Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 141

Thread: Te vs Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

  1. #1
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Why I value Te over Ti and how they feel different, by me!

    Ti sounds to me like this:

    A, therefore B. Or A -> B. Then sometimes a Ti person will build upon that. A -> B, and B -> C, and C -> D, therefore D.

    To me, every one of those movements is a logical leap. It isn't that I am unable to follow it, it's that I think it's ridiculous to assume that A -> B rather than X, Y, Z or whatever. Every time I see someone do that I think, "Why on earth do you assume A -> B?" It makes me crazy. That doesn't mean it isn't useful because making those assumptions allows people to reach things they might not reach without making those assumptions, and maybe they'll come up with some new idea that will be really useful.

    TiNe people are able to consider X, Y and Z. So they're continually changing that A -> B thing to see if maybe A -> B or C, and they try out different things and see what works, and move on to some other path, like rather than A -> B, and B -> C; they'll change their idea to A -> X and try to figure out where X might lead. TiSe people aren't able to see other possibilities so they figure A -> B and it MUST lead to B and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid or even apparently immoral or whatever.

    If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.

    But if you disagree with a person who works with Ti + Se, that person reacts much more negatively to the disagreement. Well at least if an Ne + Fi person disagrees with them they react more negatively. They are offended that you would even suggest they consider another possibility because they figure they're working from some level of authority or something, or they're calling upon some other authority, and your inability to agree with that authority drives them crazy.

    Now, on to Te.

    Te people work more like this:

    A makes me believe X.

    B makes me believe X or Y.

    C makes me believe X or Z.

    D makes me believe Z

    E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

    Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

    This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do). Although that example is more Te+Ni. Te+Si needs to be given some possibilities to work with. Like, "what might A mean?" And I'll say, "Maybe A means X, or Y, or Z, or . . ." And they'll try out each one and if it works they'll go with it and if not they'll move on to the next possibility.

    People who value Te sometimes use Ti and people who use Ti sometimes use Te. But people obviously favor one over the other. I feel it very strongly when someone uses that Ti over Te because every time they do that A -> B thing, I die a little inside. Ok it isn't that bad, but it isn't a good reaction anyway.

    I admit this is all fairly sketchy and subjective - it's just from my ENFp point of view. But it is my reason for seeing Phaedrus as I see him. And I know Phaedrus will cringe when reading it and hate it because he doesn't like "sketchy and subjective". But that's what I've got to work with. I can't give him the Ti arguments he's looking for because that isn't me. We all work with our strengths.

    Feel free to critique as I'm no expert, but please don't just say "You're an idiot." Please EDUCATE me and give me information if you disagree with something. Thank you
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    a very interesting description of Ti polr.

    feel free not to respond if you have no idea, but do you have any ideas on how this might differ from an SEEs thought process?

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    I see it differently And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z. Both Ti and Te ego types discard "D"s all the time, the difference between logical Ti>Te and Te>Ti is more on the priority. One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit. To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.
    Just trying to clarify my own undertanding here - you're stating it to mean than Einstein and Bohr used Ti and Te respectively?

    In such a case, I'm wondering about function use: Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision - or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model (a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)? As we know, Einstein was incorrect, so if the latter, I have to assume this is a potential problem area for extreme Ti types.

  5. #5
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    Just trying to clarify my own undertanding here - you're stating it to mean than Einstein and Bohr used Ti and Te respectively?
    In the particular discussion on the uncertainty principle, yes. Which is not to mean that Bohr himself was necessarily a Te type.

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    In such a case, I'm wondering about function use: Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision - or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model (a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)? As we know, Einstein was incorrect, so if the latter, I have to assume this is a potential problem area for extreme Ti types.
    In my very humble opinion, Einstein rejected it because it conflicted with his basic understanding of how the universe should work, as in his "God does not play dice with the universe". That is also why Schroedinger, another Ti type in my opinion, also tended to reject it. His Schroedinger's cat experiment was meant precisely to show that the uncertainty interpretation of his wave wasn't acceptable.

    I think Einstein was wrong in that particular case, but he may have been right in the longer term, assuming that something like the Many-Worlds interpretation is correct, rather than the Copenhagen "wave-collapse" interpretation. So it's not as simple as saying that Te was right and Ti was wrong.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    Did Einstein reject the uncertainty principle because his conventional model worked regardless of the loose end - and therefore was a pragmatic decision
    No, definitely not. And he was not rejecting the uncertainty principle in itself, he was rejecting Bohr's interpretation of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    - or was it rejected because it conflicted with his model
    No, because it conflicted with his strong belief that the world must have a structure in itself. That assumption (that the world must have a structure in itself) was not a part of Einstein's model. It is a part of every model that can make a valid claim to be true. Therefore Einstein was correct in rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by force my hand
    (a behaviour I have associated with Ti, right or wrong)?
    Yes, to reject empirical data that conflict with your model is usually associated with . My behaviour is the exact opposite of that. I prefer to reject the model, when it cannot explain the empirical data. That's what I am doing all the time -- questioning the model.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    I see it differently And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z. Both Ti and Te ego types discard "D"s all the time, the difference between logical Ti>Te and Te>Ti is more on the priority. One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit. To use the quantum theory examples, Einstein was confident about rejecting evidence pointing towards the uncertainty principle - "God does not play dice with the universe" - and Bohr did not care about having a supposedly half-baked system as long as it could be applied. He was more concerned about -- "localized" solutions. To me, these are two opposite uses of confident Ti and Te.
    I think it's true that both Ti and Te types are able to be flexible and discard what doesn't fit. But to me, it seems to be partly an N thing (as Slacker Mom suggested when comparing INTj vs. ISTj).

    I also agree that failure to distinguish between good and bad evidence (especially a tendency to pile on awful arguments together with good ones) is a mark of weak T. However, I don't see Phaedrus as either as stubborn or lacking in competence as you seem to. He says a few things that I don't necessarily agree with (like that people should supplement their Socionics understanding with MBTI type descriptions to better understand their type, and not just for purposes of changing or critiquing the theory). (That particular one actually strengthens your point, I admit, because the argument against it is precisely that Te demands that new data be used to revise one's model rather than to supplement one's perceptive understanding directly.) But he strikes me as quite open to a good argument for why he should change a given position (although I haven't debated him as much as you have). This doesn't mean he isn't INFp, but I tend to be skeptical of arguments like "I disagree with this person's reasoning. Therefore he's an F type," which really is what your sound like you're saying.

    Anyhow, over all, I think Slacker Mom's description is a good one, because it really captures something about Te that hasn't been much discussed. That is, Te involves forming a model to fit the data; the model must have some rigidity to it, otherwise one has merely a lump of data. The key is that the data suggests a working model. This is why Te can be considered to relate to "understanding" just as much as "Ti" can, although Te types may sometimes seem arrogant because they can jump to conclusions without demanding perfectly consistent syllogistic logic (I'm relying on my pre-Socionics views here; they seem more applicable at the moment).

    In pure Ti, the logical connections are independent of whether they relate to anything; hence, Ti only seems rigid to people who assume it must be tied to belief. That's what I love about Ti.

  8. #8
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    I think it's true that both Ti and Te types are able to be flexible and discard what doesn't fit. But to me, it seems to be partly an N thing (as Slacker Mom suggested when comparing INTj vs. ISTj).
    The difference between the ISTj and INTj is basically that the ISTj's main input for his Ti reasoning comes from Se reality - or what the ISTj perceive as "reality". The INTj's main input comes from this Ne "alternative realities", which almost by definition are more easily changeable than the Se reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    This doesn't mean he isn't INFp, but I tend to be skeptical of arguments like "I disagree with this person's reasoning. Therefore he's an F type," which really is what your sound like you're saying.
    I have no control, and therefore no responsibility, over how what I say may "sound" to you. I did not say, nor mean that at all, and that is perfectly clear from what I did say. I have no inclination to repeat it here to correct your own faulty understanding. What you just said "sounds to me" like a lazy and erroneous oversimplification to dismiss what I said rather than bother to try thinking about it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  9. #9
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    Now, on to Te.

    Te people work more like this:

    A makes me believe X.

    B makes me believe X or Y.

    C makes me believe X or Z.

    D makes me believe Z

    E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

    Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

    This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.

  10. #10
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.
    Welcome back high school angst
    Sigh, the depression that this thinking brings is uproductive, yet I always end up in this stupid trap.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  11. #11
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    Now, on to Te.

    Te people work more like this:

    A makes me believe X.

    B makes me believe X or Y.

    C makes me believe X or Z.

    D makes me believe Z

    E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

    Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

    This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.
    Yes that's very true. Some of the evidence might be stronger than others and might be weighed differently. It was really just a simplification of how it feels to me.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    I think Slacker Mom's description is a good one, because it really captures something about Te that hasn't been much discussed. That is, Te involves forming a model to fit the data;
    Exactly. From recent thread referring to an ancient thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    What I try to do is to make my empirical observations of patterns fit into a theory. I try to make generalizations.
    I start with observing a pattern. I don't start with a stated idea, like the INTjs, who start with an object function creating a field function. Instead I start with a field function and create an object function. I have introverted perception and my behaviour here is only consistent with being a Narrator. In the same thread I said that

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    I am more interested in general empirical observations of people's behaviours. That's why I am so focused on type descriptions and statistical findings of correlations between types and behaviours. I try to make all the empirical findings, all the pieces of information, all the things that are said about different types by different theorists of different models, fit together.
    which is a clear illustration of why I consistently make general observations instead of specific observations. It is observation of fields, not objects. And every time I say that all the pieces of information must fit into the big puzzle otherwise we have to redo it, every time I start with accepting empirical facts and see where they are going to lead me, I am expressing a clear Gamma, non-Alpha attitude.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't do it cap'n!
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  14. #14
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Exactly. From recent thread referring to an ancient thread:

    I have some remnants of that "ancient thread" which I'd be willing to post for you, (since you seem to want to quote from it).
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I have no control, and therefore no responsibility, over how what I say may "sound" to you. I did not say, nor mean that at all, and that is perfectly clear from what I did say. I have no inclination to repeat it here to correct your own faulty understanding. What you just said "sounds to me" like a lazy and erroneous oversimplification to dismiss what I said rather than bother to try thinking about it.
    Is there a way to turn down the heat just a little bit? Maybe we're in some sort of conflicting intertype relation here (supervisory or otherwise), but since you value listening carefully to what other people said and not just dismissing it through oversimplifications, then you should realize that I was agreeing with 90% of your points. I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was dismissing your points, because I really agree with most of them, and just wish we could tone it down a little bit...and if I seem dismissive, please know that's not the intention.

    Here's what I referring to you regarding your comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z.
    Implied: discarding D is an ability ("will have no problem").

    One of my reasons - not the only reason - for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type is precisely this insistence on making every single bit of supposed evidence fit.
    Implied: Phaedrus's use of evidence isn't very good. (Note the use of the word "supposed." Note also that the word "insistence" implies taking one action when another one would be warranted.)

    Clearly stated: These points are "one of [your] reasons"..."for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type"

    Therefore, it is reasonable to parse this as saying, in effect, Phaedrus's reasoning isn't that good (he "insists" on fitting "supposed" evidence rather than doing what T types do, which is to "have no problem" doing this wonderful thing which is discarding D when it's correct to do so). And because of the last (clearly stated) point above, it sounds as if you're implying that what you see as a weakness in Phaedrus's arguments is implying that he's F.

    Anyhow, the only reason I brought it up is that I think it's important to recognize that psychological relevance is more important than what we (subjectively) think is competence in a person's arguments.

    Actually, this thread is a great example of that. Slacker Mom is demonstrating something I've noticed about other ENFps on the forum, which is that they often seem to have better reasoning than the "T" people do. It may come from the fact that it's using the full axis rather than just relying on the ego block.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Expat:

    PS, by the way, I'll admit that I'm splitting hairs a bit, and that may be what ticks you off. If your point is that Phaedrus's enthusiastic embracing of lots of different systems that you may not feel should all be embraced could be construed as somewhat similar to patterns in some INFps, I would agree. Still, that's far from conclusive (and based on a subjective opinion about whether those systems are worthwhile)....and I hate to see it when I feel people are giving someone too hard a time.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    Now, on to Te.

    Te people work more like this:

    A makes me believe X.

    B makes me believe X or Y.

    C makes me believe X or Z.

    D makes me believe Z

    E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

    Therefore, overall, I'd say X.

    This kind of logic works for me. I have no problem discarding D if it doesn't work overall (something Ti people don't like to do).
    What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.
    Yes that's very true. Some of the evidence might be stronger than others and might be weighed differently. It was really just a simplification of how it feels to me.
    actually the way it feels to you feels to me like just using real world examples. I don't think Ti people give reasons why they believe something any less than Te people. I in fact don't think Te people really need to give reasons why they believe things if they are with another Te person. They just give you an argument with real world data. What kind of computer should i buy, well consumer reports makes me believe blah blha and etc. I *think* what you were describing in the Ti example just sounds like reasons for believing something that are in their head. It's interesting that presentation matters so much.

    I am speaking as a Ti person of course, but I don't really understand why it would make your crazy for that reason. My ENFp friends just hate Ti because they don't think things should fit into boxes. This is what they have told me.

  18. #18
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    If you disagree with a Ti Ne person, he or she will move on and keep trying different paths to try to find this ultimate enlightened truth. And they figure that once they find that truth, it'll be evident to everyone and then they will be vindicated. They might get annoyed along the way if you disagree with them, but they move on and keep searching different paths, inspired by their Ne, and they have confidence that at some point they'll reach this truth.

    But if you disagree with a person who works with Ti + Se, that person reacts much more negatively to the disagreement. Well at least if an Ne + Fi person disagrees with them they react more negatively. They are offended that you would even suggest they consider another possibility because they figure they're working from some level of authority or something, or they're calling upon some other authority, and your inability to agree with that authority drives them crazy.
    Every type has strengths and when it comes to logical correctness, I take my hat off before Ti dominants. There is no better help when you need to sort your theories out than a LII.

    The difference between LSI and LII is that LII are rational AND reasonable, and LSI just rational (I'm not talking in socionics terms). LII will try to verify the model if there is information that suggests something is wrong (Ne) and LSI will just reject anything that don't fit the model (Se).

    However, they at times get obsessed with the idea that just because everything fits in a nice model in their heads then it has to be right. This is valid for most low scale problems which have few parameters and follow certain rules that are known beforehand but problems in the real world do not follow the "laboratory conditions" often that Ti types expect and there is where the problem begins.

    Instead of thinking in terms of who is right and who is wrong, I would rather put it as they are both right. Often when there is a disagreement between two persons it is not that one is wrong and the other is right, but more than they are discussing different things in the first place. Ti is concise and focused and Fi (because I don't think it's Te what you're talking about) is diffuse, wider, so when you're discussing something you're likely to be taking into the equation far more things than Ti, and this confuses Ti because it doesn't see those other parameters. Fi is famous for "considering the implications on people" (or better, in the system as a whole) and this is not always explicit, so Ti does not understand that the problem, from Fi perspective, is not circumscribed to what's it's analyzed only.

    Ti and Fi process things differently and use different rules. Despite what you think, Fi never discards factors, because they are not analyzed in the Ti way in the first place. Fi is somewhat like an statistical model that takes lots of factors and analyzes things in terms of convergence. So when a single factor doesn't fit, it doesn't mean much to the whole system. For Fi, if a single factor is wrong, the entire result can be still right.

    For Ti types this is the opposite. They analyze all and each of the factors involved in the equation for logical correctness and they must be right before even being considered. For Ti, if a single factor is wrong, then the entire result is wrong.

    Just imagine what happens when a Fi type brings up a factor that doesn't pass the logical check. Ti jumps on and complains that the factor is wrong (and they are right, from the logical point of view) and immediately reach the conclusion that the entire model is going to fail. But this is not always the case. More often than not the model ends up with satisfactory results, regardless that it makes or not sense from the Ti perspective.

    I remember watching a debate on the TV involving cigarettes, where one of the debatants was clearly EII (a medic) and the other LII (a political analyst). At first the LII throwed out "devastating" arguments. I agreed with them, because they were "elegant" - I have heard those from my own LII father before and I've learned to not oppose resistance. However, the LII quickly ran out of arguments so the EII slowly but steadily gained control over the discussion, not because his arguments were more "logical" than those of the LII, but because he had far more in the first place. This is the main issue of logicals: their models are abstract and thus are somewhat simplistic compared to reality.

    Now, I've heard the comments about such way of thinking being Te and not Fi as I say. Well, I must say that if you support that idea, then I challenge you to explain what is the kind of logical system ethicals use, because ethicals, regardless of specific type, are dominated by Fi and Fe, Te and Ti often playing minor roles. If you deny what I say I expect you to give arguments to support it. I suggest it's Fi because I have a good idea on how each of the eight functions work.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex
    LII will try to verify the model if there is information that suggests something is wrong (Ne) and LSI will just reject anything that don't fit the model (Se).
    Not sure I agree that these are the correct definitions of Ne and Se. Se people aren't as unreasonable as this makes them sound. However, LSIs are more action oriented, so they're more likely to put into practice what they think rather than to keep investigating.

  20. #20
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Te vs. Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

    @rmcnew: you are right about the Phaedrus discussion, but this is a bit -- borderline. If it goes specifically into that direction, I will continue it over in that thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Is there a way to turn down the heat just a little bit? Maybe we're in some sort of conflicting intertype relation here (supervisory or otherwise), but since you value listening carefully to what other people said and not just dismissing it through oversimplifications, then you should realize that I was agreeing with 90% of your points. I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was dismissing your points, because I really agree with most of them, and just wish we could tone it down a little bit...and if I seem dismissive, please know that's not the intention.
    Ok, sure

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    And that's one of the reasons for my not seeing Phaedrus (since he got mentioned here too) as a Ti IJ. A true INTj or ISTj, in the process of building up their logical systems, will have no problem at all discarding D if they have already built up an internally consistent system made of A, B, C, X, Y, Z.
    Implied: discarding D is an ability ("will have no problem").
    Rather than "ability", I prefer- always - to talk about "confidence". A Ti IJ will be confident in discarding D, but that may well be a wrong decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Implied: Phaedrus's use of evidence isn't very good. (Note the use of the word "supposed." Note also that the word "insistence" implies taking one action when another one would be warranted.)
    It isn't very good in my own judgement. But my point is a different one. What I meant was the reluctance to make nearly any selection of evidence, at least consciously, while a Ti or Te type is generally less reluctant to say "this is useless as evidence". Of course, a Ti or Te type may be totally wrong when saying this. That's not the point. One can alwayws discuss the value or usefulness of particular bits of evidence (for instance, particular type descriptions); but a position that every bit of evidence must be used uncritically (without, as I have already said, wondering how Reinin even typed his case studies - through theory or descriptons?) strikes me as low confidence (not ability necessarily) in Te and Ti.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Clearly stated: These points are "one of [your] reasons"..."for thinking Phaedrus is not a logical type"

    Therefore, it is reasonable to parse this as saying, in effect, Phaedrus's reasoning isn't that good (he "insists" on fitting "supposed" evidence rather than doing what T types do, which is to "have no problem" doing this wonderful thing which is discarding D when it's correct to do so). And because of the last (clearly stated) point above, it sounds as if you're implying that what you see as a weakness in Phaedrus's arguments is implying that he's F.
    No. That's unwarranted, totally. That's where you're dead wrong and this "it sounds like" is bullshit. You seem to be saying that I think that "weak arguments = F". That's nonsense. It is the approach that I find indication of ethical type, not the "strength" of the argument.

    For instance, personally, I think that tcaudilllg may not be validating with enough evidence his cross-type theory. So I think that his arguments for that theory are not "strong" enough. Does that mean that I think he's not a logical type, not an INTj? Obviously not.

    Again, I really object to this interpretation of what I said.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Actually, this thread is a great example of that. Slacker Mom is demonstrating something I've noticed about other ENFps on the forum, which is that they often seem to have better reasoning than the "T" people do. It may come from the fact that it's using the full axis rather than just relying on the ego block.
    More often than not I agree with Slacker Mom's points, and I never suggested that that made her a logical type. That also goes for Rick, obviously.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  21. #21
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    PS, by the way, I'll admit that I'm splitting hairs a bit, and that may be what ticks you off.
    No, what ticks me off is your wrongful interpretation of my points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    If your point is that Phaedrus's enthusiastic embracing of lots of different systems that you may not feel should all be embraced could be construed as somewhat similar to patterns in some INFps, I would agree. Still, that's far from conclusive (and based on a subjective opinion about whether those systems are worthwhile)....and I hate to see it when I feel people are giving someone too hard a time.
    Again, I avoid getting into "similar to representatives of a type" argument, except as illustration.

    I also "embrace" other systems, as can be seen from my, perhaps also "enthusiastic" threads on Jung's types and the Enneagram.

    The difference is, I (again, correctly or incorrectly) have made a critical analysis of the value of all that evidence.

    For instance:

    - that Jung's types do not correspond directly to Socionics types, and to assume that they do, so using Jung's concepts in Socionics, makes no sense, it's contradictory: if Jung's types are consistent and correct, Socionics's types are not.
    - that the Enneagram types provide useful information but a few types, especially 5, do not correspond to any real person, stemming directly - and uncritically - from Jung's Introverted Thinking type.
    - that it makes no sense to assume that Reinin dichotomies must necessarily fit all types perfectly, if we don't even know (unless someone does know) how Grigori Reinin himself validated those dichotomies (if he even did) with real people, and how he even typed those real people;
    - that descriptions of individuals may be "empirical evidence", but descriptions of types are already, necessarily, filtered by the author's typing method (whichever that may be), and so are not really "empirical evidence" - they are "curves" in a graph, not "points".

    I may be totally wrong in the specifics of the above - in fact, I would welcome a point-by-point refutation of the validity or correctness of the above. I have no problem with that. But to avoid looking at these problems, and say that all of those bits "must" somehow fit together, to me is an unwillingness to even use Ti or Te.

    Now, for my own purposes, I use functional analysis according to model A ordering, quadras, temperaments, and relationships, which is why I say (for instance) that an INTp cannot have Fe>Fi preference. Is that a Ti decision? Yes. For the moment, that is the model I am assuming to be true - because I have seen enough Te evidence that it does work, to my own satisfaction, if the individuals are typed according to such criteria.

    That is an illustration of confident use of Te and Ti - which, again, may turn out to be wrong. What is not a confident use of Ti and Te is simply to avoid looking at any evidence critically and say "all must fit together somehow".

    In the case of experimental, hard science, of course you can't just dismiss experimental results that you don't like if they are reproducible. That would be nothing less than fraud. But when you're talking about something so blurred and subjective and inexact as distilled descriptions of many individuals (typed, again, who knows how), then the only way to get anywhere in this stuff is to be a bit critical - and be prepared to make mistakes on the way.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  22. #22
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Now, for my own purposes, I use functional analysis according to model A ordering, quadras, temperaments, and relationships, which is why I say (for instance) that an INTp cannot have Fe>Fi preference.
    Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.

    Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much). Now you can say that it is the only approach you can take. Which is more or less true. However your level of confidence in your arguments might be way too high considering all the uncertainties involved.

    My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.

    My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.

  23. #23
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    a very interesting description of Ti polr.

    feel free not to respond if you have no idea, but do you have any ideas on how this might differ from an SEEs thought process?
    I don't mean to ignore you Niff but I honestly don't know what an Se-dominant person would want or feel. All I know is what I've read in descriptions but I'm sure you've read the same ones.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  24. #24
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.
    Since he's not participating, nor is he the ultimate word on Socionics (as I am not, either), that remains speculation. His main criticism of model A was its being static, as I understand it. Now, according to the "flexible type alongside temperament" interpretation, the issue of whether one is INTp or INFp becomes less important since the same individual can be - or behave - as both. Or either. Or neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much).
    In your particular case, unless you are deliberately, in nearly every post you write, totally faking a persona (in which cases all bets are off), the Fe>Fi preference is, again, so obvious it is painful and embarrassing. And that has been the case for a very, very long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.
    That makes no sense to me. Logically it is, indeed, nonsense.

    I would say the precise opposite: if I say someone is "clearly type X", I may be wrong since perhaps the person is a "similar type to X". If I say, though, someone is "clearly not type X", then I am leaving the option open for 15 other types and just eliminating what I think is obviously not true.

    Let us take Phaedrus as an example. Now there are discussions about INTp, INFp, INTj or even ISTj as types for him. But does anyone disagree that types such as ESFj or ESFp make no sense at all, whatsoever, for him? So it is quite safe to say that he is clearly "not an ESFj".

    Take my own case. Some people may argue that I am ESTj. Would anyone argue that I am an ISFp? I don't think so. So it's perhaps even more valid to say that I am clearly not an ISFp than to say that I am an ENTj.

    When you say this:

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit.
    To me that's just an indication of having Ti in super-id (as I think Kristiina would agree, for instance).

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.
    Advice dismissed as meaningless.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  25. #25
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, on to Te.

    Te people work more like this:

    A makes me believe X.

    B makes me believe X or Y.

    C makes me believe X or Z.

    D makes me believe Z

    E makes me believe X or Y or Z.

    Therefore, overall, I'd say X.
    To those who it may concern, this could well be read as a description of the Accepting Extrovert --> Creative Introvert process, and a very precise one at that. Introverts take a lot of viewpoints* and postulate from those a limited set of propositions (facts) allowed by said views. Extroverts do the opposite; the set of propositions is the basis, and the process of evaluation from overlooking said propositions results in a careful selection of limited viewpoints.

    I'll leave in the middle wether this kind of thinking applies to creative Te types. The observation of a perceptive field does create a more lenient and mild form of evaluations than that of judgmental (reductive) fields, so I can see how a case can be made for it.

    * (I like to think of 'fields' as 'visual fields' or 'mental representations')

  26. #26
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much). Now you can say that it is the only approach you can take. Which is more or less true. However your level of confidence in your arguments might be way too high considering all the uncertainties involved.
    Going back on this, since this may be an important general point.

    I would not have such a high "level of certainty" on this if it was an isolated case. As you may recall, even over PM - a long time ago - I mentioned that I did not see Te in you, but Fe. And I'm not just stubbornly sticking to a original conclusion. That conclusion has been independently confirmed - in my judgement - so often, in so many examples of your posts - directly - and your own self-descriptions - that a point comes where I have to, yes, stop beating around the bush and say, yes, I am confident that you have Fe>Fi preference.

    There are "uncertainties". There are always "uncertainties" in this stuff, whether online or IRL. Of course. But if I were to say, "there are still uncertainties as to XoX's Fe>Fi preference", then, to be true to myself, I would have to give up on trying to say anything about anyone, since your Fe>Fi preference is one of the most blatantly obvious characteristics here. If I were to be wishy-washy about that, then I might was well start being wishy-washy about anything at all I say here.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  27. #27
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Personally I'm not questioning that assumption. Even though smilingeyes had argumented that Model A is a sort of "weak link" in socionics and should be improved. I think he emphasized functions, temperaments and Quadras but was critical of the exacts of Model A. He may correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time.
    Since he's not participating, nor is he the ultimate word on Socionics (as I am not, either), that remains speculation. His main criticism of model A was its being static, as I understand it. Now, according to the "flexible type alongside temperament" interpretation, the issue of whether one is INTp or INFp becomes less important since the same individual can be - or behave - as both. Or either. Or neither.
    That was just a remark which crossed my mind. Not meant to be a real argument. Just a note.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Anyways I'm a bit worried that your interpretation of how e.g. Fe>Fi preference manifests at individual level is bit too limited. Even if your interpretation is completely correct and not a limited subset of all possible manifestations that still leaves me a bit suspicious of whether you can correctly perceive this preference in Internet forum (but the latter problem is something which can't be affected much).
    In your particular case, unless you are deliberately, in nearly every post you write, totally faking a persona (in which cases all bets are off), the Fe>Fi preference is, again, so obvious it is painful and embarrassing. And that has been the case for a very, very long time.
    I'm not faking a persona but I am often hiding some facets of my personality which I perhaps think it is not wise to show. Then occasionally I might "overshow" these facets I'm usually hiding (for whatever reason). So the view you get is a bit "polarized". Usually to over-emphasize my better qualities and occasionally to over-emphasize my worse qualities. Imho faking would be to show "facets" which are not really part of you at all but a complete act (as in acting a role on stage).

    Another thing is that I have a tendency to sometimes get "behind" my arguments (intellectual or ethical) in a way which doesn't necessarily reflect my "true opinion" (whatever that means). I can do this just for the sake of argument and in real life situation which concerns serious matters and is not "just an argument" I could take the opposite stance. So you might get the impression that I'm 100% behind something (and make a character judgment based on this) when in reality I'm exploring whether that kind of argument can be made and if it can be made "water proof".

    But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    My current impression is that your criteria for different manifestations of theoretical socionics phenomena is correctly understood but limited (and not the whole truth). Thus when you type someone as "clearly Type X" that person is quite likely to be of "Type X". Your definite typings can be trusted quite a bit. But when you type someone as "Not likely Type X" you are more prone to make mistakes because you are dismissing people who don't fit into your (limited?) criteria.
    That makes no sense to me. Logically it is, indeed, nonsense.

    I would say the precise opposite: if I say someone is "clearly type X", I may be wrong since perhaps the person is a "similar type to X". If I say, though, someone is "clearly not type X", then I am leaving the option open for 15 other types and just eliminating what I think is obviously not true.

    Let us take Phaedrus as an example. Now there are discussions about INTp, INFp, INTj or even ISTj as types for him. But does anyone disagree that types such as ESFj or ESFp make no sense at all, whatsoever, for him? So it is quite safe to say that he is clearly "not an ESFj".

    Take my own case. Some people may argue that I am ESTj. Would anyone argue that I am an ISFp? I don't think so. So it's perhaps even more valid to say that I am clearly not an ISFp than to say that I am an ENTj.
    I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.

    Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

    Type1 criteria:
    has to have a, b
    cannot have c, d

    Type2 criteria:
    has to have c, d
    cannot have a, b

    Candidate 1:
    a, b

    Candidate 2:
    a,b,c

    Candidate 3:
    b,c,d

    Candidate 4:
    c, d

    Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
    Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
    Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

    Now in reality (in this example) Candidate 2 is indeed of Type 1 and Candidate 3 is of Type 2. They just have some individual variation. My claim was that in these situations you sometimes seem to over-focus on the NOT parts or CANNOT HAVE parts to dismiss a possibility too quickly. This is what I call "destructive" use of Te. "Constructive" use of Te would be to focus on the YESs more than the NOTs. In theory focus on YESs and NOTs should be balanced (balancing the constructive and destructive use of logic) but for subjective reasons I tend to think it is, in practice, a bigger mistake to focus on the NOTs too much. I might me wrong in this and symmetric approach is the best in the end. In any case focusing overly on the NOTs is a bad approach imho.

    So my claim was that you might have a tendency to do this. E.g. if someone has more INTp than INFp qualities but they also have some qualities which you claim CANNOT be an INTp qualities you dismiss the "positive evidence" and stick to the NOTs to reach the final conclusion thus taking a "destructive" approach instead of constructive or balanced approach. You might disagree about this of course seeing your approach as balanced or just disagreeing that the over-focus on NOTs is a bad approach at all.

    But well in this example "you" were right in all typings which fit well into your criteria and wrong in cases where there was some variation from the model and you sticked too heavily in the NOT opinions over the YES opinions. I say "you" because I claim that you do this. That is debatable of course. However this is why I tend to currently trust your positive typings more than your negative typings. How is this illogical? You made me suspect there is a flaw there but I still cannot see it and thus stick to it being logical. The main problem here I see is the possibility of your approach being indeed balanced and not overly focused on NOTs. But in my personal case it somehow seems the NOTs dominate the scene.

    Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    My advice is to focus more on the now famous/infamous "creative" use of Te i.e. trying to type people and focus less on "destructive" use of Te i.e. trying to untype people.
    Advice dismissed as meaningless.
    It wasn't hard to predict your answer but I have a tendency to "be patronizing" even when I suspect it is not going to work I wonder what socionics explanation there is to that. Perhaps I just want to prove my model of your behavior correct or something.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    About XoX's Fe>Fi or Fi>Fe preference, what can we conclude from his possible identification with one of the two types of behaviour that Rick describes in his blog under the headline "Extraverted and introverted ethics at the group level"?

    http://www.socionics.us/blog/12_06.shtml

    We might have the same problem here as we have when we discuss the differences been accepting and creating , because Rick tends to think of the functions as static phenomena. So, I'm not sure of the reliability of such a "test", but I certainly identify much more with what Rick describes as on the group level than with he describes as on the group level. My behaviour in real life is clearly on the side here.

    XoX, what do say about Rick's description (which I think is a probably a very good one)? And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.

  29. #29
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

    Type1 criteria:
    has to have a, b
    cannot have c, d

    Type2 criteria:
    has to have c, d
    cannot have a, b

    Candidate 1:
    a, b

    Candidate 2:
    a,b,c

    Candidate 3:
    b,c,d

    Candidate 4:
    c, d

    Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
    Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
    Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1
    You missed some "NOTs"

    If told that a person can only be a, b but not c, d (or vice versa)
    and a person shows up that is a, b, c; or b, c, d or a, d; or b, c (or any other mix of the letters other than the theory allows for)
    then it's possible that someone's understanding of what constitutes a, b, c, or d does NOT reflect the theory
    and/or it's possible that the theory is NOT sufficiently representing reality.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  30. #30
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

    Type1 criteria:
    has to have a, b
    cannot have c, d

    Type2 criteria:
    has to have c, d
    cannot have a, b

    Candidate 1:
    a, b

    Candidate 2:
    a,b,c

    Candidate 3:
    b,c,d

    Candidate 4:
    c, d

    Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
    Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
    Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1
    You missed some "NOTs"

    If told that a person can only be a, b but not c, d (or vice versa)
    and a person shows up that is a, b, c; or b, c, d or a, d; or b, c (or any other mix of the letters other than the theory allows for)
    then it's possible that someone's understanding of what constitutes a, b, c, or d does NOT reflect the theory
    and/or it's possible that the theory is NOT sufficiently representing reality.
    has a habbit of over-complicating simple things Like my perfect example Actually I thought this was the "Expat"-thread where this discussion would fit better. It is a bit out of context here. I had both threads open but failed to realize which thread I was writing in It doesn't really bother me but I'm sure it bothers some people as lately there have been a movement to make threads more "context-aware". I'm not sure if it is a crime to go on about this here or not.

  31. #31
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.
    What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the bit" won't do.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #32
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The first post kinda makes sense to me. Sometimes I'm surprised how INTp can just reach conclusions. He sits still one moment and just says, "If there's A, then X is most probably true." I'm all confused, because I'm still trying to link A to B,C. And when I reach D, I'm all confused and I give up. I can even say that A->X would make sense, but I can't prove it, so I'll ignore the feeling that it could be true.

    mikemex, good post. It sounds logical that ISTjs tend to discard possibilities that I haven't experienced ("the data doesn't show it, so it why are we even talking about it?") and the INTjs trust the theoretical models too much ("I still haven't proven my theory, so I must find a way to improve my methods"). In some ways I've noticed both (LII and LSI) tendencies among real-life scientists. In science, I think LII method is more likely to bring fame and fortune.

    msk, lol, my ENFp&ISTp friends also tell me they hate it when I fit things into boxes and they think it doesn't work like that. I always thougt it was Fe in my case. Lol, I guess there is a point to linking Fe with Ti.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  33. #33
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    So you might get the impression that I'm 100% behind something (and make a character judgment based on this) when in reality I'm exploring whether that kind of argument can be made and if it can be made "water proof".
    A disclaimer like "now I don't really think that, but let's just assume for the moment" made before you have to back off in an argument, rather than afterwards, would be more useful/convincing.


    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.
    Why should I - or anyone else - do that? The "most extremes things you say or do" have also been said, and done, by yourself - none other. A murderer is perhaps also a nice person if you "cut out the most extreme things he says and does". Life gets very easy then, doesn't it? Just "cut out the most extreme things I say and do".

    You have to "cut out the most extreme things you say and do", if you don't want to be evaluated (also) according to them. Not I or anyone else.


    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.
    That is not an example, is an attempt to avoid the real concrete arguments by going for a generalized model that, instead of clarifying the issues, obscures them.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Let's say you have these kind of criteria for types:

    Type1 criteria:
    has to have a, b
    cannot have c, d

    Type2 criteria:
    has to have c, d
    cannot have a, b

    Candidate 1:
    a, b

    Candidate 2:
    a,b,c

    Candidate 3:
    b,c,d

    Candidate 4:
    c, d

    Conclusions reached when over-focusing on the "NOTs":
    Candidate 1 fits exactly Type1 and cannot be Type2
    Candidate 2 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 3 does not fit and cannot be Type1 or Type2
    Candidate 4 fits exactly Type2 and cannot be Type1

    Now in reality (in this example) Candidate 2 is indeed of Type 1 and Candidate 3 is of Type 2. They just have some individual variation. My claim was that in these situations you sometimes seem to over-focus on the NOT parts or CANNOT HAVE parts to dismiss a possibility too quickly. This is what I call "destructive" use of Te. "Constructive" use of Te would be to focus on the YESs more than the NOTs. In theory focus on YESs and NOTs should be balanced (balancing the constructive and destructive use of logic) but for subjective reasons I tend to think it is, in practice, a bigger mistake to focus on the NOTs too much. I might me wrong in this and symmetric approach is the best in the end. In any case focusing overly on the NOTs is a bad approach imho.
    The problem with this whole - rather pointless - exercise of yours is that you avoid the real issue, that is, looking precisely on what "a, b, c, d" really are. By doing that, you are giving them, or saying they should have, exactly the same weight.

    What does it matter if a, b and c are secondary traits pointing towards type1, if d most clearly goes against the very essence of what type1 is about? That is the issue here, which this exercise confuses rather than clarifies.

    In the specific discussion, what really matters is if an INTp can really have such a clear Fe>Fi preference, and whether that is overruled by things like identifying that that James description. That is the issue. To call them "a, b, c" etc does not clarify anything.

    What you're doing, XoX, is essentially the same thing, saying "come on, guys, give me a break just cut out the 'most extreme things I say and do', and please look into what does make me an INTp, rather than at what does not make me an INTp".



    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    So my claim was that you might have a tendency to do this. E.g. if someone has more INTp than INFp qualities but they also have some qualities which you claim CANNOT be an INTp qualities you dismiss the "positive evidence" and stick to the NOTs to reach the final conclusion thus taking a "destructive" approach instead of constructive or balanced approach. You might disagree about this of course seeing your approach as balanced or just disagreeing that the over-focus on NOTs is a bad approach at all.
    My "tendency" is to give each evidence the weight that it deserves, in my judgement.


    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    But well in this example "you" were right in all typings which fit well into your criteria and wrong in cases where there was some variation from the model and you sticked too heavily in the NOT opinions over the YES opinions. I say "you" because I claim that you do this. That is debatable of course. However this is why I tend to currently trust your positive typings more than your negative typings. How is this illogical? You made me suspect there is a flaw there but I still cannot see it and thus stick to it being logical. The main problem here I see is the possibility of your approach being indeed balanced and not overly focused on NOTs. But in my personal case it somehow seems the NOTs dominate the scene.
    That's because in your case there is one huge NOT and some small yes yes yes.

    All this post of yours has been about trying to give equal weight to evidence that has different weights. I disagree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases
    1) Each case has its nuances, that is why that story of a, b, c does not clarify anything
    2) Would you really have made this point if it wasn't about your own case?




    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.
    Since I totally disagree with the very premises on which you bases your -- message, I guess you won't see it as "useful" criticism.



    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    It wasn't hard to predict your answer but I have a tendency to "be patronizing" even when I suspect it is not going to work I wonder what socionics explanation there is to that. Perhaps I just want to prove my model of your behavior correct or something.
    Yes, people who are consistent in their behavior and reasonings are, by definittion, more "predictable" than people who say they did not really mean what they said and ask for their more "extreme" words and actions to be discounted, and say that they themselves do not know whether they really mean something or not.

    So I'm glad to be "predictable".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.
    What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the bit" won't do.
    I agree. That won't do.

    XoX, try to focus on this problem now, please! You can return to the other problems later.

  35. #35
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    A disclaimer like "now I don't really think that, but let's just assume for the moment" made before you have to back off in an argument, rather than afterwards, would be more useful/convincing.
    It is more like "I'm not sure which way I REALLY think but I will construct argument to see what comes out of it and choose my "side" later after the argument is fully matured and I can see all the aspects involved". Anyways words do not equal _real_ actions imho. Sometimes words are used to carry out an action though but sometimes they are just used to explore ideas. It is e.g. a different thing to construct an argument of why genders should not be equal just to explore and entertain that thought than to actually discriminate against the other gender in real world actions involving money and life issues. If you use words to consciously manipulate people into doing actions then they do become actions but if you just "explore" an idea then they are not actions in the real sense. Putting up disclaimers seems weird

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    But I would think that in the long run you can see my true "unpolarized" persona if you don't get stuck into details but try to see the whole of my behavior and cut out the most extreme things I say or do.
    Why should I - or anyone else - do that? The "most extremes things you say or do" have also been said, and done, by yourself - none other. A murderer is perhaps also a nice person if you "cut out the most extreme things he says and does". Life gets very easy then, doesn't it? Just "cut out the most extreme things I say and do".

    You have to "cut out the most extreme things you say and do", if you don't want to be evaluated (also) according to them. Not I or anyone else.
    Why? In order to come to right conclusions about my personality of course I do that all the time. Try to see through someone's words or even external "act" if such exists beyond words to perceive the real essence of that person. Of course you don't have to do that but then you might attribute things to me which do not describe me all that well in the end. Anyways I often find exact words to be misleading and sticking to them too much can cause misunderstandings.

    Another point...I found it "funny" how you leaped from extremely promoting team spirit on an internet forum to being compared to extreme behavior of a murderer, "lol". I guess the "extreme" there is the common factor but other than that your analogy is a bit...weird To throw something back...I would think someone who is overtly rational, seemingly lacks empathy, easily judges people and executes those judgments in practice, and seriously lacks team spirit is closer to what I think a potential "murderer" is like. At least if we talk about planned murders not something done in "heat of emotion" (but around here murder is something which has to be planned, rationalized and "coldly" executed otherwise it is "just" killing and the penalty is considerably less severe. But this trivia does not relate to the discussion ).

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    I try to use an example to show what I mean to see if we understand each other here or not. This painfully reminds me of the past discussions. So far I think my logic is solid but I will explain it through an example to see whether you can find holes in that example. It would be easier to see whether you just don't understand my point or if my point is indeed faulty.
    That is not an example, is an attempt to avoid the real concrete arguments by going for a generalized model that, instead of clarifying the issues, obscures them.
    It is an example...a generalized example based on my impression. It is also a bit speculative as I try to explore whether it is true or not. Whether it ends up obscuring issues is another thing but the point is to try to clarify them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    The problem with this whole - rather pointless - exercise of yours is that you avoid the real issue, that is, looking precisely on what "a, b, c, d" really are. By doing that, you are giving them, or saying they should have, exactly the same weight.

    What does it matter if a, b and c are secondary traits pointing towards type1, if d most clearly goes against the very essence of what type1 is about? That is the issue here, which this exercise confuses rather than clarifies.

    In the specific discussion, what really matters is if an INTp can really have such a clear Fe>Fi preference, and whether that is overruled by things like identifying that that James description. That is the issue. To call them "a, b, c" etc does not clarify anything.

    What you're doing, XoX, is essentially the same thing, saying "come on, guys, give me a break just cut out the 'most extreme things I say and do', and please look into what does make me an INTp, rather than at what does not make me an INTp".
    The problem with generalized models is of course that you can't show all relevant details there. What you are complaining about is the exactly same thing I complained about to Slacker Mom in the thread where she explained Te. In her case as in this case the thing is that the model doesn't try to focus on those points but to show the general pattern. So the assumption behind the model is of course that all the "facts" are of equal importance. If they are not (as perhaps in my specific case) then that is a variation of the example model. As I said this was not directly tied to my or other's specific cases.

    About the Fe>Fi preference. I'm still not convinced. It would be interesting to see what exactly is the data what makes me Fe>Fi. You say it is all over but most things you point out are from some theoretical arguments where I think my meaning and persona was misinterpreted. I know many other people say that too so there could be something to that. Especially if there is such a huge difference between leading and creative Fe. My impression has historically been that I am kind of weak in both to the point that comparing them against each other doesn't necessarily bring meaningful results. I might be mistaken here. Then there was the fact of me wanting Fe from others. That is an interesting claim but so far I fail to see how this is necessarily true either. Historically I have been in the "belief" that I'm more into Fi-side and my circle of friends is (apparently) dominantly from Fi-Quadras.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    All this post of yours has been about trying to give equal weight to evidence that has different weights. I disagree with that.
    More like my weights differ from your weights. It is not about equal weights. E.g. I currently give little weight to the team spirit discussion or the win/lose discussion and more weight to some other things. You do the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Anyways, I'm not here bringing up any particular cases nor do I wish to get back to my or anyone else's specific cases
    1) Each case has its nuances, that is why that story of a, b, c does not clarify anything
    2) Would you really have made this point if it wasn't about your own case?
    The "interest" to do so was inspired by my case (as I'm trying to figure what is the core problem or if there is any). The example wasn't really about my case. I might have gotten the inspiration from some other case too so I might have made this point even if it wasn't about my own case. I have made "patronizing" points before in situations which do not directly concern me and received some "heat" because of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    nor do I claim your opinion on me is necessarily faulty but I'm just trying to clear up my message in this thread. I'm curious whether you can see my point here and criticize it in the way which I agree to be useful criticism.
    Since I totally disagree with the very premises on which you bases your -- message, I guess you won't see it as "useful" criticism.
    Heh. Yes. It is useful in the sense that it enforces your "disagreement" which means something. It is useless in the sense that it didn't "solve" any of the questions it was meant to solve. You just disagreed about the usefullness of the whole approach which of course doesn't help me much

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Yes, people who are consistent in their behavior and reasonings are, by definittion, more "predictable" than people who say they did not really mean what they said and ask for their more "extreme" words and actions to be discounted, and say that they themselves do not know whether they really mean something or not.

    So I'm glad to be "predictable".
    I did not ask for extreme actions to be discounted only (extreme) words said in a context where they don't necessarily "map" into actions but are used to enforce a theoretical argument by making things black and white (for the sake of argument). Or something like that. I tried to explain earlier why words and actions are not equal to me (except in some cases). I am way more consistent in "real" actions (even though perhaps not completely consistent there either, I don't know). Real action means something which has objectively measurable results.

    This all said I haven't made up my mind about my type. The above rebuttals and refusals and all does not imply that I e.g. have a clear stance of Fi>Fe. I just am not convinced about Fe>Fi yet. I probably need more real life interaction with clear Fe-types to know for sure. At least you are making me greatly suspicious about my self perception of Fi>Fe if that makes you happy (it doesn't but that was just a...way to end this post).

  36. #36
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    And Expat, what would you say if XoX would say that he behaves and identifies with here? If he says that he clearly and strongly identifies with on the group level, I will see that as most likely a refutation of the INTp hypothesis -- given the assumption that such a "test" is reliable despite the possible pitfalls I mentioned above, and unless we have missed something very important or XoX has misunderstood what is said in Rick's description.
    What I would say would depend on precisely what XoX says and how he explains it. Just to say, "yeah, I identify more with the bit" won't do.
    I agree. That won't do.

    XoX, try to focus on this problem now, please! You can return to the other problems later.
    Sigh. What is the exact problem we are tying to focus on atm? Fe vs Fi and how to reliably know whether someone prefers one over the other? I don't know the answer currently but I suspect team spirit (as I meant it) has little or at least less to do with it than claimed.

    Then there was the win-thing being Fe/Ti concept. I'm not convinced about that either. It seems these might be more about personal preferences than about socionics concepts.

    Whatever the case, I'm a bit confused

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's interesting that this thread started as being about Te vs. Ti, and now we're on Fi vs. Fe. It seems this isn't a mere digression though, as they're integrally related.

    In my view, the speech and writing of a Ti/Fe person tends to create sub-structures where each unit seeks to directly invoke a response from the listener. Ti is used as the technique by which the thoughts are coherent, and by which content is conveyed to the listener. The speaker describes what he/she thinks, and seeks to write something that will be accepted favorably the by the listener. (See Kristiina's post above)

    In contrast, the speech and writing of a Te/Fi person creates sub-structures where the units attempt to build up some sort of larger argument or understanding. Fi provides the impression that (in the speaker's mind) what's being talked about is worth talking about. The relationship-building with the listener is suspended, as it assumed that there should be certain shared values (we "should" seek truth, and so forth), and the attention is drawn to discussing or critiquing the structure of what was said as if it a method for getting somewhere. (See Expat's posts above)

  38. #38
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @XoX

    1) My "murderer" example was an exaggeration to make the point, a common rhetorical trick. I think it should be clear that I do not think, nor did I mean or imply, that you were at any risk of becoming a murderer. If that was not clear, I state so clearly now. Therefore, your mention on that respect regarding myself, suggesting indeed that someone with what you perceive as my character, could be a murderer, is unwarranted, although understandable, so that's ok by me.

    2) Empathy: according to my understanding of "empathy", which is the dictionary definition, it is you who lacks it, not I. And that is precisely why you have such a hard time even understanding what the Fe>Fi issue is about - even in order to disagree with it.

    3) You and Phaedrus enjoy droning on the "team spirit" thing and the "win or lose" thing as if those were the only arguments for Fe>Fi. That's a strawman argument. Your Fe>Fi preference pops in almost everything you say, and I have said so over PM many times, months ago already. Your assumptions on the "why even have internet long-distance relationships" are another example of that. So, for the umpteenth time, to insist on the bloody "win or lose" or "team spirit" things just shows that you haven't got it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know, this conversation is actually kind of interesting because Filatova thinks Beethoven is INTp, but Rick made a good case for ENFj, and I can definitely see Beethoven as ENFj. The thing is that whereas Stravinsky and Shostakovitch definitely have this Te "hardness" like someone "choosing evidence" the way Expat talks about it, Beethoven often seems to suggest more of a "Ti projected onto Fe" argument. (Ironically, Filatova thinks Shostakovitch is INTj).

    Anyhow, this makes me wonder whether it has something to do with information cycles along the supervisory route. In other words, perhaps an INTp Ni subtype actually has Fe as a "precursor" to Ni, so that rather than this: Te > Ni > Te, it looks more like this: Fe -> Ni -> Te. ...whereas the Te subtype may have Ni -> Te -> Si, and thus be more adept at implementation, taking on a Delta aspect. The idea that subtypes may blur the boundaries of quadras a little has been suggested before. What I'm considering now is that it has something to do with a "supervisory information cycle"...so that the Ni subtype of INTp is in some ways more like ENFj than INFp.

    @Expat...by the way, sorry about my misunderstanding your point about "confidence" not "ability"; perhaps I misunderstood in part because Phaedrus's tendency to question whether Socionics is even right, to stand against many people who disagree with him, and to say things challenging whether the functions matter all seems (to me) to indicate a lot of confidence in challenging systems and evidence (whether it's correct or not being irrelevant).

    Also, could you show us some examples of Fe in XoX, Phaedrus, (and me? ).

  40. #40
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    1) My "murderer" example was an exaggeration to make the point, a common rhetorical trick. I think it should be clear that I do not think, nor did I mean or imply, that you were at any risk of becoming a murderer. If that was not clear, I state so clearly now. Therefore, your mention on that respect regarding myself, suggesting indeed that someone with what you perceive as my character, could be a murderer, is unwarranted, although understandable, so that's ok by me.
    If I had mentioned that kind of analogy I'm sure you would have said something You have always commented about my exaggerated analogies. I don't think the analogy really was describing well the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    2) Empathy: according to my understanding of "empathy", which is the dictionary definition, it is you who lacks it, not I. And that is precisely why you have such a hard time even understanding what the Fe>Fi issue is about - even in order to disagree with it.
    I don't know about the understanding Fe>Fi thing but you might have more empathy than I do. Hard to compare. Anyways I don't think you are a master of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    3) You and Phaedrus enjoy droning on the "team spirit" thing and the "win or lose" thing as if those were the only arguments for Fe>Fi. That's a strawman argument. Your Fe>Fi preference pops in almost everything you say, and I have said so over PM many times, months ago already. Your assumptions on the "why even have internet long-distance relationships" are another example of that. So, for the umpteenth time, to insist on the bloody "win or lose" or "team spirit" things just shows that you haven't got it.
    First of all I have had long distance internet and other kind of such relationships in the past. I think my main problem with them is that especially in my current life situation they can't go anywhere really. They become stagnant at some point so it makes you think what is the point to even start one. Also they take up a lot of time and effort to manage. I am very bad at managing relationships even in real life. I need to be constantly kicked in the arse to be focused on people. I might like those kind of relationships if someone else is willing to put up the effort to keep them up and be ready to take long periods of me not concentrating on them. Secondly your logic would make FDG a Fi>Fe type as he seems to promote them like you do.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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