses the world out into black and white. For example, in the case of a 6w5 sp/so like Bill O'reilly, we see that the exaggerated againstness of the contraphobic fear type on behalf of the little guy towards abuses of power when combined with the oughts and shoulds of the Te-dom cognition makes for a tyrannical crusader. [In contrast to type 1, though, a Te-dom does not make for an ideological fanatic (1w9) or a conscientious do-gooder (1w2).]

Fire Marshall Bill is an insanely great fictional caricature of Te-dom cognition known. LSE, for example, can typically effect quick solutions because Ti-ignoring makes general criteria and "golden rules" a desirable trump card to yank out of their back pocket when they want to impose order.

That's not say Te-leads don't ever gravitate towards hard sciences or that Ti-leads don't ever gravitate towards enterprising ventures or leadership positions. If you're contrasting a Ti-lead business owner with a Te-lead business owner, the Ti-lead is going to have a grasp on every single detail of their business (that's why big picture jobs aren't as typical for Ti-leads; they specialize more often). Te-lead has a better cognition for the business end of things but doesn't take in every detail so will be less effective in more unconventional scenarios. Ti-lead cognition takes in an abundance of detail.

As to the OP this is blatantly wrong and a similar mistake as made by people who tell a story about Fi having to do with morals:



Te, Ti, Fi are not value judgments....it does not fall into some moral domain. Socionic functions are information processors. Ti and Te are information processors. That means value neutral. The butchering of any socionics function into a conflation with morality must end.

Bravo.

[Myst]

"What can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world?"

This is exactly the kind of question someone with Fi in the ego would ask, especially Fi creative. Te is often extremely concerned with the practical applicability of knowledge, while Ti is often about knowledge for its own sake with no need of external practicality or implemention.

There was this IEE I used to know who always asked that kind of question whenever I told him some conclusion I'd reached or something new I'd learned.

The reason you're able to do whatever you want with meaning is that there is no external absolute meaning. There's no contradiction there. One is a consequence/implication of the other.

Lol it is funny you are trying to type me IEE back. I see zero point to that kind of game lol...

Also, I highly doubt that the person you typed IEE was really IEE if he was that concerned with the tangible world instead of getting interested in novelty.

My question was not about pragmatism, it was about the logical consistency of your statement. You conveniently left out the original context, which was this: "You can say you intend to consistently stick to this overall idea but beyond this idea, what can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world? It would contradict your overall idea here."

If you feel up to addressing my actual question considered in terms of all its context I gave you (if you need more context for it, say so), go ahead, otherwise I'm not going to pound on your Ti PoLR further.

Hint: that was in terms of what a firm stance is when one subscribes to nihilism and overall relativism. (Answer: there will be no such thing. And both nihilism and relativism truly fly in the face of Ti with Ni HA, again.)

If you're thinking that my calling attention to the definition of words somehow makes me a Te type, you're wrong. Both Te and Ti types are interested in the idea of definition. They tend to regard definition of words according to their distinction as either subjectivist or objectivist. That is, Te types are more likely to believe that words have objective definition, whereas Ti types can understand words as simply vehicles of communication that rely upon shared meanings. In essence, Ti types are more likely to understand that the meaning of words is arbitrary, but it's good to know that someone you're talking to knows what you mean when you use certain words.

From the Te perspective, words have meaning.
From the Ti perspective, people have meanings that they communicate using words.

I like to use the standard definition of Te and Ti as a starting point, because those definitions are really useful and helpful to get people to understand Socionics.

This is an OK distinction, but you definitely seem to follow the former. You do not get into relative logic for the words and statements, you stay with the Te objective definitions without analysing deeper.


PS: The obligatory disclaimer, when I speak of Ti PoLR I am not equating that with stupidity. lol sigh that I'd even need to state such disclaimers

[Myst]

I just posted in another thread to someone's question about Ti vs Te so to stay on topic I'll add it here too.

Ti vs Te: I would say it's like, Ti needs to understand how things with all their quantifiable traits objectively, quantifiably and distinctly relate to each other in a systematic and logically predictable way before it can deal with objects or take action, while Te just gets the objective, quantifiable distinct facts themselves to take action to ensure things are working right in the world. So Ti operates with objects through a logical layer removed from them while Te is more direct in accessing them.

Ofc Te egos have a little Ti in the background helping unconsciously sort some of the facts a bit beyond what's already been presented to Te, but Te does not ever focus on that consciously, instead, if they get to subscribe to a few systematic principles, they are simply part of these functionally sensible/actually working facts for them. While Ti also has a little Te in the background helping a bit with absorbing facts unconsciously. Ti also cares whether their logic actually works and is sensible but it has to be sensible and has to be working in terms of the logic ordering things in the system they themselves organize beyond the pure facts, or beyond stuff that's directly stated that you can read about.

So, sure, that system really looks unnecessary to Te beyond a point because you just need the right facts ordered a little bit to get things working. While to Ti these facts will look too random, disparate without figuring out how they relate to each other. I personally run circles around Te in certain situations where my deeper understanding (that I took time to build first, while Te neglected doing so) allows me to make conclusions to pick the right actions without having to know extra facts for it. (And sure, Te can also beat Ti in some other situations)

There is another good distinction... where the Te pov is hard for me to understand fully but I think it really is a good distinction otherwise, Ti will treat words as objects relatively positioned logically to each other, while Te will treat each word as its own object that doesn't change logical meaning relative to other ones. So, if a particularly lost IEI walks up to you and tells you "I took it", if you directly inquire about the logical positions of things in the sentence to figure out what the IEI meant, that's Ti, and if you just bark at them, "what are you talking about", that's Te.

people are falling back into stereotypes, what distinguishes Ti is intensity v the extensity of Te. an expressed desire for "non-contradiction" could easily be a concession to an extroverted standpoint because its such a meme. at this point sophisticated thinking marked by intensity over extensity is almost certainly going to transcend such normative principles and probably appear in violation of them when it is in fact an exception (how else could it progress the situation--think of how any paradigm shift is invalid from the perspective of the prevailing view). this is the problem when people try to evaluate functions with recourse to such shallow concepts. ultimately non contradiction is a statement of a thinking norm, meaning anyone who strives for it consciously probably has some form of thinking role function. internal consistency is never a product of syntax only anyway since you can structure the same truth in a way that appears both internally inconsistent or consistent and at the same time be its opposite. in other words, whether someone else is exhibiting internal consistency lies almost entirely in the meaning of the signs we attribute to them. if I say the sky is not blue it depends on what I mean, that can be either an indication of a sophisticated consistency or a banal contradiction. if you can't see that "internal consistency" does almost no work, quite the opposite in fact, it can be downright misleading

That's actually not terrible. Yeah, intensity to analyse objective/logical relations first and being removed from the objects themselves vs extensity with a more direct line from facts to action and being directly object oriented is the fundamental Ti vs Te distinction.

And yeah, "non contradiction" and other principles like that are Logical norms. Yup, Te with the fact orientation can also pick up the "non-contradiction" principle as such an external fact. I'm not sure however if one has to have a Logical Role function if they strive for this consciously, I've seen other types do it too. Logic in ego is also conscious, requiring conscious mental effort to process the Logical information. More than Role function would ever do it.

I like your example of how the "sky is not blue" may mean different things in a different logical context. But what do you mean by how the same thing can be something and its opposite as well. In different logical contexts sure, but not at the same time. Are you talking about paradoxons?

And I didn't follow what you mean by internal consistency not doing any work. It's not like magic, you do have to take the time and the effort to figure out things if there is a lot of data that was not analysed yet requiring enough of a new system.

Yeah. Ti as internal consistency is kind of a dead horse. There are other kinds of logic out there that view gradations of true and false as valid, like fuzzy logic for example. Then there's the unprovability of some of the axioms that form the basis of binary Aristotelian logic, like the laws of identity and non-contradiction. People with strong logic are often liable to break the rules of logic and end up still being successful in that domain.

It's better to go based on the definitions of Te and Ti if you want to find out more about them. The first is dynamic and the second static. I often think of Te as algorithmic logic, and Ti as categorical logic. Those are oversimplifications and not full definitions, but it helps people get the picture sometimes.

Actually, breaking rules of whatever institution or prescribed task etc vs breaking the rules of actual logical thinking is very much not the same thing........ If we are talking about the first then okay, breaking such rules can still be a very Logical way of thinking, but the latter is a nonsensical statement. Unless by domain you don't mean the domain of Logical information itself, and you just mean whatever situation where the person still ends up reaching their goals by other tricks instead of primarily relying on (not randomly modified) Logical thinking. Those other tricks can also be perfectly valid ways of adapting to a situation or solving a problem in many cases, of course. Of course, it's not going to work for issues where purely Logical thinking is required.

And I really would not be comfortable just giving oversimplifications instead of defining the thing enough, feels like a very incomplete job and feels very irritating. It makes sense to me that Ti with wanting logical consistency would not feel comfortable with presenting unfinished statements instead of finished conclusions (and reasoning for them).

[Myst]

Why do they not exist yet?

They just don't yet? I'm not sure what your question is getting at.

But they do! For example I can imagine things I have not seen, but this is always based on things I have seen. I can imagine a mutant creature, but it's morphology would at best have to be a synthesis of existing creatures? Like Alien was imagined from the parts of real insects.

Ok so what doesn't have an identity to you then that then faith is based in?

Right, so if it created by our minds, it has no objective reality? It is completely subjective, while I am open to considering I could be wrong on this, I don't think this proves it? (not that you are saying it does prove it, just saying)

That was my line of thinking, yeah.

Really, what are you conscious of in these cases? I am genuinely curious as I cannot imagine this.

Haha I don't know how to put it into words. It's just my consciousness existing.

[WVBRY]

They just don't yet? I'm not sure what your question is getting at.

I thought you meant they don't exist because they haven't entered our sphere of perception...which is a whole debate onto itself. You just meant they don't exist yet because they haven't been created, or made, or whatever.

Ok so what doesn't have an identity to you then that then faith is based in?

The Abrahamic concept of God...it has no identity, because it is not perceived in any way, shape or form. People just believe or not...often on things like "there must be a creator to the universe, therefore God exists"(Aquinas).

Haha I don't know how to put it into words. It's just my consciousness existing.

Ok I see what you mean, but I'm really interested in this, even if I am proven wrong in this debate.

Like I said, I understand what it means to have your consciousness exist, but if it wasn't conscious of anything, could it still exist? Even if you were deprived of all perception, you would probably go into a similar state as the dream state. The dream state could probably be the best example of completely subjective awareness...the root of the belief in another, supernatural reality...and yet who would deny you are still conscious of something in the dream state?