Te dual seeking/HA

[Ms. Kensington]

What are some examples of Te dual seeking and Te HA? I think there are some threads regarding one of these or one of these blocked with a certain introverted perceiving function, but not one on differentiating whether Te is in slot 5 or slot 6 in model a. I think in general I am curious with the differences of these places, but currently with Te in these places.

In ESFps, I see a Te HA as a need for accuracy in facts whenever they want it, also knowing lots of facts seems to make them feel good. I am not sure of how I see Te dual seeking in IxFjs.. mostly I just see their strong Fi.

[Minde]

I'm pretty sure that one manifestation Te dual seeking, at least in this INFj, is a tendency toward asking questions of explanation and clarification about topics I'm interested in and happily listening to answers. I'm even happier when I get answers without having to ask - provided they're applicable and desirable answers, that is.


I also recently realized that it probably explains my funny affinity for the "Did You Know?" sections of children's programs when I was a kid (even if I hated the rest of the show).

[Joy]

I've noticed that the Fi types I know often indirectly ask me to get information for them. And if they're in a complicated or overwhelming situation, especially financially, they talk to me about it and get my input on how to deal with it (and often assistance as well).

The most recent situation which comes to mind was a problem a Fi dominant I know had with her checking account. She had recently separated from her husband and found that right before they separated he had taken money out of the account without her knowing, and she ended up being overdrawn. Because she hadn't changed her address with the bank yet, she didn't even know that there was a problem with her account until after it had already been closed. There were a number of other factors as well, such as her check being directly deposited into the account (which no longer existed), and she was worried about her dad's credit score being affected because his name was on the account as well (she'd had it since she was a teenager). She didn't know the best way to deal with everything and didn't know where to even begin. I helped her find information on how to deal with the problems the best way, including prioritizing tasks and debts (she also had the bounced checks to deal with). This may not seem like all that complicated of a thing to figure out, but for someone who found all of that out in one morning and who doesn't know much more about how billing, credit, and banking systems work, it can be extremely stressful and overwhelming.

Not long before that, a Fi creative type I know was telling me about problems she was having with her mortgage company, and I gave her suggestions on how to get the information she needed in order to tackle the problem.

Sometimes it's on how to deal with a sticky interpersonal situation, but I ask them that kind of thing more than they do me. It's a different angle that each of us is looking for though of course, and I'm not sure how to explain the differences. I guess they're looking for things to point out to the other person, or strategies to use when someone's causing problems for them.

I guess the most typical things they come to me looking for input on are what to do in situations that involve borrowing/borrowed money, legal problems (even if it's just a mix up with the DMV), and just needing random information, I guess. I used to get calls asking "what do you know about *insert some random thing here*?", but I don't have as many irl friends these days. I guess I still get asked stuff like that online though, in emails and whatnot. A lot of times they just want me to point them in the right direction in terms of information sources. I guess "where do I start?" is a common theme, as well as help with prioritization. They want things simplified, too.

[Minde]

Most of that sounds pretty accurate, for me at least.

Sometimes it's on how to deal with a sticky interpersonal situation, but I ask them that kind of thing more than they do me. It's a different angle that each of us is looking for though of course, and I'm not sure how to explain the differences. I guess they're looking for things to point out to the other person, or strategies to use when someone's causing problems for them.

Maybe it's "What's your experience with this?" versus... well, whatever you ask Fi-dominants?

[Logos]

I'm pretty sure that one manifestation Te dual seeking, at least in this INFj, is a tendency toward asking questions of explanation and clarification about topics I'm interested in and happily listening to answers. I'm even happier when I get answers without having to ask - provided they're applicable and desirable answers, that is.

How then do you respond when you ask and receive a Ti explanation or clarification instead of a Te one?

[Minde]

How then do you respond when you ask and receive a Ti explanation or clarification instead of a Te one?

Like this:

o.O


No I don't know. It depends. Sometimes a Ti answer is what's needed, I'm sure. Other times not. It helps if the other person answering already knows what's required for the situation.

Maybe you could give me an example so I can give you a better answer?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

Like this:

o.O


No I don't know. It depends. Sometimes a Ti answer is what's needed, I'm sure. Other times not. It helps if the other person answering already knows what's required for the situation.

Maybe you could give me an example so I can give you a better answer?

I am not sure. How about you provide a question and then a variety of people will provide a response and then we can possibly see.

I have taken an ENTj's advice on investing because its something he is very good at, quite insightful in noticing trends, and so on (Ni type stuff). I wouldn't have taken his advice if he wasn't successful at it however, which is I suppose where the Te part comes in. Another ENTj used to give my ex advice on money-management actually, but I think I got more out of it than he did heh (easy to remember, simple stuff really, but may ultimately be why I have no real money issues, I soak good advice up and follow it and have since I was a little kid), and interestingly enough the one who was giving me investment advice is helping my ex now with his finances.

That's weird. . . I just thought of something. . . ahahaaha!! Oh funny, I'm going to have to rethink something.

But, I guess that's where I see Te seeking in myself, in that I will take in good advice/information and stick with it easily. I won't follow what I see as bad, uniformed, or hazy advice though obviously.

And Diana has hit upon something that would seem to missing from the idea of -seeking: functions do not work entirely on their own, but naturally in pairs. In this case, it is blocked with .

[Minde]

I am not sure. How about you provide a question and then a variety of people will provide a response and then we can possibly see.

Ok.

Hm, this is hard...

What's a question that could elicit both a Ti and a Te response?


Wait, I might have an idea...


Let's try this: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

[anndelise]

What are some examples of Te dual seeking and Te HA? I think there are some threads regarding one of these or one of these blocked with a certain introverted perceiving function, but not one on differentiating whether Te is in slot 5 or slot 6 in model a. I think in general I am curious with the differences of these places, but currently with Te in these places.

In ESFps, I see a Te HA as a need for accuracy in facts whenever they want it, also knowing lots of facts seems to make them feel good. I am not sure of how I see Te dual seeking in IxFjs.. mostly I just see their strong Fi.

needing information resources, yes, but i think it's possible that one can get that from anyone, regardless of their type, and i think everyone turns to someone/somewhere else to gather information

my daughter likes to know the names of things, and insists that those names be used every time the item is referenced. (ie coat is not a jacket, sweater is a sweater, cherry tree is not a plum tree, etc) When I help her with her homework, I have to look at ways to help her pull out the information she needs from the word problems or the social studies paragraphs. Mostly it becomes What is involved, Who is involved, What actions are involved kind of thing. She also likes to know How to do things, step by step, hands on. Once she's told How to do something, she refuses to alter the method, so she really needs the most effective How from the very start. So sometimes I have to figure out how to organize something so that the steps i'm giving her are as effective as I can make it for her.

Myself, what I like most about being on the receiving end of Te is for when I have a project idea in my mind, I often don't know how to get there, or I'll have a very wishywashy tentative idea. The best questions are the ones that have me answering What specifically i want to do, What criteria do I need to meet, What actions will need to be taken, and such. In essence, forcing me to further define my "blocks". As these blocks get more and more explicit, then a pattern begins to emerge of how I can go about getting it done. It aggravates me when somebody tries to give me the rules or path, particularly so when the blocks haven't been defined at all yet, or are still hazy. I also feel limited in my choices of action if I'm just given a set of rules or a path to follow. I need to have the freedom of movement to alter my course if new blocks show up or if the blocks need to be reordered or altered somehow. (hence why i like mix and match type systems, heh) For example, I'd rather have a list of What needs to be done, and then I get to choose at any moment When/How I do them.

Without the presence of that help though, I find myself having to remind myself that I need to define these things first, and that things go smoother if I have that done. However, I tend to feel scattered when I first begin trying to make them more explicit. I never know quite where to start nor which blocks to focus on...nor what blocks are even available.

I also tend to gather information/ideas/books. It doesn't matter much whether I'll need them myself or not. What matters most in this regard is that should someone start talking about a subject that I've gathered a little info/books on, then I can loan them the book or give them what little I know. Heh, in essence, giving them some "blocks" they can build from.

In terms of relationships, I believe that Te HA shows itself as part of the focus on a person's behavior, their actions and words. What was said. Who said it. How was it said. How were they standing when they said it. What were they looking at. Basically looking for the facts of the situation itself, not the interpretations or meanings of it. For example, if a person tells me their boss hates them, my first response is "did your boss SAY that???? " Usually the answer is "no, he didn't say that". And then I'll ask a bunch of questions about What actions and What words about Whatever situations led the person to think that their boss hated them. I need these things clarified before I can properly empathize/sympathize with the person and their situation with their boss. And especially before I feel that I can offer any possible insight or advice.

I'm not yet sure how this part of Te HA shows up in my daughter, yet. I'm still working on it, heh.

[Jonathan]

Ok.

Hm, this is hard...

What's a question that could elicit both a Ti and a Te response?


Wait, I might have an idea...


Let's try this: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

Simplistically, communism is when the government controls the economy and means of production, and capitalism is when individuals are free to own property and the means of production, and to initiate commerce according to the principles of free enterprise.

Another more abstract way of looking at it is that they're both responses to the fact that liberty becomes unequal over time. Communism attempts to solve this problem by ensuring that virtually everybody has the same amount of liberty...even if that means that everybody is dirt poor and has almost no liberty at all. Capitalism, and especially its extreme form, libertarianism, allows for unbridled liberty (at first), with the result of increasing disparities in economic conditions and ultimately in liberty itself.

[anndelise]

Simplistically, communism is when the government controls the economy and means of production, and capitalism is when individuals are free to own property and the means of production, and to initiate commerce according to the principles of free enterprise.

Another more abstract way of looking at it is that they're both responses to the fact that liberty becomes unequal over time. Communism attempts to solve this problem by ensuring that virtually everybody has the same amount of liberty...even if that means that everybody is dirt poor and has almost no liberty at all. Capitalism, and especially its extreme form, libertarianism, allows for unbridled liberty (at first), with the result of increasing disparities in economic conditions and ultimately in liberty itself.

imo, the first paragraph is giving a straight up but clean definition of the terms/concepts and is along the lines of Te info

the second paragraph gets into the interrelationships of them and is along the lines of Ni and/or Ti (in no particular order).

Either way, I can understand and use the first paragraph far easier than the second. Heck, I can barely even follow the second, cuz it's a bit like a maze. I would have to break it down into distinct parts for me to catch onto it.

*waits to see what minde says*

[Logos]

Simplistically, communism is when the government controls the economy and means of production, and capitalism is when individuals are free to own property and the means of production, and to initiate commerce according to the principles of free enterprise.

Another more abstract way of looking at it is that they're both responses to the fact that liberty becomes unequal over time. Communism attempts to solve this problem by ensuring that virtually everybody has the same amount of liberty...even if that means that everybody is dirt poor and has almost no liberty at all. Capitalism, and especially its extreme form, libertarianism, allows for unbridled liberty (at first), with the result of increasing disparities in economic conditions and ultimately in liberty itself.

Just one addition for the first paragraph: While you allude to it in the second part, it is missing from the first. Marx said that communism's ultimate end is the dissolution of private property. And communism (or at least Marxism) does not really see it as the government controlling the means of production, but the collective whole, since communism also calls for the dissolution of states (as states act as a mechanism for the preservation of classism and private property).

[Elena]

What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

These economic systems do not exist in pure form anywhere. But in the context of economics, the technical difference between the two in a generalized sense should capture some of the following features:

Socialism (what you should have meant when you said 'Communism'): The means of production and distribution of goods and services in an economy are owned and controlled solely by government. Economic decision-making is centrally planned by government, scheduling in advance what will be produced and in what quantity it will be supplied. Goods are set at prices by government and/or rationed. Wages are set by government and/or people simply forced to work according to the dictates of the government 'economic planning board'. Any given market has only one firm in it, which is the government, so competition is non-existent and the quality and diversity of goods is low. Consumers must take whatever form of a good the government is offering or take none at all.

Capitalism: The means of production and distribution of goods and services in an economy are owned and controlled by private individuals. Economic decision-making is decentralized, anyone is free to produce what they want in whatever quantity they anticipate should be supplied. Goods are generally priced at whatever level that consumers will buy and that owners anticipate will return maximal profit. Wages are determined by whatever will attract enough people to voluntarily choose some given form of employment. Any market will almost always have multiple firms in it, so wages and prices must also generally be set competitively. Quality of goods rendered should be such that consumers will want to buy them and most markets will have a large diversity of different kinds of the same good, giving consumers many different alternatives to choose from.

More meaningfully speaking, the difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between freedom and slavery.

[Capitalist Pig]

Just one addition for the first paragraph: While you allude to it in the second part, it is missing from the first. Marx said that communism's ultimate end is the dissolution of private property. And communism (or at least Marxism) does not really see it as the government controlling the means of production, but the collective whole, since communism also calls for the dissolution of states (as states act as a mechanism for the preservation of classism and private property).

Theoretically, yes, but in practice this has never, and will never, happen. Collectivization of property has a more contemporary name, we call it "public ownership" or "public property". The general idea is that whenever the government owns anything, each citizen also owns a portion of the thing in question. It's a fanciful notion to think this is actually true, and I welcome anyone to test this idea by attempting to appropriate, for your own personal use, your part of government property. It becomes clear that public property is not "publicly" owned at all, and that it is government with the true title of ownership, with the authority to direct it's property in any matter it pleases. It does not share powers of ownership, nor will it ever relinquish them. It never actually has to.

Communism is not such a unique design for society that it deserves its own name, anyway. It is indistinct from the philosophy of socialism, and, indeed, Marx conceived of socialism as a stepping stone to communism. In reality, there are only these two economic theories: socialism and capitalism. That is the great dichotomy that permeates every layer of economic discussion; private control of the means of production or public control. There is no such thing as a marriage between the two. They are diametrically opposed to each other, and only one (guess which) will afford you the freedom and prosperity that every healthy, free-willed human being strives for.

[Logos]

Theoretically, yes, but in practice this has never, and will never, happen.

But that was not the question really at hand. Nor was the question regarding the practical deficiencies of communism. Since pure capitalism and pure communism has not and will not exist, the only way to practically compare the two is by their basic theoretical premises. Attempting to compare them in practice requires case studies which are doomed to become off-topic tirades. So the rest of your statements are fairly meaningless as they are not addressing the original question at hand, but merely exist as an exercise of intellectual masterbation.

[Capitalist Pig]

I'm quick to dismiss anything that can be construed as any sort of defense of socialism, or any sort of advocacy for any system that does not recognize private property as the cornerstone of a free society. What sense is there discussing the theoretical nuances of communism if it's such an unrealistic prospect from the beginning? Capitalism, on the other hand, is not so unrealistic and the studies you mention do exist in the economic literature in support of market actions.

The definitions of terms ought to reflect the essence of their nature. In that regard, Jonathan's definitions were severely lacking and it was actually your addendum that was "fairly meaningless". What difference does it make how Marxism decides to sugarcoat their conception of "collective ownership" and try and distinguish it from "public ownership"? The end result is the same. The abolition of even the most totalitarian State would inevitably result in a kind of market anarchy anyway, since no one would go along with the collectivist scheme. Your post is more emulative of this "intellectual masturbation", since it really added nothing to the distinction of socialism and capitalism, just trivial details.

[Logos]

I'm quick to dismiss anything that can be construed as any sort of defense of socialism, or any sort of advocacy for any system that does not recognize private property as the cornerstone of a free society.

Okay. So when did I defend socialism?

What sense is there discussing the theoretical nuances of communism if it's such an unrealistic prospect from the beginning?

So that you can know what it is. Being able to define something is always good. And in order to define what communism entails, you have to discuss theoretical nuances of it. Or how about discussing the theoretical nuances as a means of showing how unrealistic it is?

Capitalism, on the other hand, is not so unrealistic and the studies you mention do exist in the economic literature in support of market actions.

I know they exist, but for a basic question of the difference between capitalism and communism, the addition of such studies to the question are somewhat superfluous and tend to over complicate the discussion.

The definitions of terms ought to reflect the essence of their nature. In that regard, Jonathan's definitions were severely lacking and it was actually your addendum that was "fairly meaningless".

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Jonathan's definition of the qualities of communism was lacking, so I provided supplementary information, while you provided nothing in those regards. If someone asked how can you spot a zebra, why would you give that person the zebra's land speed or tell them that horses and unicorns are way cooler than zebras? If someone asked you the difference in the rules between rugby and football, why would you answer that football is better? We are talking about the difference between capitalism and communism and NOT communism and socialism or the superiority of capitalism vs. communism.

What difference does it make how Marxism decides to sugarcoat their conception of "collective ownership" and try and distinguish it from "public ownership"?

It doesn't make a difference, but no one was suggesting that distinction existed. In fact, all I said was that the goal of Marxism is collective ownership. NOWHERE did I say that this should be distinguished from public ownership. NOWHERE did I say that communism was practical or realistic. NOWHERE did I try and defend communism. NOWHERE did I try and defend socialism. Seeking to define communism is not defending it. NOWHERE does the question seek to address any superiority of one system versus the other. The fact that this continually escapes your grasp amazes me to no end. This is why your comments come off as intellectual masturbation, because you seem to be getting kicks out of talking about material that is essentially irrelevant to the question asked.

Your post is more emulative of this "intellectual masturbation", since it really added nothing to the distinction of socialism and capitalism, just trivial details.

It's good to know that I was not adding anything to this distinction as what the original question was asking and what I was addressing was the distinction between capitalism and communism. But I appreciated your contribution for more evidence of your intellectual masturbation.

[UDP]

This forum is intellectual masturbation in many ways.

[Joy]

Let's try this: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

The basic idea of communism is, "Instead of each of us owning private property and working to gain whatever it is we decide that we need or want, why don't we all pitch in and do our share of the work, then each be given what we need. No one would live in excess, and no one would live in poverty."

In capitalism, everyone decides what (s)he wants to do to earn their money and how they want to spend that money. The exchange of goods and services is controlled entirely by the market, or supply and demand. If people want something, someone starts selling it. If people don't want something, they stop selling it.

Both sound good to a lot of people in theory, but neither really works in practice.

[Capitalist Pig]

I know they exist, but for a basic question of the difference between capitalism and communism, the addition of such studies to the question are somewhat superfluous and tend to over complicate the discussion.

Or is that what you are doing right now?

Jonathan's definition of the qualities of communism was lacking, so I provided supplementary information, while you provided nothing in those regards.

I didn't have to. There was nothing I could have added that Elena did not already sufficiently explain. Jonathan's first paragraph was entirely correct that under socialism, the means of production are State owned and not collectively. Historically, this has always been the trend.

It's good to know that I was not adding anything to this distinction as what the original question was asking and what I was addressing was the distinction between capitalism and communism.

Semantics is at the crux of our disagreement here. You have an imaginary belief that socialism, communism, Marxism, and probably fascism as well, are all independent systems of social organization. I believe in calling a spade a spade, because there is nothing that fundamentally distinguishes them. They are all systems of public ownership of the means of production. It's just that simple. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (INTp) wrote in Liberalism: In The Classical Tradition, "There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way." (p.79).

[Logos]

Or is that what you are doing right now?

Clever trick.

I didn't have to. There was nothing I could have added that Elena did not already sufficiently explain. Jonathan's first paragraph was entirely correct that under socialism, the means of production are State owned and not collectively. Historically, this has always been the trend.

Did he say socialism? No, he said communism. While calling a spade a spade is great, calling a hoe a spade does not equally work.

Semantics is at the crux of our disagreement here. You have an imaginary belief that socialism, communism, Marxism, and probably fascism as well, are all independent systems of social organization. I believe in calling a spade a spade, because there is nothing that fundamentally distinguishes them.

Errr..what? Semantics must indeed be the crux of our disagreement, because both economics and many social sciences do in fact distinguish between these different forms.

[Slacker]

For me, I like to learn about things and I'm impressed by people who have lots of information and who present it with clear examples, pictures, books for me to read, etc. My husband and my ENTj mom are always emailing me articles and things to read. My mom sends me SO much stuff - but she knows just what I'm interested in. She also recommends books all the time. I really just love accumulating knowledge, and they know that and feed me it.

Te is also money, efficiency, etc. I can't read a map and need people to give me very clear directions. Very clear. No information is superfluous when giving me directions. And not just like map directions - directions for how to do anything or get anywhere. Also, I refuse to deal with money in any way except the spending way. I don't want to have to budget or anything like that. I'm SO glad I don't have to deal with that anymore because I really sucked at it and it created much anxiety. Although, when I was single and poor, my mom gave me great advice that kept me from financial disaster. For all the times I've complained about my mom, let me give her a big <3 here! She's also helping my brother dig himself out of his divorce debt. She is really good at that kind of thing.

And how did this thread turn into an opportunity to argue about capitalism vs. communism? I swear, people will argue about anything anywhere.

[Joy]

Also, I refuse to deal with money in any way except the spending way.

[Logos]

It is a Quadra.

And how did this thread turn into an opportunity to argue about capitalism vs. communism? I swear, people will argue about anything anywhere.

That's what I'm trying to figure out, because the debate seems to be incredibly one-sided.

[Joy]

It is a Quadra.

I just laughed because she said "except the spending way".

That's what I'm trying to figure out, because the debate seems to be incredibly one-sided.

It wasn't intended to be a debate. She was just looking for examples of Te vs. Ti (vs. whatever) explanations.

[Logos]

It wasn't intended to be a debate. She was just looking for examples of Te vs. Ti (vs. whatever) explanations.

And that is perhaps the great irony of it all.

[Minde]

Simplistically, communism is when the government controls the economy and means of production, and capitalism is when individuals are free to own property and the means of production, and to initiate commerce according to the principles of free enterprise.

Another more abstract way of looking at it is that they're both responses to the fact that liberty becomes unequal over time. Communism attempts to solve this problem by ensuring that virtually everybody has the same amount of liberty...even if that means that everybody is dirt poor and has almost no liberty at all. Capitalism, and especially its extreme form, libertarianism, allows for unbridled liberty (at first), with the result of increasing disparities in economic conditions and ultimately in liberty itself.

Like Ann, I found the first paragraph most informative in terms of what communism and capitalism are. That said, I understood the second just fine. It's the type of thing that my own mind tends to do, taking ideas and interrelating them.

Just one addition for the first paragraph: While you allude to it in the second part, it is missing from the first. Marx said that communism's ultimate end is the dissolution of private property. And communism (or at least Marxism) does not really see it as the government controlling the means of production, but the collective whole, since communism also calls for the dissolution of states (as states act as a mechanism for the preservation of classism and private property).

This was difficult to focus on.

These economic systems do not exist in pure form anywhere. But in the context of economics, the technical difference between the two in a generalized sense should capture some of the following features:

Socialism (what you should have meant when you said 'Communism'):

Yes, but it alliterated so nicely...

The means of production and distribution of goods and services in an economy are owned and controlled solely by government. Economic decision-making is centrally planned by government, scheduling in advance what will be produced and in what quantity it will be supplied. Goods are set at prices by government and/or rationed. Wages are set by government and/or people simply forced to work according to the dictates of the government 'economic planning board'. Any given market has only one firm in it, which is the government, so competition is non-existent and the quality and diversity of goods is low. Consumers must take whatever form of a good the government is offering or take none at all.

Capitalism: The means of production and distribution of goods and services in an economy are owned and controlled by private individuals. Economic decision-making is decentralized, anyone is free to produce what they want in whatever quantity they anticipate should be supplied. Goods are generally priced at whatever level that consumers will buy and that owners anticipate will return maximal profit. Wages are determined by whatever will attract enough people to voluntarily choose some given form of employment. Any market will almost always have multiple firms in it, so wages and prices must also generally be set competitively. Quality of goods rendered should be such that consumers will want to buy them and most markets will have a large diversity of different kinds of the same good, giving consumers many different alternatives to choose from.

More meaningfully speaking, the difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between freedom and slavery.

The very first and very last parts were by far the easiest to read and understand, though the last sentence I might think a little overly dramatic for the type of response I was looking for. It might make me ask "Why?" but it also might make me wary of possible strong bias. The middle parts, between "...Communism)." and "More meaningfully speaking...", read a bit like a textbook definition, same format and style. Which is fine, but doesn't keep me enthralled that well (maybe it's more conditioning than Elena's fault lol). There were some vague examples at what it might look like, more than what has been previously provided, but I might have liked more if I were really trying to understand the differences.

I'm not sure I'd ask more questions of Elena based on this. It's kind of iffy... The language barrier might be part of it, because even very good non-native speakers (like Elena) can tend toward over-correctness, which may be throwing me off.

Theoretically, yes, but in practice this has never, and will never, happen. Collectivization of property has a more contemporary name, we call it "public ownership" or "public property". The general idea is that whenever the government owns anything, each citizen also owns a portion of the thing in question. It's a fanciful notion to think this is actually true, and I welcome anyone to test this idea by attempting to appropriate, for your own personal use, your part of government property. It becomes clear that public property is not "publicly" owned at all, and that it is government with the true title of ownership, with the authority to direct it's property in any matter it pleases. It does not share powers of ownership, nor will it ever relinquish them. It never actually has to.

Communism is not such a unique design for society that it deserves its own name, anyway. It is indistinct from the philosophy of socialism, and, indeed, Marx conceived of socialism as a stepping stone to communism. In reality, there are only these two economic theories: socialism and capitalism. That is the great dichotomy that permeates every layer of economic discussion; private control of the means of production or public control. There is no such thing as a marriage between the two. They are diametrically opposed to each other, and only one (guess which) will afford you the freedom and prosperity that every healthy, free-willed human being strives for.

Yeah, um, no. (Not to the idea - whatever it is - but the way of telling me about it.)


Some of what I quoted above has the potential to be interesting. But I can do the sort of inter-idea connections and making things complicated stuff that some have been doing myself. Sometimes it's nice to have another like that to compare against. But what I really need is new, relevant information - what things do and how and why. That's when I can say, "Oh, that idea is like that other idea in such and such a way. That goes together, but this doesn't" usually followed by either a "why?" or a "so, does this happen, then?" - a request for further informing. I also like it when people make things simple, not complicated.


So the best answers to this question is probably Joy's:

The basic idea of communism is, "Instead of each of us owning private property and working to gain whatever it is we decide that we need or want, why don't we all pitch in and do our share of the work, then each be given what we need. No one would live in excess, and no one would live in poverty."

In capitalism, everyone decides what (s)he wants to do to earn their money and how they want to spend that money. The exchange of goods and services is controlled entirely by the market, or supply and demand. If people want something, someone starts selling it. If people don't want something, they stop selling it.

Both sound good to a lot of people in theory, but neither really works in practice.

Nice, short, to the point, says what what's supposed to happen, a little bit of why, and some more of what actually happens. If I was interested in the subject I'd probably ask Joy more, not necessarily because she knows a whole lot more than several others who posted, but because she's easiest to understand. Although, being easy to understand, I can see better if she's right or making sense, and in this case she doesn't sound too uninformed.

Actually, her reply was a little lacking. I could have done with more. But, then again, if I want to know more I could just ask, choosing from what she said which direction to take. So I guess say only a little initially is best, because it gives me a choice of whether or not I'm interested enough to continue. An example of the next question I'd likely ask her next is, "Why would it not work in practice?"


As far as Logos' and Say's dialog, I didn't try to read it too much. It was not interesting to me.


@ Slacker Mom - I know what you mean about money. I don't even spend it that much. Sometimes I wish it didn't exist I dislike having to deal with it so much (though I know that's impractical).

Oh, and I think the -ism debate is my fault. I couldn't think of a better question.

[Logos]

This was difficult to focus on.

Interesting, as it was not a full out explanation, but merely an addendum to Jonathan's post.

As far as Logos' and Say's dialog, I didn't try to read it too much. It was not interesting to me.

Good, because it was completely irrelevant to your question.

[Minde]

Interesting, as it was not a full out explanation, but merely an addendum to Jonathan's post.

I'm guessing you'd have probably written a full explanation in a similar way.

Good, because it was completely irrelevant to your question.

I know. Thus the not trying.

[Logos]

I'm guessing you'd have probably written a full explanation in a similar way.

Not necessarily, as I thought that Jonathan's post did a good job. It just needed a bit more. But I honestly doubt that I would have written in the conversational manner that Joy did.

[Elena]

The basic idea of communism is, "Instead of each of us owning private property and working to gain whatever it is we decide that we need or want, why don't we all pitch in and do our share of the work, then each be given what we need. No one would live in excess, and no one would live in poverty."

Yes, that's the basic myth of Communism you mean.

Both sound good to a lot of people in theory, but neither really works in practice.

Capitalism works beautifully in practice actually.

[Elena]

Yes, but it alliterated so nicely...

Lol, it does. But Capitalism isn't a political/social philosophy. Communism is. The terms here are important I think, so the contrast isn't really applicable. It's an "apples and oranges" kind of comparison.

The very first and very last parts were by far the easiest to read and understand, though the last sentence I might think a little overly dramatic for the type of response I was looking for. It might make me ask "Why?" but it also might make me wary of possible strong bias.

It should make you ask "Why?" I suppose I said it because it's an issue I feel strongly and I tend to think other people should too. Because these aren't just some theories in books, but they have very real effects on every aspect of the lives of billions of people. So they are critical to understand properly imo.

The middle parts, between "...Communism)." and "More meaningfully speaking...", read a bit like a textbook definition, same format and style. Which is fine, but doesn't keep me enthralled that well (maybe it's more conditioning than Elena's fault lol). There were some vague examples at what it might look like, more than what has been previously provided, but I might have liked more if I were really trying to understand the differences.

I probably overestimated your interest in trying to understand. Otherwise I would have said it a lot differently or not at all. I tend to only share information with people who are interested, as I consider it a waste of time if someone is not.

I'm not sure I'd ask more questions of Elena based on this. It's kind of iffy... The language barrier might be part of it, because even very good non-native speakers (like Elena) can tend toward over-correctness, which may be throwing me off.

It does keep from being as expanded in my descriptions on here as I'd like sometimes because it can be harder for me to think of the right words for what I want to say. I do strive for correctness yes, but I also make it a point to never bury people in semantics either.

Nice, short, to the point, says what what's supposed to happen, a little bit of why, and some more of what actually happens. If I was interested in the subject I'd probably ask Joy more, not necessarily because she knows a whole lot more than several others who posted, but because she's easiest to understand. Although, being easy to understand, I can see better if she's right or making sense, and in this case she doesn't sound too uninformed.

She's telling you information more in the form of "this is how other people see it, this is what they think of it." She's not telling you it from a more factual conceptual point of view. I suppose I could understand why you prefer it that way.

[Joy]

Yes, that's the basic myth of Communism you mean.

Yeah. I don't think it could ever actually work like that because it goes so strongly against human nature.

Capitalism works beautifully in practice actually.

In it's pure form? For how long?


Don't get me wrong, I love capitalism and would not have any reason to live if it weren't for at least relatively free enterprise (sounds dramatic, but I mean it). Unfortunately, it also goes against human nature to allow capitalism to exist in its pure form though.

[Ms. Kensington]

For me, I like to learn about things and I'm impressed by people who have lots of information and who present it with clear examples, pictures, books for me to read, etc. My husband and my ENTj mom are always emailing me articles and things to read. My mom sends me SO much stuff - but she knows just what I'm interested in. She also recommends books all the time. I really just love accumulating knowledge, and they know that and feed me it.

Te is also money, efficiency, etc. I can't read a map and need people to give me very clear directions. Very clear. No information is superfluous when giving me directions. And not just like map directions - directions for how to do anything or get anywhere. Also, I refuse to deal with money in any way except the spending way. I don't want to have to budget or anything like that. I'm SO glad I don't have to deal with that anymore because I really sucked at it and it created much anxiety. Although, when I was single and poor, my mom gave me great advice that kept me from financial disaster. For all the times I've complained about my mom, let me give her a big <3 here! She's also helping my brother dig himself out of his divorce debt. She is really good at that kind of thing.

And how did this thread turn into an opportunity to argue about capitalism vs. communism? I swear, people will argue about anything anywhere.

Yes, i think mature ENTjs do send people articles ALL THE TIME. I also appreciate my dad more now because his advice has been useful in regards to financial and automotive tasks. lol. Thanks, dad!

I thought minde posed the question about capitalism and communism because she wanted to show examples of the differences between her own Te dual seeking and a Te HA. Minde?

[Joy]

I also like it when people make things simple, not complicated.

So the best answers to this question is probably Joy's:

Thanks. (: Generally when people ask me questions like that, I try to get an idea of what they're looking for and then give them an answer in a format that is useful to them. I try to give a relatively concise answer, then wait for a them to ask a question or comment so I know which points they want me to expand on or clarify or what they're trying to accomplish.

Usually once it seems I've answered they're question I'll throw in an idea or opinion I have on the matter. I'll say something like "Now, my stance/opinion/thoughts on the matter are *insert short rant here*, but that's just me."

(That said, if it's a subject I have a lot of interest in, sometimes it's difficult not to talk too much and give them more information than they need, but generally I try to avoid bogging them down with a lot of information or explanation right away because saying too much is more confusing than not saying anything at all. If I do get carried away, I'll try to sum up the general ideas and most important points in a clear way at the end.)

Nice, short, to the point, says what what's supposed to happen, a little bit of why, and some more of what actually happens. If I was interested in the subject I'd probably ask Joy more, not necessarily because she knows a whole lot more than several others who posted, but because she's easiest to understand.

Yeah, I didn't think you were asking because you had an interest in getting a text book explanation or reading an essay on the matter.

Although, being easy to understand, I can see better if she's right or making sense, and in this case she doesn't sound too uninformed.

Thank you, I very much appreciate that.

There aren't many subjects that I claim to be anything even close to an expert on, so it's annoying when people assume that everything I say should be 100&#37; complete and accurate. All I'm doing is taking whatever I've heard/read on the matter and putting it into a format which I think would be useful to them. That's why I generally try to give them some idea of how much (or how little) I've heard/read/experienced on the subject and how reliable my sources are. I want to give them some idea of how useful what I'm telling them is likely to be.

The reason I don't give some people the explanations they ask for here is because I know that they won't take my answers the way you do. When I give people information or explanations on things, I want them to think of me only as one of many possible sources and expect me to be wrong sometimes. And when I am wrong, I don't think it's reasonable to for someone to take offense, act as if a crime has been committed, or conclude that none of the information or explanations I give should ever be taken into consideration... things which unfortunately seem to happen around here sometimes.

Actually, her reply was a little lacking. I could have done with more.

Funny thing is, I actually had written more, but I removed it because I didn't want to be part of a debate on the matter. (There are clearly people here who have more interest in and knowledge about this subject than I do.) And because:

But, then again, if I want to know more I could just ask, choosing from what she said which direction to take. So I guess say only a little initially is best, because it gives me a choice of whether or not I'm interested enough to continue.

That's exactly what my thoughts on the matter were. "If she wants to know more, she'll ask. I'm not even sure where she wants to go with this. I think she probably just wanted examples of different types of answers."

An example of the next question I'd likely ask her next is, "Why would it not work in practice?"

I'll write a little bit about that in a few minutes.

Oh, and I think the -ism debate is my fault. I couldn't think of a better question.

Don't worry about it. This community seems to exploit any opportunity to get into an intellectual pissing contest.

[Kim]

Yes, that's the basic myth of Communism you mean.

It is not a myth, it is an idea or a social-scientific theory.

Capitalism works beautifully in practice actually.

That is a matter of perspective. It might work for you, but I see a lot of
people every day for whom it does not work. I visited East Germany many times as a kid and the socialism there worked quite beautifully for some: security, no problems with unemployment, unlimited access to healthcare, etc. My aunt appreciated that very much whereas my cousing hated the system.

Both have their drawbacks and advantages, but neither works "beautifully" for everyone.

[Kim]

For me, I like to learn about things and I'm impressed by people who have lots of information and who present it with clear examples, pictures, books for me to read, etc.

Yes, I am the same way! My ISTp ex is a walking encyclopedia! He has been watching the news every day since the age of ten and he remembers everything that he sees in pictures. So he has 23 years of daily news stored in his memory and whenever I needed to know what happened when where then, he would know. He can also explain things very well. I love to learn, especially when information is easily accessible.

[ScarlettLux]

Honestly, I don't see the difference between and hidden agenda/Dual seeking STILL. These two functions will always confuse me. I mean, I can see myself valuing both in others ... like what the heck is the difference between a "Te" response and a "Ti" response to a question?!?! I'm reading all of these and I don't see anything that jumps out at me and makes me go, oh yes, the way this type of person is explaining such & such is infinitely more understandable than this other person's way

With the use of Communism vs Capitalism question, lol, I don't see it...

[Joy]

An example of the next question I'd likely ask her next is, "Why would it not work in practice?"

The reason I said neither work (at least not in their pure forms) in practice because of human nature. As I've already mentioned, there are people here who are a lot more knowledgeable about the theories behind and histories of these subjects than I am, but here's my speculation based on what I do understand about each of them.

In a communist society, there is personal property, so there is no reward for those who are ambitious, clever, or hardworking. One's reason for working is not because of their desires for themselves and their families, it is out of obligation to the community. Being extra productive won't get them anything (except possibly more work?), so there's no reason for them to work towards progress. In essence, they're just going about the grind of their days in order to not be punished. There's no hope that they'll ever be able to better the lives of themselves or their families within the system. Because there are a lot of people like me who would literally rather die than live without any hope for future accomplishment, their only options are to attempt to function outside of the system (do illegal things) or take advantage of the system (do unethical things). The only way for the government to respond to this trend while maintaining the system is to become more and more oppressive, creating strict policies and enacting harsh punishments. I would think that this would crush the will and spirit of the people, and the that community as a whole would become sick, tired, and broken.

In a capitalist society, the people who are particularly ambitious, clever, or hardworking (particularly those who are ambitious and clever) are able to attain a very high standard of living. There are people who begin to think, "Why should those people live with such excess when there are people who are living with so little? The rich should pitch in a little and take care of those who are less fortunate." They decide to enact laws that tax the rich with the idea of lessoning the burden on or increasing the standard of living of those less fortunate. People who are wealthy, however, are not about to simply sit around and let others take their money away from them. They have the power and intent to change things, so they use their influence and lobby for laws that limit their exposure to liability (taxes, lawsuits, etc.). The people see that it's the middle class who is paying for the poor, and they think that it's not fair that the wealthy have so many advantages and decide to pass laws that regulate business and limit free trade. They pass anti monopoly and anti trust laws, they set a minimum wage, they create labor unions, etc. But again, the wealthy don't just sit around and see their businesses begin to lose profit and fail. They use their influence to fight back, lobbying to create business laws and unfortunately even foreign policies that protect their interests. At the same time, new public programs are set up to help the poorest of the people. The result is that the size of the lower class grows. Those who are there have trouble leaving the programs that care for them. Those who are in the lower middle class see that their standard of living would actually be better if they made a little bit less money because they'd qualify for those public programs. And while the number of people who are on public assistance grows, the rich benefit from the public programs because they're able to pay their employees less and charge more for the products and services their businesses sell. The middle class gets squeezed from both ends and continues to dwindle in size. Like they say, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Eventually the difference becomes too great. The middle class can no longer support the poor, and living conditions begin to dwindle. By that time, many of the wealthiest people in the society have had their fingers so far into the government for so many generations that reform is next to impossible, and eventually a revolution is called for.