Attn: Te, Fi, Ti, or Fe dominants, and anyone else who gives a damn
First of all, I think this is an example of Ti dual seeking. I'd like to know if the Fe and Ti dominants (and anyone else who gives a damn) see it as well.Originally Posted by someone
Secondly, Te and Fi dominants (and anyone else who gives a damn), does this sound right to you?
They both sound right to me. The first one could come from any Ti valuing type, although I barely see it as a good example of a by-product of such. The question that comes to my mind, is who has the time to correct the grammar of someone else on an internet forum?
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
poof
Last edited by marooned; 05-17-2008 at 09:08 AM. Reason: the tone was too flagrant
A lot of other people (Fe/Ti types, especially Fe) have said that to me as well though.
If I am not mistaken, this is something that I have been telling you repeatedly. That is, if you do not validate something you cannot expect it to be valid. That is, when you write a single statement and don't back it up, the statement is void in terms of validity.
If a statement is valid, it is valid no matter who said it or why or how or who did or didn't believe it to be valid.
Hmmm. I think it could be just valuing Ti. I have similar situation with my friend.
I get on my friend's, he is INFp by the way, case quite often about not elaborating on statements he makes. He has a hard time explaining things in general. I do say things like "I can't read your mind" or "I don't know what you are referring too." However, the reason he makes these kinds of statements is because he thinks the how and why of what he says corresponds with what he is imagining. So he leaves a statement open because the rest of his points are there in the manner he said it. From his point of view he is not leaving the statement open because the statement in its self invokes a specific mental image of meaning. It drives me crazy with his persistance on explaining things this way. Then he will never explain himself in full, instead responds with "You know what I mean." Even more annoying when he misunderstands something I said, or someone, because he imagined the meaning instead of paying attention to what was actually said.
Overall I think my friend wants people to imagine what he is imagining to see his point when he speaks, and then translate that into words for him. I cannot do that all the time because there are many possible ways to interpret something. I ask for clarification because I am trying to see his view point. However, my friend is reluctant to give specific details or even answer my questions. Very frustrating.
In my example I am suggesting Ne versus Ni in terms of interpreting meaning from what is said with trying to convert Fe into Ti. I'm not suggesting all INFps are like this. But this is just issues we have when around each other for a prolonged time.
ILE
LOL. Oxygen sustains human life.
I think I see now where you got Ti dual seeking from Joy.
Te polr and role types are unsure what information to trust, and tend to use their experience, or use those they deem as an authority on the matter to guide them. For one of my classes there is an online discussion board I have to participate in. I made a comment on a classmate's post explaining how what she was describing in the later half of her post was similar to the topic, but unrelated. I posted a link to a wikipedia entry with examples to share. She responded back by saying "Like most professors say, wikipedia is not a trusted source." I said you can't dismiss the information by determining the information is invalid on those grounds alone. And then another classmate jumped in saying, "you can't believe everything you read." I am sure if the topic was about what does oxygen do, and I pointed out a wiki artical that states "Oxygen sustains human life," I would get the same responses from these classmates.
ILE
It really depends on the situation. Whenever a person is just throwing some hypothesis around, or some advice, etc etc, then I don't see the need to build a cogent argumentation.
However in a more detailed debate I think it's necessary to be precise, otherwise the debate can go on forever over trivialities - basically, by being precise you can more easily avoid therminology misunderstandings, that are often the source of conflict.
Well yeah, that's tautological.If a statement is valid, it is valid no matter who said it or why or how or who did or didn't believe it to be valid.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
this is fucking pathetic heh.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
What is exactly?
ILE
.
Yeah I think the whole online classroom they require these days is crap. I learn more from live discussions, and you don't have to read through people's lazy ass garbage. Not to say everyone writes lazy ass garbage, but there is always a couple students that can't even form a sentence.
ILE
It does.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
mostly questioning something as simple as oxygen sustains human life because it's from a source like wikipedia. actually i had a self-typed forum Fi-type argue with me on something like this, but that's beside the point. the behavior is ridiculous regardless of type.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
If this were true it would mean that validity is objective. Something I disagree with.
Ironically, can you now validate what you have said? That is, can you show to me that there is such a thing as objectivity, and then that validity is objective.
EDIT: Basically, no, your sentiment is wrong because in order for something to be valid we have to be able to determine it's validity. And we do this by a set of criteria. However with any set of criteria we are also defining a context. So no, validity is not objective, but context dependent.
I thought that Fi/Te-valuers were selective in that regard, so valid statements or information can go ignored or dismissed if they come from the wrong sources.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
This is where the disagreement lies.
Using ScanDave's example, is someone said that oxygen sustains human life, but this person was known to be full of shit half the time and most of the people who heard it don't know what oxygen is, the statement is still valid. Even if no one knows it to be valid, it is. Even if the person who said it thought he was making it up and not a single person in the world believes him, it is.
There are many valid truths that humans don't know. That doesn't make them any less valid. A human does not have to believe something to be valid in order for it to be valid, and something can be invalid even if a human(s) believes it to be valid.
So the question is... is our difference in opinion on this matter related to Te, Ni, or is it not type related?
well, i think this makes perfect sense if you are coming from the standpoint of saying "validity is contingent upon facts which are often buried beneath a statement." the problem is sometimes getting at those facts, or, on the flip side, expressing a "valid" statement (which is contingent upon underlying factual information), in a way that orients others towards the same or compatible set of facts.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Information is either useful or it is not. Because valid and invalid information can come from any source and weighing out/researching each piece of information individually would be a pain in the ass and waste of time, it's helpful to know how likely it is that the information from each source is accurate. I usually check the information against other sources. I can sometimes get a feel for how likely it is to be accurate based on the manner in which is it provided, how likely it is that the other information from the same source is valid (based on the same criteria), and how it fits into the other information I've found on the subject (I suppose that bit would be Ti).
Once I've considered how likely it is that the information is accurate, I decide whether or not the information is useful. I may also pass the information along to someone else, telling them how likely I think it is that the source of the information is dependable.
But no matter how dependable the source of the information, I'm always prepared for the possibility that the information will turn out to be inaccurate.
Perhaps the meaning of the word "valid" is where snegledmaca's opinion differs from mine. Perhaps I'm taking it to mean accurate, and he's taking it to mean usable or dependable.
they exist in two different realms. it's not that accuracy cannot lead to usability, but rather that usability cannot, in itself, lead to accuracy. accuracy is contained in the information itself, or is discovered by a process of cross referencing pieces of information. for example, if i have on my desk all the parts necessary to building a computer, they are accurate/valid for this use. however, if i decided i wanted to build a microwave, the set of parts would not be usable, but would remain valid in relation to getting the computer functioning. i think, too, dependability seems pretty different from usability. it seems to suggest that over time, something works, and that probability suggests it will continue to work in the future.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
This is a very Te approach.
Ti valuing types see usability as being secondary to validity/accuracy, so they prefer to determine the validity/accuracy of information before attempting to use it.
Te valuing types see validity/accuracy as being secondary to usability. There's no efficient and effective way to determine for certain if information is valid/accurate, so it comes down to dependability for the purposes of usability.
Hmm, I think this is where the disagreement lies.
All you say is valid, a little bit of irony here, however my point is simple, there is no such thing as objective truth. That is, objective truth can only exist within a context, that is, it has to be defined somewhere and limited to something.
When you say validity does not depend on the spectator, I would disagree. Not on the basis that it is dependent on whether the person is full of shit so it makes it invalid, but on the basis of the limitation of human perception, existence. Something perfectly valid to me, you and those who share the common context within which and criteria by which we determine the validity of things, could for somebody else, who has different perception, different context, a different set of criteria to judge the same thing, be seen as completely invalid.
An example of this, the frequent socionics disagreements witnessed here about people's types, with a case example of phaedrus vs. everybody else. I think that shows nicely in what manner validity is dependent on the context.
So, with this in mind, that perhaps we don't all share the same set of criteria, the same context, was my criticism. Which in essence is of forceful behavior, of you giving me your own set of criteria and your own context as my context instead of letting me process it on my own or deciding upon these common points.
So I guess it would be a matter of saying validity is dependent on the Ti structure the person has, and imposing this structure upon others is perceived as an attack of some sort, as forceful behavior.
What do you think?
Accurate by what standards? That's my question. What makes what you say valid actually valid.
Actually this is precisely what I am trying to say. So in order to have reliability we have to make up rules of logic, criteria for establishing validity.
Okay, this makes sense. I'm using "valid" to mean accurate (and I do believe that there is accurate truth, I just don't think humans can KNOW what it is), and you're using "valid" to mean contextually accurate.
I do agree with what you're saying here, if I understand you correctly.
I don't think it's invasive to explain something in the manner in which you understand it, Ti or otherwise, as long as you're merely offering that information for their consideration. It's invasive to tell people that they have to agree with you are they're wrong.So, with this in mind, that perhaps we don't all share the same set of criteria, the same context, was my criticism. Which in essence is of forceful behavior, of you giving me your own set of criteria and your own context as my context instead of letting me process it on my own or deciding upon these common points.
So I guess it would be a matter of saying validity is dependent on the Ti structure the person has, and imposing this structure upon others is perceived as an attack of some sort, as forceful behavior.
What do you think?
Usability. Context.Accurate by what standards? That's my question. What makes what you say valid actually valid.
It's the responsibility of the person hearing what I'm saying to decide for themselves.
I think everyone has their own.Actually this is precisely what I am trying to say. So in order to have reliability we have to make up rules of logic, criteria for establishing validity.
The reason I mentioned that is because I recall a thread that I believe Expat created in Gamma on Ti vs. Fi in terms of selectivity of information.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I recall. In it I argued a few points to the contrary, then he said that he meant in terms of getting information from people and deciding if those people are trustworthy or not, then I agreed. I don't get most of my information from individuals I talk to though.
When I was putting the concept together, I first thought of thefilter in terms of selecting people; later, in an effort to make it more "symmetrical" (or more
), I generalized by saying "sources". I now think it makes more sense, when referring to the
what type are you?
...I ask, because I tried to tell her the same thing (as you can see from the quote at the beginning of this thread), & she responds with "you are Ti dual seeking, EIE!" when I am ILI. ... I don't know what she thinks the term "dual seeking" does to modify a function. This she has never specified. How is she seperating this as Ti-dualseeking from merely Ti-valuing (I will tell you now, the paragraph she quoted is calling for her to demonstrate Ti; this is Ti-demonstrative). Furthermore, how is she sure the function being called for isn't a reactive measure in light of her particular statements? (& thus effected by her personality)... all things she has left unexplained. What she does at this point, is move on to a new piece of babble. To further clarify the nature of this babble- unlike statements which have commonsense contexts, allowing people to validate them in their own minds... (such as "oxygen allows me to breath"), the things she is saying are not apparent in physical reality, they are a byproduct of her specific mind... (hence the statement ~I cannot read your mind~) ... because of this, context is needed in order to validate the claims. When asked for such context, she instead replies with more irrelevent bullet statements which are going off an a different tangent than before (opening up yet more demand for further clarification) ...
What does the word Fe mean to you? Where are you seeing Fe? What the fuck is Ti-dualseeking as you interpret it? How are you distinguishing this from any other Ti-valuing function? What do you consider Ti to be? (Define Ti in your mind) ...
No answer.
She is Si PolR retarded? Is this how Si PolR manifests itself? (Making claims and not backing them up? EIE does the same thing.. if you have ever interacted with one you know how it is)
;l
Last edited by crazedrat; 05-17-2008 at 07:23 PM.
Frankly, from a socionics perspective I think this discussion has been missing the point. There's no significant difference between the two of you when it comes to determining truth. The difference is in your communication styles, the assumptions you make and the expectations you have when interacting with people.
All Joy has said was "if A is true, then A is true". If something is valid it is valid. There's no point in arguing this.
What snegledmaca has said, if I understand him correctly, is that "believing something is valid doesn't make it valid". There's no point in arguing this either. As FDG said these kind of statements are trivially true (though you need modal logic to express snegledmaca's).
Hmm, now I'm wondering if these two statements show a T versus F emphasis. Joy seems to focus more on what is is true for everyone and snegledmaca seems to focus more on truth as a personal internal belief system....
Anyway, about the communication style. For a person to determine whether he can belief something or not he needs two things. The right information, ie what do I already belief plus what other relevant information is there that can be reasonably assumed to be true. And, the right connections, ie correct logical implications. Te>Ti types seem to assume that people want to connect the dots on their own, but may need a little help finding good, useful information. Te leading types provide you with what they think is relevant information in a particular situation and you do with it as you please and based on your feedback (as a Te seeking person) they want to provide you with new relevant information and so on. Ti>Te types seem to assume that people want to find information on their own, but may need a little help to make sure their logic is correct. Ti seeking types are perfectly capable of finding relevant information, but then want to have their logic double-checked. Based on that feedback they can then go find more information and so on. And if they can't connect some dot, the last thing they want is lots more dots.
Or in other words, Te leading types don't fulfil the needs of Ti seeking types and it causes frustration. That's imho what this thread is about.
Well that's the thing really. According to me, even accurate truth would be contextually dependent. Simply because you have to determine it.
Or are you saying that we don't, that perhaps the thing that really needs determining is our language to describe these things, the Ti infrastructure. Like, the truth is always there, all that is really determined are the ways with which we express it, how we comprehend it.
Precisely. And my criticism was that you do not do that, you present your stances as objectively correct and inhibit people from considering it on their own.I don't think it's invasive to explain something in the manner in which you understand it, Ti or otherwise, as long as you're merely offering that information for their consideration. It's invasive to tell people that they have to agree with you are they're wrong.
Hmmm, so in essence you do agree with me. What you say is void of validity. Or even relevance I'd say. Since you expect me to determine both the validity and relevance of what you say. So in essence you are not exerting any pressure or force because what you say is presented with no value or defining criteria. I have to determine the value of the information and the rest of the defining criteria like validity of information, relevance to the discussion at hand, and so on, on my own.Usability. Context.
It's the responsibility of the person hearing what I'm saying to decide for themselves.
Hmm, this makes me think that perhaps you are not a Te ego type since I don't see how a Te type would not provide and would "run away" from the logic of the situation, the logical aspects of a situation. Or perhaps you mean somethign else?
Precisely.I think everyone has their own.So in order to have reliability we have to make up rules of logic, criteria for establishing validity.
Depends on who you ask, but for this discussion I'd say it's irrelevant.
Well I'd say parts of what you said are irrelevant, some wrong, concretely the specific details, but on the whole I'd say you're message is along the lines of mine....I ask, because I tried to tell her the same thing (as you can see from the quote at the beginning of this thread), & she responds with "you are Ti dual seeking, EIE!" when I am ILI. ... I don't know what she thinks the term "dual seeking" does to modify a function. This she has never specified. How is she seperating this as Ti-dualseeking from merely Ti-valuing (I will tell you now, the paragraph she quoted is calling for her to demonstrate Ti; this is Ti-demonstrative). Furthermore, how is she sure the function being called for isn't a reactive measure in light of her particular statements? (& thus effected by her personality)... all things she has left unexplained. What she does at this point, is move on to a new piece of babble. To further clarify the nature of this babble- unlike statements which have commonsense contexts, allowing people to validate them in their own minds... (such as "oxygen allows me to breath"), the things she is saying are not apparent in physical reality, they are a byproduct of her specific mind... (hence the statement ~I cannot read your mind~) ... because of this, context is needed in order to validate the claims. When asked for such context, she instead replies with more irrelevent bullet statements which are going off an a different tangent than before (opening up yet more demand for further clarification) ...
What does the word Fe mean to you? Where are you seeing Fe? What the fuck is Ti-dualseeking as you interpret it? How are you distinguishing this from any other Ti-valuing function? What do you consider Ti to be? (Define Ti in your mind) ...
No answer.
Which is the fact that joy does not feel the need to justify herself and treats the things she says as being obvious. Or what you interpret as she expecting you to read her mind.
Basically, the questions you ask are a request for her to show by criteria how something she said is valid/true/accurate. The situation that she does not do that but just keeps insisting on the statements validity without showing the validity has been precisely my experience.
My opinion has been that it's a consequence of a Ti PoLR, or in general, of really bad Ti. But that's just an impression, I haven't really bothered to look into it.She is Si PolR retarded? Is this how Si PolR manifests itself? (Making claims and not backing them up? EIE does the same thing.. if you have ever interacted with one you know how it is)
;l
No. I'm just saying that regardless of whether something is valid the way joy states, which btw is something I agree with, that is, when something is valid it is valid no mater who said it, if you want it to be effectively valid then it has to be determined.
To use a metaphor, suppose you are in court for a crime you didn't do. Before hand you are innocent, and that is a fact/true, but the trial will still be held. That is, if that fact/truth that you are innocent is a fact/true then it will be established by the court of law.
However, before the trial even through your innocence was a fact/it was true, there was no way of knowing this. Your innocence had to be established by a defined set of criteria in order for it to be considered true.
And this is my point, with no trial there is no certainty, with no certainty all you have is somebodies word to go on.
The same would apply for validity, it may be obviously valid to you, but in order for it to be valid for me, for the community it has to be deemed valid by each and every member of the community on their own.
And I should also state that this is not something that I would call exclusive to joy, it's just that I feel comfortable discussing these things with her.
And also, this whole thing feels like a Ne Ni conflict to me. That is, if I were with my IEE friend and was having this conversation I could be assured at lest 6 straight hours of discussion. That is, joy just won't engage me in the discussion on the nature of perception and validity, which is what I am really after, she doesn't expand upon my direction. Because my aim to is clarify, expand and comprehend in the process. Discussing for me is like a bubble constantly expanding and contracting. The other person is expanding the discussion and I am contracting it, and in the process nuggets of gold fall out.
I am not really after changing her behavior, just for the described process, for the nuggets.
You make it sound so invalid.Hmm, now I'm wondering if these two statements show a T versus F emphasis. Joy seems to focus more on what is is true for everyone and snegledmaca seems to focus more on truth as a personal internal belief system....
I do think there is objective truth, but only within a context. And this context is influenced/shaped by personal limitations, individual factors. So yes, a personal belief system defines what we call truth and what we do not.
What you say makes sense to me, however I'm not entirely certain on it. Primarily because a dynamic element like Te is presented as a largely static entity.Anyway, about the communication style. For a person to determine whether he can belief something or not he needs two things. The right information, ie what do I already belief plus what other relevant information is there that can be reasonably assumed to be true. And, the right connections, ie correct logical implications. Te>Ti types seem to assume that people want to connect the dots on their own, but may need a little help finding good, useful information. Te leading types provide you with what they think is relevant information in a particular situation and you do with it as you please and based on your feedback (as a Te seeking person) they want to provide you with new relevant information and so on. Ti>Te types seem to assume that people want to find information on their own, but may need a little help to make sure their logic is correct. Ti seeking types are perfectly capable of finding relevant information, but then want to have their logic double-checked. Based on that feedback they can then go find more information and so on. And if they can't connect some dot, the last thing they want is lots more dots.
Or in other words, Te leading types don't fulfil the needs of Ti seeking types and it causes frustration. That's imho what this thread is about.
From my perspective neither of you is doing anything wrong. You both just have different expectations about what people want and need. Joy isn't giving you what you want and you don't want what she does give you.
All people want to decide for themselves what to believe. They'd be quite ripe for abuse otherwise. But people also want to share some of their insights to have them checked or scrutinised, because that kind of feedback can be quite helpful. Where people can differ though, and it appears to be type related, is on what they feel they need to do themselves (what they see as their personal freedom) and what they are willing to share. Te>Ti types seem willing to share Te, but don't push Ti onto others. Ti>Te people are the other way around.
When you say Joy inhibits people from coming to their own conclusions, from her point of view she's letting you entirely free to make any (Ti) connection you want and go with it wherever you want or need to go until you've had enough of her Te to be satisfied and convinced. She's letting you entirely free to decide for yourself what connections you still need to make, because as she said it, she doesn't know what you already know and doesn't want to trample all over your personal Ti territory.
About the static sounding Te, I somehow always make it sound static, so perhaps I should leave it to the Te types to correct that.
no. you are making it sound like Gamma Te has no context authority (it does, it is called Ni)
dual seeking = 5th function
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote