Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 361 to 391 of 391

Thread: How do you cope with your PoLR? Reactions and compensation.

  1. #361
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    I think that one of the things that gets overlooked is how both Ti and Fi relate to attachment, adherence, bonding, values, hierarchal value, which also relates to the compare and contrast nature of Fi and Ti.

    I am not speaking of the above post, but Ti seems to become notated as "critical logic," which is not the case for it, because Ti (and Fi) place implied values into (add noun here), which are then further contrasted. This is how it becomes even more subject than Te or Fe, since it is even further removed from our external being.

    Honestly, the write ups of functions blow ass.

  2. #362
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If the elements were clearly defined...AND readily observable in such a way that it's obvious which behavior/whatever meant which element, and only that element...
    you observe types (if that's even possible), not elements

    You go up not down

    The elements are only defined conceptually, whether they are clear or not depends on the person and the level of education they have, etc

    More importantly that should give you the means to understand humans' minds in general, which is the whole purpose of socionics

    and yet it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body, etc.
    Last edited by Ryan; 10-08-2012 at 11:51 PM.

  3. #363
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    you observe types (if that's even possible), not elements
    Regardless of my specific wording, what I was referring to was:
    Behavior is observed.
    The behavior is then interpreted by the observer.
    The observer then associates the interpreted behavior with an element and/or a stereotype.

    (Of course, then there is also the "observers" who associate a person with a stereotype or element who then interpret nearly every behavior that person does as 'proof' of the typing the "observer" had labeled them as.)

    The elements are only defined conceptually, whether they are clear or not depends on the person and the level of education they have, etc
    In my post, "well-defined" refers to "explicit" which is a Socionic's Aspect of Ti, Te, Si, Se.
    T being explicit + abstract
    S being explicit + 'involvement'
    Ti, Te, Si, Se has nothing to do with educational levels, etc.

    How clear the element definitions are during communication, imo, has more to do with the original theorists' difficulties in that matter, and for most of us English speakers, also translation issues of both language and culture.

    More importantly that should give you the means to understand humans' minds in general, which is the whole purpose of socionics

    and yet it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body, etc.
    You're right, it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body...but then...I hadn't claimed otherwise, nor claimed that it claimed otherwise.

    Many socionists do, however, most often ignore what's actually going on inside a person's mind (you know...the info processing part), and often refer to a person's mannerisms, style of dress, and even genetic bits as their sole typing means. Then there are those who go by 'vibes'. And so damned many that don't even bother to interact with the typee, nor make any attempt to check for accuracy. Basically, socionics has become not much more than one more means for projecting one's own thought processes and/or views onto others.

    Worse, it seems to me that most socionists forget that socionics types are stereotypes....
    And most if not all people are more complex than theoretical structures of stereotypes.
    Rarely have I seen a socionist on this forum using socionics to help themselves actually understand another person beyond 's/he's XYZ type' and 'not MY values'. (They claim to, but their...behavior...says otherwise... )
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  4. #364
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae2point0 View Post
    I think that one of the things that gets overlooked is how both Ti and Fi relate to attachment, adherence, bonding, values, hierarchal value, which also relates to the compare and contrast nature of Fi and Ti.
    i know that some people view the stereotypes as something akin to 'if Ti ego, then no Fi' or 'then only Fi under certain circumstances'. I tend to see it more like 'normally something like 75%Ti+25%Fi.' (ignore the exact numbers in that example)

    I am not speaking of the above post, but Ti seems to become notated as "critical logic," which is not the case for it, because Ti (and Fi) place implied values into (add noun here), which are then further contrasted. This is how it becomes even more subject than Te or Fe, since it is even further removed from our external being.
    I'm torn between finding it funny and annoying at how often Ti is associated with 'critical thinking'. Fi types are just as capable of critical thinking...they just approach it in a different manner than Ti would (and usually more round-a-bout-ish), heh. (and Ti types are just as capable of logical fallacies out the wahzoo )

    Honestly, the write ups of functions blow ass.
    obviously i agree.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  5. #365
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Regardless of my specific wording, what I was referring to was:
    Behavior is observed.
    The behavior is then interpreted by the observer.
    The observer then associates the interpreted behavior with an element and/or a stereotype.

    (Of course, then there is also the "observers" who associate a person with a stereotype or element who then interpret nearly every behavior that person does as 'proof' of the typing the "observer" had labeled them as.)

    In my post, "well-defined" refers to "explicit" which is a Socionic's Aspect of Ti, Te, Si, Se.
    T being explicit + abstract
    S being explicit + 'involvement'
    Ti, Te, Si, Se has nothing to do with educational levels, etc.

    How clear the element definitions are during communication, imo, has more to do with the original theorists' difficulties in that matter, and for most of us English speakers, also translation issues of both language and culture.


    You're right, it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body...but then...I hadn't claimed otherwise, nor claimed that it claimed otherwise.

    Many socionists do, however, most often ignore what's actually going on inside a person's mind (you know...the info processing part), and often refer to a person's mannerisms, style of dress, and even genetic bits as their sole typing means. Then there are those who go by 'vibes'. And so damned many that don't even bother to interact with the typee, nor make any attempt to check for accuracy. Basically, socionics has become not much more than one more means for projecting one's own thought processes and/or views onto others.

    Worse, it seems to me that most socionists forget that socionics types are stereotypes....
    And most if not all people are more complex than theoretical structures of stereotypes.
    Rarely have I seen a socionist on this forum using socionics to help themselves actually understand another person beyond 's/he's XYZ type' and 'not MY values'. (They claim to, but their...behavior...says otherwise... )
    It becomes an issue of associating certain information with certain behavior then. Like you said, info processing happens inside a person's mind and their behavior doesn't always reflect that. Furthermore, data itself can be structurally sound (which you seems to argue against, correct me if I'm wrong), but behavior cannot. Behavior in its defention does not require such clear distinctions. I would argue against its complexity. There is more to it than that.

    (The amount of hints in your post is staggering. I would hate to be on the receiving end of that.)

  6. #366
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agape View Post
    There are definitely some Fi-PoLR types that value honour, values, religion, morality, altruism, tradition, etc. not that those things are intrinsically Fi-related... I'm sure a lot of Fi-devaluing/Fi-PoLR types value those things. Fyodor Dostoyevsky was probably my favourite Delta/EII, so if you agree that he was EII and/or want to get a glimpse of the (Delta) world through the eyes of one of the best Delta/EII writers ever, then read his work... The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, etc.
    OH yeah dude, quadra values alone and an in-group/out-group mentality almost make idealogical concerns a necessity for membership in the Alpha/Beta quadra.

    I mean, take George Bernard Shaw for example, I think a fairly obvious ILI. Is there anything honorable or religious about saying the world is filled with fucktards who should have to pass a test in order to be a allowed to continue living? Not at all. Do I agree with him? ...He said it the wrong way, and was a little too harsh, he could've tempered himself a bit, but people are fucking stupid sometimes, if we're being honest.
    Easy Day

  7. #367
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Furthermore, data itself can be structurally sound (which you seems to argue against, correct me if I'm wrong), but behavior cannot. Behavior in its defention does not require such clear distinctions. I would argue against its complexity. There is more to it than that.
    i don't understand any of this.
    Where/how did I argue that 'data itself' isn't structurally sound?
    You believe that behavior cannot be structurally sound?

    I'm not quite sure what the next sentence there is saying. "Defention" in it could mean definition (which I first assumed), but due to the grammar could be referring to something like 'in its defense'. I initially interpret the sentence as possibly saying that behavior which is being typed by socionics does not need to be clear and/or distinct from other behaviors (which may or may not be included in the typing). Is this initial interpretation correct?

    You argue against what's complexity? Behavior's?
    I can't help but feel that I am wrong in this particular interpretation of what you wrote, considering that you admitted at the beginning of the response that information processing (which socionics claims to type) happens inside the persons mind, and their behavior doesn't always reflect that.

    "There is more to it than that." There is more to what than what? There is more to [behavior] than [complexity]? There is more to [behavior] than [what's going on inside a person's mind]? There is more [going on inside a person's mind] than [their behavior shows]? I don't understand what "it" and "that" are referring to.

    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying in the quoted portion of your post.

    (The amount of hints in your post is staggering. I would hate to be on the receiving end of that.)
    I'm not sure what you are conidering as "hints". There was a wink at the bottom of that last post which was making fun of myself for doing one of the things I had just criticized. I did criticize a number of common typing methods...but those were criticisms, not hints.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  8. #368
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @anndelise, it's okay. This is going nowhere anyway, you will have to excuse me. I write a small paragraph and you give me an essay with nothing but comments on my wording. Seriously? Unless you plan to add more to the original subject I don't feel like relpying.
    Last edited by Ryan; 10-09-2012 at 05:09 PM.

  9. #369
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    @anndelise, it's okay. This is going nowhere anyway, you will have to excuse me. I write a small paragraph and you give me an essay with nothing but comments on my wording. Seriously? Unless you plan to add more to the original subject I don't feel like relpying.
    I had thought perhaps you had intended for your small paragraph to be understood.
    So I showed where and how I did not understand what you had written. Instead of assuming my initial interpretations were correct (making your small paragraph meaningless), I offered a way for you to correct where I was misunderstanding you.

    But I'm ok with ending this conver with you as well. No problem.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #370
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Appropriating the skill of logical reasoning to any one function would be idiotic.
    why

    It's less idiotic than the alternative

  11. #371
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    This is true. I like how people who are interested in psyche tend to have a fucked one.
    Yes. And I like how the people that think they aren't fucked up tend to be ignorant of what fucks people up.
    It may not be pretty, but I would trust a fucked up person who aims to understand over a normal person who is willing to compartmentalize a fucked up psyche because they don't understand it.
    At least with fucked up people, there is hope of understanding. With the normal person, they create stigma, contention, and misunderstanding. It's not really a bad thing, as far as I can see (though I'm not saying I think that you think that).

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    I answered both.

    I recommend you ask an IEE what Ti PoLR is like to better understand Ti.
    HAHAHA. Yes, let's ask an IEE what their most undervalued function is like.
    Seeing as how you often confuse vomiting with posting, I can see potential for a sitcom; I've even got a title - The Chronicles of a Monkey King.
    Last edited by strangeling; 10-10-2012 at 02:49 AM.

  12. #372
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    why

    It's less idiotic than the alternative
    I respectfully disagree.

    I view the connection between what is colloquially understood to be logic and the socionics definition of introverted logic to be, not just tenuis, but completely nonexistent. To me such a comparison is akin to the comparison between colloquial introversion and socionics introversion. The two don't look the same, they don't function the same, and they do not deal with or codify the same information.

    A definition of socionics introverted logic that is substantially more suitable could be 'rules' rather than 'colloquial logic' or 'formal logic'. However using a term like 'rules' betrays my own bias. Accounting for my own prejudice the most accurate term I could use to describe introverted logic would be 'theoretical framework'. Think of introverted logic as the walls to a house. Yes those walls restrict movement, technically a room with a door dictates where you may or may not enter that room. At the same time walls also support the house which, in this metaphor, may represent higher thought or intellectual understanding.

    In light of this more accurate interpretation it's worthwhile to note that colloquial logic is ripe with theoretical framework. However, so is any intellectual discipline: logic, mathematics, even performance art. Any discipline that has begun to build upon its understanding has theoretical framework that supports later made intellectual extrapolations. It's simply how constructing knowledge works. For example in formal logic logical systems must follow the rules of: consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness. Though there are exceptions, a notable one being Godel's incompleteness theorem. An example of rules that govern performance art are: pace, flow, and 'don't break the fourth wall'. Again there are exceptions, a good example of which would be the epic theatre movement by Brecht.

    Essentially equating introverted logic to colloquial logic is something I view as a simplistic interpretation that drastically misses the point by misinterpreting both introverted and colloquial logic. The discipline of logic is more than simply formal logic, and not all parts of it function in the same way or for the same reasons. Introverted logic is more than being able to construct an 'if-then-else' statement. The theoretical framework that supports higher thought may be constructed by way of implementing formal logical boundaries for how thought works and how it should be communicated but, by no means is that the only building material available.
    Easy Day

  13. #373
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I respectfully disagree.

    I view the connection between what is colloquially understood to be logic and the socionics definition of introverted logic to be, not just tenuis, but completely nonexistent. To me such a comparison is akin to the comparison between colloquial introversion and socionics introversion. The two don't look the same, they don't function the same, and they do not deal with or codify the same information.
    Codify? Impressive. So you have read on the subject of knowledge.

    A definition of socionics introverted logic that is substantially more suitable could be 'rules' rather than 'colloquial logic' or 'formal logic'. However using a term like 'rules' betrays my own bias. Accounting for my own prejudice the most accurate term I could use to describe introverted logic would be 'theoretical framework'. Think of introverted logic as the walls to a house. Yes those walls restrict movement, technically a room with a door dictates where you may or may not enter that room. At the same time walls also support the house which, in this metaphor, may represent higher thought or intellectual understanding.
    Theoretical framework is an oxymoron. Rules restrict, logic doesn't. If I had to lump 'rules' somewhere I'd put it under Se.

    In light of this more accurate interpretation it's worthwhile to note that colloquial logic is ripe with theoretical framework. However, so is any intellectual discipline: logic, mathematics, even performance art. Any discipline that has begun to build upon its understanding has theoretical framework that supports later made intellectual extrapolations. It's simply how constructing knowledge works. For example in formal logic logical systems must follow the rules of: consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness. Though there are exceptions, a notable one being Godel's incompleteness theorem. An example of rules that govern performance art are: pace, flow, and 'don't break the fourth wall'. Again there are exceptions, a good example of which would be the epic theatre movement by Brecht.
    Mathematics is not pure logic, nor is performance art. Bad examples.

    Essentially equating introverted logic to colloquial logic is something I view as a simplistic interpretation that drastically misses the point by misinterpreting both introverted and colloquial logic. The discipline of logic is more than simply formal logic, and not all parts of it function in the same way or for the same reasons. Introverted logic is more than being able to construct an 'if-then-else' statement. The theoretical framework that supports higher thought may be constructed by way of implementing formal logical boundaries for how thought works and how it should be communicated but, by no means is that the only building material available.
    Colloquial logic is no of concern to me. Good post, but your biggest mistake is thinking that Ti logic (and btw, I'm only adding 'logic' because you would obviously miss the point if I didn't include it) is just about 'rules', did you really think I held that view?

  14. #374
    Feel God's Thunder Azure Flame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Jesus
    TIM
    Neon Ninja Phoenix
    Posts
    1,537
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's the only clear difference I heard between Te and Ti:

    Ti is analogical, while Te is Logical. In other words, Ti likes to use similies, metaphors, and analogies to teach a concept and give examples. I often feel Te teachers tend to just cram knowledge down your brain without you actually understanding it. Sorta like saying:
    Te Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Ti Student: but why? What causes these two numbers to sum up to 4?
    Te Teacher: because they just do. Write that down and commit it to memory so you can puke it out on your exam verbatim.

    as opposed to
    Ti Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Te Student: got it. What's next?
    Ti Teacher: Don't just simply write down what I tell you and regurgitate it on the exam, you need to truly learn the material. The exam is going to look nothing like the study guide, and you need to be ready for that.

    Does that make sense? Its also the reason Te users do much better in structured schools, while Ti users need a more open ended educational approach.
    Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings



    Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja

  15. #375
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Codify? Impressive. So you have read on the subject of knowledge.



    Theoretical framework is an oxymoron. Rules restrict, logic doesn't. If I had to lump 'rules' somewhere I'd put it under Se.



    Mathematics is not pure logic, nor is performance art. Bad examples.


    Colloquial logic is no of concern to me. Good post, but your biggest mistake is thinking that Ti logic (and btw, I'm only adding 'logic' because you would obviously miss the point if I didn't include it) is just about 'rules', did you really think I held that view?
    I tend to think poorly of most people who equate the discipline of logic to introverted logic. So yes, I'm sorry if I missed your point due to my own misinterpretation.

    Also as a personal request, if you're going to quote me in the future and don't feel like keeping the little thing in that will allow me to know we are now entering a discussion, could you like throw an @JWC3 in there someplace? I'd appreciate it. I tend to not go back in look at things after I've written them. I tend to write them, look at them millions of times in like the next 10 minutes, and then forget and go do something else so I almost missed this bit.
    Easy Day

  16. #376
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Ryan, I mean, ok. My views on the equation of introverted logic and the discipline of logic is something that's come to me slowly over a long period of time, and for that reason is a personal view point that I have. Not one that I can objectively point out sources and back myself up with anything other than my own opinion.

    What I mean by this is I'm open to being wrong if you'd care to make a case for equating them that makes sense to me. I mean, you saying I'm wrong is all well and good, and it's easy, and as a habit for behavior it's just much easier to say 'no' to people. I know this very intimately and am in no way accusing you. It's part of life, no biggie. However, I'm far more interested in why the two should be equated if that is your perspective, than why my perspective is incorrect.

    EDIT: Not to be a dick or anything, but I spent almost two hours drafting and editing that post and I'm not even that good at editing (part of why it takes me so damn long lol). I'm just not going to be swayed by a 'No' here, even if it's a really good 'No'. I may be swayed however by a very convincing 'Yes' with perhaps some 'No' peppered in, or some 'No' connotations or implications. It's just solely cutting down my effort isn't really going to convince me of anything, that's all I'm trying to say. I do mean that is all I'm trying to say.
    Last edited by JWC3; 10-11-2012 at 01:16 AM.
    Easy Day

  17. #377
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is a faceted crystal structure with little handles on each facet (Alpha is done in lucite, Beta in glass)

    Te is a big rock with no obvious place to grip (Gamma is craggy like granite cliffs, Delta is smooth like a stone long immersed in a flowing river)

    Ta-dah
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  18. #378
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozz View Post
    Ne is annoying. I get paralyzed by large numbers of possibilities and I spend (waste) time evaluating each one. Why can't someone just get to the point?
    interestingly, i get this attitude from certain people at work lately in response to my presentations... I must be around some Ne-devaluers...
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  19. #379
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    Here's the only clear difference I heard between Te and Ti:

    Ti is analogical, while Te is Logical. In other words, Ti likes to use similies, metaphors, and analogies to teach a concept and give examples. I often feel Te teachers tend to just cram knowledge down your brain without you actually understanding it. Sorta like saying:
    Te Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Ti Student: but why? What causes these two numbers to sum up to 4?
    Te Teacher: because they just do. Write that down and commit it to memory so you can puke it out on your exam verbatim.

    as opposed to
    Ti Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Te Student: got it. What's next?
    Ti Teacher: Don't just simply write down what I tell you and regurgitate it on the exam, you need to truly learn the material. The exam is going to look nothing like the study guide, and you need to be ready for that.

    Does that make sense? Its also the reason Te users do much better in structured schools, while Ti users need a more open ended educational approach.
    My experience with Te is quite the opposite actually. I suspect that Ti-valuers can't digest Te information well and vice versa. So to you it seems like Te info is just like "here, memorize this... it happens just because" whereas to me, Ti-info is actually like that.

    I often feel like Ti-valuers sort of expect you to magically infer certain things that I feel can't necessarily be inferred, so I would prefer the thinking be explained and I feel like Te-egos tend to do a good job doing so, to me anyway.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  20. #380
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I somewhat agree with invisible jim there...

    the POLR function, while undervalued, is very CONSCIOUSLY undervalued (unlike the DS function). Characteristics of a function that evokes strong negative feelings can actually be a stronger, more honed stimulus to pinpointing what exactly is entailed in that function than perhaps even trying to tease out the positive feelings towards one's dominant or creative (and maybe DS and HA) functions.

    in other words, sometimes i know what i dont like better than what I do like.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  21. #381
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    Here's the only clear difference I heard between Te and Ti:

    Ti is analogical, while Te is Logical. In other words, Ti likes to use similies, metaphors, and analogies to teach a concept and give examples. I often feel Te teachers tend to just cram knowledge down your brain without you actually understanding it. Sorta like saying:
    Te Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Ti Student: but why? What causes these two numbers to sum up to 4?
    Te Teacher: because they just do. Write that down and commit it to memory so you can puke it out on your exam verbatim.

    as opposed to
    Ti Teacher: 2+2 = 4
    Te Student: got it. What's next?
    Ti Teacher: Don't just simply write down what I tell you and regurgitate it on the exam, you need to truly learn the material. The exam is going to look nothing like the study guide, and you need to be ready for that.

    Does that make sense? Its also the reason Te users do much better in structured schools, while Ti users need a more open ended educational approach.
    If this is a true example of Ti and Te, it explains why I don't like the Investigations Math program (sounds just like what you described as Ti here) which my son started in school in 3rd grace after I homeschooled him NORMAL math K-2...

    However, he got it quicker than I would have; he is SLE, probably uses more Ti than me... (but, going with your explanations here, I would say he prefers Te to Ti. But I have not studied SLE functions that much.)

  22. #382
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Those words make it muddy, DJA. One needs to understand them to get what it means. The best start is to think about the difference between how Te is relational (infinite chain of relations) and how Ti is comparitive (blocks of contrasts).

  23. #383
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually I think you're on to something @DJ Arendee. Through dividing the socion along the lines of Te or Ti values I'd bet such an observation, namely the ability or inclination to make knowledge accessable to a larger less informed audience, would crop up far more often in Ti ego types than it would in Te ego types. I'd say such an inclination would likely be fairly related to Fe values. The more intelligent ILIs I know are generally insecure about just that, though the thing that makes the intelligent ILIs I know intelligent is that despite their insecurity they still recognize the need.

    When it comes to Ti ego types just look at Bill Nye or Neil Degrasse Tyson. Two likely ILEs who made and are still making a career out of making science accessable to a larger audience.
    Easy Day

  24. #384
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    @Ryan, I mean, ok. My views on the equation of introverted logic and the discipline of logic is something that's come to me slowly over a long period of time, and for that reason is a personal view point that I have. Not one that I can objectively point out sources and back myself up with anything other than my own opinion.

    What I mean by this is I'm open to being wrong if you'd care to make a case for equating them that makes sense to me. I mean, you saying I'm wrong is all well and good, and it's easy, and as a habit for behavior it's just much easier to say 'no' to people. I know this very intimately and am in no way accusing you. It's part of life, no biggie. However, I'm far more interested in why the two should be equated if that is your perspective, than why my perspective is incorrect.

    EDIT: Not to be a dick or anything, but I spent almost two hours drafting and editing that post and I'm not even that good at editing (part of why it takes me so damn long lol). I'm just not going to be swayed by a 'No' here, even if it's a really good 'No'. I may be swayed however by a very convincing 'Yes' with perhaps some 'No' peppered in, or some 'No' connotations or implications. It's just solely cutting down my effort isn't really going to convince me of anything, that's all I'm trying to say. I do mean that is all I'm trying to say.
    Hm, what's wrong with information, knowledge, or data? Whatever you want to call the domain of Ti, the process of logic usually falls under that. I'm okay with Te being all that (just show me how, all evidence points to Te being something else entirely - I've read lots of material on the subject, socionics and non-socionics sources). I do disagree with some sources that emphasize on Ti being structural or others that insist that it's theoretical in nature. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

    The thing is, no one can say that Ti has no logic in the literal sense. It's out of the question.

    So you're either saying that both Te and Ti have the same core, which makes them indistinguishable in essence (which I know some people here argue for), so I ask what is the different between them, and why not call it T and get over with? You have already explained your reasoning for this, but you also know my stance on it.

    Or you're saying that they are two parts of the same coin (which is something that the public is more inclined to do because of studies and papers on the subject that support that view). And I'm saying, why can't that coin be completely available to one function, since everyone has access to all functions anyway (according to socionics). I'm saying (Ti = a, Te = b), and you saying (Ti + Te = a, or some subset of a). Where do we stop, and where is this divide coming from anyway? I can only guess that the Te being called Object logic, or business logic is the cause of this, otherwise there would be no reason to have this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Are you sure you're not trolling?
    Yes.
    (I will write more later)

  25. #385
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,809
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tackk View Post
    HAHAHA. Yes, let's ask an IEE what their most undervalued function is like.
    Seeing as how you often confuse vomiting with posting, I can see potential for a sitcom; I've even got a title - The Chronicles of a Monkey King.
    Analysis by exception is a very interesting way to understand a problem. Many people are very good at 'liking everything' in a very broad way but they are also very good at understanding exactly what it is that they really dislike in detail.

    Cast your eyes upon this thread (not my thread): http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-types-I-think

  26. #386
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Hm, what's wrong with information, knowledge, or data? Whatever you want to call the domain of Ti, the process of logic usually falls under that. I'm okay with Te being all that (just show me how, all evidence points to Te being something else entirely - I've read lots of material on the subject, socionics and non-socionics sources). I do disagree with some sources that emphasize on Ti being structural or others that insist that it's theoretical in nature. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

    The thing is, no one can say that Ti has no logic in the literal sense. It's out of the question.

    So you're either saying that both Te and Ti have the same core, which makes them indistinguishable in essence (which I know some people here argue for), so I ask what is the different between them, and why not call it T and get over with? You have already explained your reasoning for this, but you also know my stance on it.

    Or you're saying that they are two parts of the same coin (which is something that the public is more inclined to do because of studies and papers on the subject that support that view). And I'm saying, why can't that coin be completely available to one function, since everyone has access to all functions anyway (according to socionics). I'm saying (Ti = a, Te = b), and you saying (Ti + Te = a, or some subset of a). Where do we stop, and where is this divide coming from anyway? I can only guess that the Te being called Object logic, or business logic is the cause of this, otherwise there would be no reason to have this discussion.

    Yes.
    (I will write more later)
    Thank you very much for taking the time to explain yourself instead of undermining my effort. I really appreciate that. It means more to me that you know really. I know typing these long drawn out posts is a pain, but responding to my effort with your own is a very flattering thing for you to do.

    Ok, well in response to your first point about just lumping them together and calling it T. Well if you're looking at someone with a creative logic function, the thing is in my experience they tend to also be very good at using and to a much lesser extent than their ego functions still sort of value their demonstrative function. This is why it's incredibly common to see people make mistakes one quadra to the left or right in typing others. They see an instance of a person using their demonstrative function and then sort of are compelled by the just awful atmosphere of this forum to assert and reassert their correctness or suffer the really quite painful lashing of individuals trying to undermine their efforts towards understanding rather than facilitate them. Simply put there's a very strong human desire to achieve and acquire short term victories rather than long terms goals. Even more simply, people want to be correct right now rather than admit and suffer the lashings of their peers, or worse admit that someone who is attempting to punish them for their inadequacies is actually right, so when met with behavior like this it's a very natural and common reaction to just try and say 'no' you're not actually right, I am. Not only to deny the threat victory but to convince their own psyche that they retained some vestige of adequacy in an intellectual pursuit. Honestly, it's a really hard mentality to fight against. It really is both for the person being attacked and the person attacking to sit back and focus on long term returns rather than short term victories. It's really not worth it condemning such behavior either, it just creates more problems.

    Personally I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh on your original post. Seeing as the type that most often is mis-attributed to myself is SLE I'm sort of often confronted with the argument that due to my seeing to be a logical individual I must be using Ti or some such thing. I try not to slight people for saying or thinking things like that however, I've got a sort of knee-jerk reaction to it at this point that I'm working on rectifying. Point being I was a bit heavy handed when I initially addressed your post with an opening statement of "I think you're wrong" even if I was trying to be respectful about it. Personally I would sooner describe myself as a rational or practical individual but that is neither here nor there, and I sort of didn't really adequately take your feelings into account initially in my rush to (read knee jerk reaction) to eliminate such reasoning.


    All that being said. and speaking plainly without trying to jazz it up or care a whole lot about grammar or punctuation. I think clarifying my original point is perhaps in order. Really what I'm getting at is the idea that the intellectual discipline of logic is just that, an intellectual discipline and it can be learned by anyone who approaches it with an open mind, and the discipline to struggle through the confusing bits. Being able to communicate with others in a fashion akin to formal logic is not necessarily indicative of someone being Ti ego. Perhaps Ti ego types are inclined to interact in such environments, and be compelled to work, communicate, and contribute to such a discipline. However they are not the only ones who can and being able to do so doesn't necessarily mean someone is Ti ego. I've meet non Ti ego types who are shit awful at formal and symbolic logic (the two kinds I am most familiar with), it's true. I've also meet non-ethical types who are just shit awful at performance art (something I am also familiar with) also true. If those people had the tenacity and desire to learn those disciplines however I'm very strongly of the opinion that they could not only do so, but do so well. Doing the shit you're bad at just takes practice. That's why I sort of respond harshly to connections that imply that being able to do something means that you are predisposed to do something or naturally inclined to do something must be the case.

    Socionics is not MBTI, it's not a personality theory that dictates career predispositions.

    However, ignoring such conclusions that are false, saying that Ti = formal logic, isn't a terrible way to explain to someone what Ti is or how it works, the two things have many aspects in common. It's not a terrible premise in and of itself. Speaking logically, it's not a terribly unsound premise from which to draw conclusions as is. But saying so does sometimes produce the incorrect conclusion that the two are solely and exclusively equal.

    I dislike false conclusions and sort of view it as an intellectual obligation to try to redefine and or facilitate the implementation of premises that more often don't produce false ways of thinking. Well not in general, I mean, I only feel obligated with specific people and specific ideas. You however get the idea, I'm sure. If someone has an opportunity to help others understand something in a more correct fashion, maybe it's not such a bad idea to take it. However again, the premise of logic = Ti is not entirely unsound in itself.

    Essentially, yes, In principle and at first glance I agree with the socionics assertion that everyone has access to every function. Basing socionics solely on observations means that every function is equated to observable behavior, and seeing someone behave logically or emotionally makes it extremely easy to draw the conclusion that a person may be some logical or emotional type. Though I do think socionics is not just an observational theory, there are abstracts that need to be tended to and inferences that must be made that aren't always immediately obvious upon observation. What I mean by this is, if you're rushed for time, or don't know someone very well and are in a position where you are forced to draw a conclusion about someone socionicly from short bits of observable behavior, that's perfectly fine in principle. We, as people, just simply don't have the time, motivation, or willpower to be right all the time and in instances where premeditated thought is rushed.

    I think that in instances where one can think before they speak though, much more worthwhile things to pay attention to are not the "whats" of behavior, though those are perfectly valid, but the "whys" of behavior. As in why are they functioning this way or why do they want to learn to function this way. Unfortunately that's not immediately observable and that's where socionics becomes a mixture of observation, interpretation, and application to an abstract theoretical framework. What things is this person as an individual paying attention to and why? The why is where socionics comes in, the what they are looking at and how they view the world is where observation and interpretation enter the picture.


    In any case, thank you for that little symbolic treatise at the end of your post lol. It's been a while since I was heavily involved in formal logical reasoning however I very much enjoyed the time I spent learning it. I had a wonderful teacher who I very much both wanted to impress and wanted to relate to by learning to function and speak as he did. One of the best teachers I've ever had actually. Andrew Spears. While I am decidedly very very rusty and this point in my logical career I'll try to simplify and interpret my original post into symbolic logical terms. Bear with me, it really has been a while and sorry if I fuck it up lol.

    I was responding to the idea that (Ti = a, Te = b) is false because it doesn't work in reverse. I think it's perfectly ok to say (Ti -> a, a -> b,c,d,e,ect.) (which it's worthwhile to not is really what my whole post was saying, sorry if i made it a bit harsher than that) Or that it's perfectly fine to say and think that (Ti -> a) however (a -//> Ti). So in conclusion I disagree with (Ti = a) because of the whole reverse thing. In my original post if I referenced Te it was simply as a means for discussing Ti and was not of importance to what I was saying or trying to say. Really I'm all about (Ti -> a, a -> b,c,d,e,ect.)

    I think... Did any of that make sense? I'm really rusty. Fwiw when I was in logic I did end the class with 113%, however that was only because I really liked my prof. I studied an hour every day and three on Sundays. I get kinda obsessed with people like that. Anyway, maybe you can understand what I'm getting at to mop it up a bit and understand what's going on, if not I'll give it another go and do a bit more reading next time.



    Sorry for typos and grammatical errors, this is a huge wall of text and I need to take a break right now, my brain hurts.
    Last edited by JWC3; 10-11-2012 at 06:13 PM.
    Easy Day

  27. #387
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    This thread contains a mess of wasted keystrokes trying to talk sense into shallow-pated dummies like Ryan and DJA.
    I disagree. To me, people are worth it. As a general rule, people are always worth the effort. If not for ever, at least for long enough to see if I should keep pushing. Always. People rock. Tit for double tat, everyone gets a chance, and as a general rule tit for tat is far less often as successful. Saying no to someone on their first tat leaves you empty handed a lot of the time. ITT I would say Ryan and I are something like.

    Me:Tit
    Ryan: Tat
    Me: Tit plz?
    Ryan: Tit...
    Me: Omg dude you tit-ed! Let's tit some moar! MAOR TITS!. TITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITITI TITITITITITITITITIT

    The nice thing about tit for double tat is the tats have to come twice in a row, so everyone's free to tat sometimes. Though of course not being able to operate in theoretical frame work exclusively, the people who are mostly tits I allow more freedom to tat.
    Easy Day

  28. #388
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae2point0 View Post
    Those words make it muddy, DJA. One needs to understand them to get what it means. The best start is to think about the difference between how Te is relational (infinite chain of relations) and how Ti is comparitive (blocks of contrasts).
    This also fits better with Static T (Ti) vs Dynamic T (Te).
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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