Quote:
Originally Posted by
labcoat
Both look like Te to me. I read the second passage more easily (by a long shot) and am more inclined to write that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Golden
Something is wrong here, because as usual, my eyes cross after two lines of a Ti example, and the Te is completely clear to me.
The Ti sample and Te sample seem to be written at different levels of complexity, for different readers or purposes. I prefer the dino example because the two versions are more or less equivalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mariella
Steve's Ti example uses too much specialized language to make it a good comparison. You'd have to know the specialized language to understand it regardless of your type and what you value.
I don't think it has anything to do with socionics elements, ftr. Language and complexity aside, what Ashton and Steve probably attempted to do is show that Te focuses on the function and Ti on the definition - except it fails because the examples don't really fit it, not nearly to the same point as the original one with dinosaurs. Clear Ti style would be closer to formal definition or the formula, not necessarily explanatory like in this case. Similarly, Te isn't limited to dry facts never going beyond the surface, as the second example implies. While in a way both address the functionality as well as nature of TNT, I'd say it isn't really representative of Te, either.
Also, it might be a case of "I don't like it so it isn't in my quadra" on Steve's and Ashton's part as much as it is on labcoat's or Golden's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bolt
Well that's because you took those thinking styles for granted. I'd not accept your argument for the reason that they're based on something even more ambiguous and (IMO) arbitrary.
Then, I don't know whether you used real forum users or something else to confirm this for yourself, but in the first case, if Crispy is LIE that would mean that your observations (if they exist) determined this inclination in a Te type again.
I think that Ti and Te may be necessary and sufficient for deduction and respectively induction. Indeed IRL both Bodies and Fields information is required for both the usage of Logic and to apply those kinds of reasoning, but that's not the point of it. For example the premise of "all people are mortals" requires different processes to appear, but that's out of the scope of the deduction itself.
If anything, a type may be considered deductive and inductive, from a certain perspective, based on Extroversion (eg EXXx inductive, Bodies observes and Fields assimilates), but in any case I disagree with the idea that it has anything to do with Process/Result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bolt
So why do you agree then? It's deduction which is categorical, induction is not.
What the fuck is wrong with you, people?
---
True but irrelevant. A car without a driver can't run, that doesn't necessarily mean that a car without a driver can't exist. It's ridiculous. The same happens with abstract concepts, and in fact the sciences as well are separated because they deal with different aspects, although they depend on each other (psychology, biology, chemistry, physics). You can't just say that chemistry doesn't exist because it depends on physics.
You could just as well say that I take socionics relations for granted, or clubs, or temperaments, or whatever other aspect of theory I see work in practice.
It's something that struck me as accurate when I read it and fits rather well with my experiences of real users (and even real people). It's also something that made me realize you're ILE when I first came across it, by the way. I'm not saying it to reaffirm that I agree with the typing or whatever, merely to illustrate with a real... well, forum life example that it's a significant aspect and one often replaced by the view that functions represent a sort of "thought processes", which leads to stereotypes, such as those about ILEs you used to battle against. People expect Ne-egos, especially Ne-dominants, to be something like holographic thinkers, and I suspect it's your rather strict deductive approach of a cause-effect thinker that makes them call you a Ne-PoLR - LSIs represent this style as well, while SLEs and LIIs are holographic thinkers. Disregarding it and projecting thinking style on ego functions directly is probably the reason for at least some misunderstandings.
Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:Together, these relations make the socion an energetically cohesive unit. First of all, we have 8 pairs of dyads, or dual types. The purpose of these relations is to "even out" or balance the individual's life activity. "As far as we are aware, without this, the individual's full-fledged intellectual realization is impossible." Secondly, the 8 dyads split into two energy rings (or tracks) of four dyads apiece. These dyads are connected by a one-way connection; new information only flows in one direction. Information in these two rings flows in opposite directions, creating an "induction" effect between the two.
These two energy rings are pairs of supervision rings going in the same direction. They correspond to process/result dichotomy (and I don't care if it was Reinin who named it so, he didn't "invent" it), but more importantly they are described as one-way information flow. Sharing a thinking style might be part of the reason why this flow is so effective, and more so in supervision than in benefit, while exact function arrangement explains it being one-directional.
Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.
