Is Ti good at detecting inconsistencies in what someone says?
Ti, introverted logic - What is true and not true in a statement?
Is Ti good at detecting inconsistencies in what someone says?
Last edited by Iwantpeace; 09-03-2020 at 08:33 PM.
If you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics elements and foreign music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on.
(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual)
I notice inconsistencies in values all the time - how actions and words differ (including in myself, like a knot to untie). My general impression is that Ti does this with more explicit information (though wouldn't be inept at doing it with more implicit data just as I'm not completely inept at doing it with facts).
What I think:
Ti in ego or super-ego:
Causal-Determinist
Types in supervision ring ILE-LSI-SEE-EII are badassess on this one.Never disturb deterministic chain or else...
I have seen even SEEs correcting LIIs on this one.
Holographical-Panoramic
LIIs are into categorical errors. [I don't know if IEEs are into should be categories which causes supervision.]
I have done some categorical errors on purpose just to get LII reaction out of it. It works.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You're making us sound like these creepers that pop out of the shadows when conditions are right, who slick back off into the distance when they're not...Originally Posted by Chae
If you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics elements and foreign music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on
(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual
...which is pretty accurate lol
The posts should be the ones that appear out of nowhere as part of the trick, not the LSI omg!Jesus take the wheel, I accidentally exposed y'all
Well, I'm a nitpick, but so is everyone in my family, so no. Although I might be the reason why they are nitpicks. Half the time they're wrong, but they say the same with me. It is hard having a conversation with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
The fact that someone's tone doesn't match what they're saying doesn't necessarily mean that what they're saying is wrong.
I speak in misleading tones constantly. Maybe part of the supervision relations.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Let's ask Ms Huxley
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Ti-types are not good at detecting inconsistencies on the fly; they have to go away (mentally) and think about what was said; and when they have time to think about it, they can be superb at detecting logical flaws. ESEs are excellent at detecting factual inconsistencies on the fly but often have difficulties with putting the discrepancies into context so they can get overly argumentative about minor issues. Untruths are sometimes used to make a valid point, and most lapses in memory or outright lies do no harm but ESEs tend to correct regardless. Sometimes corrections can have positive effects but frequently for ESEs, the incorrect fact seems to be more important than the intention or key point of the communication, and this seeming fastidiousness can sometimes kill relations.
a.k.a. I/O
Mom, is that youIf you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics psychology elements and foreign classic music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on
(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual
Last edited by PrettySavage; 08-18-2017 at 12:34 AM.
Oh? Yes.Mom, is that youLuv ya, daughter
I'm trying to be less prickly and more patient for you, please anticipate a better Sailor in the futureOh? Yes.
Adore you either way <3I'm trying to be less prickly and more patient for you, please anticipate a better Sailor in the futureAnd I will anticipate. Just say what you need.
ThanksAdore you either way <3
Chu ~.~Thanks
Eh I skip over the little "inconsistencies" in everyday convos that only result from sloppiness (not writing a PhD dissertation or some mathematical proofs lol). If it results in ambiguity I'll ask for clarification. But otherwise I pay more attention to consistency in terms of actions where that matters. Overall, if someone contradicts themselves in terms of some earlier statement or other earlier data, whether I care depends on if it seems significant or if it's just sloppiness, silly exaggerations etc.
Yes, although I absolutely never judge anyone by their voice anymore. I used to, and this lead to people developing extremely bad habits, including myself. I didn't even do it that much. Also, it depends on how much I am invested in the situation, and also whether I happen to remember the inconsistency. While my memory is good, I do not have a flawless memory. Also, my mood has a big impact on things.
Oh yeah, you know you do it strongly when you do it to yourself while you are arguing your point, leading to the possible onset of doubt. See, I'm doing it now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
sorrows:
You may find an inconsistency but the inconsistency is not explicit, it is embedded within the ethics you are wading through and you have to dig for it. I have said many times that ethics transform seamlessly into logic and vice versa.
There is always some element of ethics in everything... even the strictest scientific reasoning is based on assumptions which prescribe underlying ethics for how science should operate... for example what types of information to consider as scientific evidence.
If a logical type does not recognize the overlap between multiple assumptions they accept (which happens with weak ethics) and one frameworks assumptions conflict with another... these assumptions can be broken down to show a logical inconsistency it just takes more time and it is less direct.
Actually this is why ethical types are called 'rational' types - the fact that ethics can be broken down and rationalized over.
So what you are getting at, as far as I can tell, is that as an ethical type you are rational and logical types are more concerned with surface level logic, which is correct - the ego function always operates on a conscious level, but it does not deal well with unconscious information.... actually if you wanted to identify a flaw in the ego functions that would probably be it - you may unconsciously detect an inconsistency in what they say going back to some other memory you have which they're not remembering.
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-23-2017 at 08:33 AM.
And those are called postulates, at least in math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
It's often far from seamless.
Btw, I'm curious, can you elaborate on how it's ethics determining what types of information to consider as scientific evidence? You mean ethical guidelines for experimentation?
Myst:
The word "should" is an ethical proposition. What type of evidence SHOULD we accept as scientific evidence - this is an ethical question.
Yes, I think, I'm not him, so I don't know for certain. I also have another answer. All science is based on faith in the fact that the universe is not a completely random place that occurred out of chance. This can lead to people fitting theories to data and such. For example, if the world did not follow that postulate, then we'd likely be living in real life lsd land where the rules of the universe change at a moment's notice. To clarify, the postulate is that the universe has specific rules of which it follows. The earliest example is that of religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Please give me the ethical reasoning behind it.
Actually it could still be a universe that occurred out of chance. Inductive reasoning can give us the idea that the rules are unchanging: so far they have been reliably observable. Or the idea that this is how observations are consistent logically. Neither of these two reasonings needs religious belief.
Yeah I don´t get that point either...especially say at work, where you still have to deliver no matter what your mood is, you can´t expect people to sound OK all the time...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Myst:
The word should is ethical reasoning.
We can break the reasoning down further if you want.
The people who first put science together had to ask themselves: should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal account seriously? Why or why not?
This proposition "should" is part of a larger framework of similar statements which together prescribe a methodology - the scientific method. The method defines what science is - what the purpose of science is, how it behaves...
The method gives guidelines for how scientists should do science. Scientists follow the method to progress science and preserve the integrity of the body of knowledge.
"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence - to preserve the integrity of the body of information and progress science" <- that is an ethical statement.
"...to preserve the integrity of the body of information" is a utilitarian ethic.
"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence" is a deontological ethic.
Last edited by purplehearts; 09-01-2017 at 01:41 PM.
Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.
You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.
So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...
(Beyond, of course, not violating basic ethics with experimentation blah blah. Such constraints are needed but that's another issue and is not about the way of thinking in science.)
Now, of course, it's possible to link science to human ethics too if you want to have science to serve humanity and I have nothing against this purpose at all (I actually agree with it as long as it does not affect the above type of guidelines of course) and this is even a nice example of logic and ethics interfacing, but it's not required for the above to work.
Just like mathematics also has no ethics in its logic. If you wish to find an ethical purpose for use of mathematics as a science, that's something else.
Depends the context. Wittgenstein said the extent of my language is the extent of my world. Imagine a society whose language consists only of military orders. That is the extent of that world. Those statements are true WITHIN it. Truth is contextual. My favorite quote on truth is "a statement that pays its way". Meaning it goes along with the rules. If you admit certain truths, you are allowed access.
It is a kind of bullshit currency. If you go along with a certain group's jargon you have paid your way with that group. If I go in the Socionics forum and go along with what that group thinks Se is, I have paid my way.
"Truth is merely a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way." -Richard Rorty.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
I think one could program a computer to make ethical judgements. Kant was basically a computer who based ethics on reason.
They can be based on ethics. Utility is a kind of truth. If religion helps a person with their life, it is logical for them. It helps them.
And James was a radical empiricist. Your experiences are empirical. Your personal experiences. You experienced them. They are a product of your experience. He said experience is "double barreled" this way. We cannot separate empirical outside happenings from the meaning our mind makes out of them.
James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena.
Hume said something similar. Causation is not real. It is a psychological product of man. Take 2 billiards balls. Two objects. We smash them together. There are still only 2 objects. Hume says we create a 3rd thing called causation. But the only empirical things on the table are the balls. Not the theory we wrap around them. Or an apple falling from a tree. There is just the apple, the tree, and the ground. No gravity. Strictly empirically speaking. We create abstractions to explain empirical things but the abstractions are not empirical themselves.
btw, this stance, according to Jung is Te. Ti users believe the idea is the actual thing. Nominalism vs realism. Jung broke down Ti and Te that way. Plato would be a realist. He thinks the idea exists perfect somewhere. Hume takes a Te position. That these are just abstract placeholders and nothing more. Useful fictions.
Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.
And to Plato and others, science cannot be true because truth never changes. Heidegger said all science and facts shine in a borrowed light. What is true today could be false tomorrow. Whereas 2+2=4 is always true and nothing physical in the universe can touch it. It exists in an abstract sphere.
Nietzsche nailed this too. Truth is a sum of human relations. Truth is a custom. A tradition. Like Rorty said.
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...
-Nietzsche
Last edited by Tearsofaclown; 08-23-2017 at 07:18 PM.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
One example of ethical rules is Ten Commandments.
I think you could do it via programming at least roughly. It needs exception clauses and evaluating functions (make decisions based on large material from past and it should learn from itself) and clearer definitions.
That is kind of rough though but sometimes courts make huge mistakes and there are insane things going when it comes to drugs and private prisons in US etc. Sometimes it is too important for police egos to chase one hopeless case when with same money you could do much more.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Myst, the ethic IS "to get the most refined personal understanding". That is a utilitarian ethic. Why should we strive for the most refined personal understanding? Why SHOULD we? That is ethical.
Why should we ask the question "what shape is the earth" at all? Why not just continue living like apes, not even considering the question... without science, experiencing the world in a more direct manner? Why refine our understanding? Why should we progress a body of scientific knowledge?
It is an ethical assumption at the foundation of science, no question about it.
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-23-2017 at 08:08 PM.
Intellectual curiosity. No "shoulds" in that.
Wow... no. I'm not into that stuff.
LOL yeah about Kant.
Jungian rational, I guess.They can be based on ethics. Utility is a kind of truth. If religion helps a person with their life, it is logical for them. It helps them.
Well... to me it exists in the mind but it almost feels like it's "outside" somehow. Because of its objectivity... that is, it does not matter what I personally feel, that cannot change it. And so I have an ideal picture of the objective truth that does exist in that way you describe it for Plato's ideas. But since it's an ideal I can only try and get closer to it always. It's a very uplifting vision though...btw, this stance, according to Jung is Te. Ti users believe the idea is the actual thing. Nominalism vs realism. Jung broke down Ti and Te that way. Plato would be a realist. He thinks the idea exists perfect somewhere. Hume takes a Te position. That these are just abstract placeholders and nothing more. Useful fictions.
Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.
And to Plato and others, science cannot be true because truth never changes. Heidegger said all science and facts shine in a borrowed light. What is true today could be false tomorrow. Whereas 2+2=4 is always true and nothing physical in the universe can touch it. It exists in an abstract sphere.
More eyerolling.What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...
-Nietzsche
Last edited by Myst; 08-23-2017 at 08:43 PM.
Your statement here says:
that we should strive to get the most refined understanding possible. Very simple. This is literally your point.
Of course there is, can you read? I am not interested in repeating myself and going back and fourth with you over this, it's a simple point honestly.
Not everyone is interested in the pursuit of intellectual ideas. Only a minority of people are. Infact if you tried to explain the concept of scientific methodology to an outback tribal person he wouldn't be capable of seeing the value of it; alot of its value is grounded in society, in progressive and collective thought.
There are more ways of using the intellect than strict adherence to scientific methodology, anyway. For example, you can think about things which you personally experience... you don't need proof to justify your perceptions to yourself.
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-24-2017 at 02:04 AM.
Ti detects contradictions (differences) between statements or information of the same type, like saying one thing and then saying something else that contradicts it, or doing one thing in a situation and then later doing another thing. Reading tone would involve Fe.
This is about maturity more so than Ti.
No, that was not my point. You reframed it from your own point of view while missing an important part of my point. Which is that intellectual curiosity for the most refined understanding does not need to follow a guideline of such "shoulds" to exist as an active thought process, the logic of the process works without having to prioritize by ethical ideas for making guidelines.
Keep the personal tone out of this. I'm not interested in discussing things with butthurt people that cannot even stop to think and consider that maybe they missed something of my point.Of course there is, can you read? I am not interested in repeating myself and going back and fourth with you over this, it's a simple point honestly.
I don't think I ever said that everyone is interested in this. Or that even everyone would have to be interested in it. Also, I didn't say or imply that the intellect can only be used for science.Not everyone is interested in the pursuit of intellectual ideas. Only a minority of people are. Infact if you tried to explain the concept of scientific methodology to an outback tribal person he wouldn't be capable of seeing the value of it; alot of its value is grounded in society, in progressive and collective thought.
There are more ways of using the intellect than strict adherence to scientific methodology, anyway. For example, you can think about things which you personally experience... you don't need proof to justify your perceptions to yourself.
If I did not make it clear before: I was not against your point that the importance and place of science as part of society can be viewed through ethical values, I was talking about your other point that the scientific way of thinking can only work by ethical guidelines, where I do disagree, because of how the thinking processes for scientific understanding in themselves don't need any of the ethical values. Actually, it's even more than just not needing them, introducing ethical values just constrains and hinders this process but of course I don't disagree that we have to do that sometimes, see ethical guidelines for experimentation.
So the original statement by you about how "ethics transforms seamlessly into logic" is a bit overly idealistic, it's not always that simple. It is a good topic though as to how to optimize the process of interfacing the two.
Last edited by Myst; 08-24-2017 at 09:33 AM.
I didn't equate the entire thing there with Ti (which would make no sense anyway, I see these IEs as more complex things than just uniform and general definitions), I simply described what I do. The parts on determining where the inconsistency comes from, or checking it against other earlier data, while determining its place (and its significance in a logical sense) in the entire analysis of the data from now and from earlier would definitely involve aspects of the Ti type of thinking though.
It is what I think everyone who reads your sentence will take away from it.
I don't even see what your point is. You simply have said: "intellectual curiosity does not have a should behind it", basically... which is just simply wrong. But we're talking about the scientific method and now you've switched the conversation to a general sense of intellectual curiosity that people have... why? I don't see how this is even relevant. Besides that, it's just another ethic that we should have an intellectual curiosity for the things of science - not everyone does, and why should they?
I mean, even if I accept this notion of intellectual curiosity (which is a natural ethic) I explained that there are multiple ways of using the intellect, and of being intellectually curious. We are talking about scientific methodology. The scientific method is a set of guidelines.
Regardless you've just switched to a natural ethical argument, it's still an ethics argument.
The proposition, within the scientific method, that we should value empirical data IS a utilitarian ethical guideline. Do you understand? Honestly I don't believe you understand what an ethic is... it just doesn't seem to register.
This was actually a direct response to this crappy "point" you claim to have. Basically, there are many ways to naturally use the intellect, and science does not happen without the set of parameters provided by the scientific method. It's just that simple.
You don't even understand what an ethic is or understand this conversation.
To do science you must follow the scientific method. The method IS a set of ethical guidelines, like I have been telling you for 3 posts now. It's nonsense what you are arguing.
--------------------------------------
Let me try to put this in a way you might better understand, Myst.
Let's say you are walking through the woods... with another person. The person next to you stops, and says: "Look at that!" and points to something walking on a leaf. You say to them: "I don't have time to look at that, let's go". The person was pointing to a beetle walking on a leaf. Ok? Now...
So the beetle is walking on a leaf, that's true.. the person pointing to the leaf has an intellectual curiosity, that's true... but why should the other person look at the beetle on the leaf? They don't have time, they have a place they need to be going. Do you understand? The statement: "Look at that!" is an ethical statement. The tribal person I mentioned earlier - he sees no value in science, he has something else he is interested in. That doesn't mean he lacks an intellect, it simply means his intellect is channeled into his own pursuits. It's TRUE that there is a beetle walking on a leaf, but why should we look at it? Why should I have an intellectual curiosity to look at the beetle when I have somewhere else I need to be going? Maybe I'm interested in other things, or I don't have time... Do you understand?
Last edited by purplehearts; 08-24-2017 at 03:19 PM.
A rudimentary form of the scientific method occurs in all cultures and is seen even in infants, as it's just observation - hypothesis - experimentation - conclusion and does happen naturally. However, I agree with the rest of your point that the formalization of it with specific rules and guidelines to follow is something else, and does depend on value judgements, as in "which method is better? why is it better?" with the values being the final objective of the method. Basically it's a matter of saying, "If you want to be objective and accurate follow these guidelines" but the question is "why do you want to be objective and accurate?" The want, or desire itself is the value. Like you saidas the goal is to reach a specific ethic.The method IS a set of ethical guidelines
There are no ethics in science... the only assumption in science is that there is a such thing as "objectivity" outside of ourselves. A computer program or an AI or an alien can do science and the result will be the same (even if the method might be different). It really doesn't matter why we think we should be objective or how we should arrive at a method. The entire point of science is to remove all of our subjectivity and subjective viewpoints as much as humanly possible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
