The T Wars

There have been a time when the T wars here were much more pronounced, I realize, but I still feel I need to post that, even though they've been subdued as of late. All I ask of you is that you read all of this. Thanks in advance.

It often happens that Ti types call Te out on being "mechanical", "applying methods", "engineering over creativity" (see a perfect example of this bias). As often they themselves hear Ti is "rules", "dogma", "categorizing for the sake of categorizing" (I'm missing an adequately absurd example here). In fact, it seems as if those two are forever at each other's throats.

When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered. Since it is governed by objective data, it has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not [p. 432] exist. Almost it seems as though it were a sequence of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when chiming in with some generally valid idea. It seems constantly to be affected by objective data, drawing only those conclusions which substantially agree with these. Thus it gives one the impression of a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness, in spite of every kind of adroitness within the objectively circumscribed area.What I am now describing is merely the impression this sort of thinking makes upon the observer, who must himself already have a different standpoint, or it would be quite impossible for him to observe the phenomenon of extraverted thinking. As a result of his different standpoint he merely sees its aspect, not its nature; whereas the man who himself possesses this type of thinking is able to seize its nature, while its aspect escapes him. judgment made upon appearance only cannot be fair to the essence of the thing-hence the result is depreciatory. But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends. This difference is perceived most clearly when extraverted thinking is engaged upon material, which is specifically an object of the subjectively orientated thinking. This happens, for instance, when a subjective conviction is interpreted analytically from objective facts or is regarded as a product or derivative of objective ideas. But, for our 'scientifically' orientated consciousness, the difference between the two modes of thinking becomes still more obvious when the subjectively orientated thinking makes an attempt to bring objective data into connections not objectively given, i.e. to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favourable aspect, The subjectively orientated thinking then appears [p. 433] quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.

I know a lot of you say you read Jung. I know a lot of you don't care. But for once, pay attention to what he says.

For thou art living up to his words.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

It often happens that Ti types call Te out on being "mechanical", "applying methods", "engineering over creativity" (see a perfect example of this bias). As often they themselves hear Ti is "rules", "dogma", "categorizing for the sake of categorizing" (I'm missing an adequately absurd example here). In fact, it seems as if those two are forever at each other's throats.

---

This is true, but it's even worse than that. Not only is there the war between Ti and Te, but also there's the war of the interpretations, so that what one person calls Ti and Te, the other calls Te and Ti.

The article you quote from socionics.com is very interesting. That person has a reinterpretation of Socionics whereby Ne and Si are what might be called perceiving perception, Ni and Se judging perception, Ti and Fe perceiving judgment, and Te and Fi judging judgment. So that creates a completely different system whereby you'd have to retype everybody.

Clearly, in that person's system, Socrates would be Alpha, and Richard Feynman probably too, though they're both usually typed as Gamma. Also, the people Filatova photographed for her LII pictures may need to be moved to a different type as well.

I tried to engage Ashton on the definitional difference once. I don't think he really cared, or maybe it was willful ignorance. He just ended up pissing me off.

But this is the resulting conflict/problem, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

This has been one of my favorite excerpts from Psychological Types for while; I think it goes over most of the heads around here though.

Also like what's pointed out here re: Te vs. Ti, I think similar relations hold true for other contrasting function-attitudes (Ne/Ni, Se/Si, Fe/Fi).

---

Agreed. Just like Thinking is one process, but with conscious attention on only one of its aspects, other functions are likely the same.

BTW, Jung consistently uses the word "function" for Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition, not its attitudes, on top of explicitly stating they're the same process in above excerpt. Worth noting.

Quote:

---

This is part of what underlies my emphasis that unvalued functions can't be understood or directly experienced in any way approaching firsthand conscious apprehension; for instance an Fe valuer would only perceive Fi in a shadow capacity—i.e. "Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favourable aspect."

---

The thing is, it doesn't follow from function being conscious in one and unconscious in the other attitude that it's going to be the valued ones that are conscious. Socionics, even stripped to just model A, is fully compatible with it, it merely proposes that conscious functions are valued when strong and devalued when weak. There's nothing in Jung's writing to support the hypothesis that what we call super-id is conscious, as far as I know.

What's new about this Aiss, sorry? Isn't it the usual description of Te given by Jung?

This reminds me of the "war" between the two theories of Epistemology (aka What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? How do we know what we know?), the Empiricism and Rationalism.

Interestingly, Kant said about both of those system the same as Jung about Ti and Te. Immanuel Kant combined some of the approaches from both theories and created the "critical philosophy", stating that Rationalism or Empiricism alone would not be enough to adequately describe the human way of gaining knowledge.

Jung said basically the same: If a person only (and solely) uses one type of T, actual thinking wouldn't be possible. That's why you shouldn't see the other type of T as inferior, you need it for your thought process anyway. Go and hassle some of the F's instead. (I heard they don't think at all, OMGZ!!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

As soon as I can procure a better electronic copy of the complete Psychological Types (the full 630+ pages, not just the measly Ch. 10 most here are familiar with), I'll dig up material about this.

---

You might be able to find it deep in the interwebs. I found it once, but it translated badly. I didn't bookmark it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

From my understanding, Jung said that up to 4 function-attitudes can be differentiated—that is, sufficiently individuated to be brought under conscious control; with the inferior function (equivalent to Socionics dual-seeking function) being the most difficult to wrest into the conscious. Under stress or psychological impoverishment, function-attitudes most distal to the primary recede into the unconscious and default into compensatory neurotic symptoms, etc. (which in Socionics would be something dualization could be said to help guard against).

As soon as I can procure a better electronic copy of the complete Psychological Types (the full 630+ pages, not just the measly Ch. 10 most here are familiar with), I'll dig up material about this.

---

The impression I get is that DS is unconscious, though consciousness of super-ego vs super-id would be an interesting question. I personally see a point socionics has about unconscious values and conscious devalued super-ego, as those blocks make sense to me, but it doesn't mean it's valid, of course.

Another interpretation that comes to mind is that since function differentiation is fairly fluid (i.e. non-binary, although only one aspect might be conscious at a time), bringing either super-ego or super-id into consciousness could be possible. So not only super-id falling entirely into unconscious would be neurotic, but conscious focus on super-ego that causes it or perhaps is caused by it or maybe in some cases accompanies it and it others not, could be responsible for phenomena associated with Role/PoLR in socionics.

Interesting note: Jung describes exceeding focus on dominant function as related to inferior being further pushed into unconsciousness. This corresponds to accepting/producing subtypes, where PoLR predicted by model A is most visible in producing subtypes, while accepting subtypes would exhibit signs of what he describes as neurotic inferior function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

What's new about this Aiss, sorry? Isn't it the usual description of Te given by Jung?

---

It's not new. It's just that people get into those fights that Jung described even though they claim they're familiar with the theory. It's pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MegaDoomer

Jung said basically the same: If a person only (and solely) uses one type of T, actual thinking wouldn't be possible. That's why you shouldn't see the other type of T as inferior, you need it for your thought process anyway. Go and hassle some of the F's instead. (I heard they don't think at all, OMGZ!!!)

---

Exactly. :muaha:

Well, yes.

This is part of the reason why objectively and behaviorally, nobody gets along or likes each other that much. Unless of course it's somebody you are compatible with, but that tends to be rare.

Reminds me of that lesbian activist getting advice from Esther Hicks:

Lesbian: "It just hurts my heart and my soul that other people think we're such bad people."

Esther: "They don't like each other, either."

(audience laughs. Esther the narc absorbs their feelings to make herself stronger and smiles. Sam and Dolphin hit her with a large, blunt object.)

But... she is right.

Well Te is about mobility and movement... and Ti isn't, Ti is static and so it's going to be about structures. Not necessarily rules, but things that are more in place, so I guess yeah that is essentially what 'rules' are in their pure form.

And dynamic movement is something that would ignore those rules or that 'stuckness.' Things can become more than what they appear to be, etc.

Static vs. dynamic.

But it doesn't mean that a Ti-valuer will be an advocate for dumb, stupid rules.

Quote:

---

He just ended up pissing me off.

---

aw don't let him get to you. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

This has been one of my favorite excerpts from Psychological Types for while; I think it goes over most of the heads around here though.

---

You seem to be assuming that if people don't agree with something, they must not understand it. It was always fairly clear that Jung was implying that Xi- and Xe-oriented people can't see from the other point of view, or else only in extraordinary cases. But Augusta, in describing the "id" block as an area of that which one "can" do but is opposed to ones most essential nature, seems to be implying something slightly different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

That's apparently the prevailing understanding here, though I'm wondering if it's written that way in actual Socionics texts.

---

Well that would be an interesting discussion. Augusta's view seems to be reflected in the following quote translated on Rick's site:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Augusta

various aspects of reality are reflected in the human brain with differing degrees of differentiation and awareness. Aspects that the individual only uses for himself are reflected in general, composite form and are remembered as images, experience, and skills. Other aspects, which the individual communicates information about to society, are perceived in well-differentiated form with an accuracy that allows the individual to relate information verbally.

---

(from http://www.socionics.us/theory/model.shtml)

In other words, Augusta thought that one uses all functions oneself, in some sort of vague way, whereas in social situations, one emphasizes ones well-differentiated functions; the difference is in degree of accuracy and awareness, not an "all or nothing" sort of thing. Similarly, Stratievskaya's descriptions apparently echo a similar understanding, as they attempt to show how each type uses all 8 functions in model A. It was clear when meeting Rick that this is his understanding; and whether or not it's right, this is what he picked up from meeting with socionists in Ukraine/Russia.

So to me, Augusta's stance is pretty clear, but the only question is whether one agrees with it. There are things Augusta has said that I disagree with, and it's fine to agree or disagree.

However, regarding Jung, the thing that has always bothered me about his description of Te/Ti, all the way from when I first read it years ago, is that it seems hard to believe that there would be any sort of thinking that is "off limits" to reasonably intelligent people (if indeed Jung was implying that; it seems so, but he may have been emphasizing the differences to demonstrate the functions with "sharp contrast").

One person may have a penchant for syllogisms, someone else likes to make analogies, and a third person is good at pointing out contradictions with various observations. But surely they can all understand and use each of these modes of thinking. So how would Ti and Te be any different?

Can you give me an example of anything that a Te person could think that a Ti person would be incapable of thinking or understanding, or vice versa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Br'er Uncle

The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or not a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by which standard is its judgment governed—is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective?

---

And the above is expressly why I stated, in Krig's "Fe vs. Fi" thread:

Quote:

---

:Fe: is a subjective ethical disposition originating from and authenticated by the objective sentiments of a given milieu.

:Fi: is a subjective ethical disposition that may have objectively-derived aspects, but the source of its authenticity ultimately begins and ends with a given subject's idiosyncratic sentiments.

---

Quote:

---

The T Wars

---

i don't feel like participating, sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

It often happens that Ti types call Te out on being "mechanical", "applying methods", "engineering over creativity" (see a perfect example of this bias). As often they themselves hear Ti is "rules", "dogma", "categorizing for the sake of categorizing" (I'm missing an adequately absurd example here). In fact, it seems as if those two are forever at each other's throats.

---

The article distingueshes (or tried to) between Merry and Serious, not between Ti and Te, therefore I assume you got it totally wrong.

There are some objection I feel like making regarding your hasty conclusion:

1. The same mutual criticism between Ti and Te appears between Fi and Fe. The *exact* same distinction of views Jung described can applied there: if you replace any reference to thinking with feeling in the text, you obtain one with the same validity. But in these "wars", they stand in different camps, regarding the orientation on objects.
2. Jung puts everything that exists under the hood unde the esoteric common property of "thinking". That justifies why we compare the two, instead of comparing any two other functions with opposite attitudes. But why?
3. As we know, Jung's Introverted Thinking describes an Introverted type with an Ego Logic. And if we look at the Sociotypes, indeed Logical Irrational Extratims are focused on objects, although being Ti types, and the other way around. While we may say that IXTp's are more like IXTj's than ExTp's, relating to what Jung regards as Introverted Thinking [1], certainly we must not confuse what each type values. Because valuing a certain Logic (and instantly a certain Ethic) imbues the specific type with some properties that are not directly related to the orientation of the consiousness, both Extrotims and Introtims can be both Ti and Te valuing. This is how you misinterpreted the distinction between Merry and Serious.
4. There are only two functions that can be "incessantly at war" in Socionics: a function and the one containing the aspect which differs only in Externality from its aspect - like Te and Fe, Ti and Fi. That means the explanation in the article fails in this framework. In Socionics, Ti and Te are Strong in the same type and the conflict appears indirectly, through their complementary functions. As you know, Logical types don't inherently conflict with each other, but they conflict on a social level, a big picture that Jung never mentioned, but Aushra's Model A was the first systematic explanation (that I know of) for these phenomenae [2].
---

However, there is a "war" between Introtim/Introvert and Extratim Logical (and not only Logical) types that happens routinely (even between Duals or Mirrors), and which Jung describes very accurately in this article. It is not related to Ti VS Te and I will hopefully discuss it in an appropriate thread.

To give you a hint, the Introtim view on the world is formal, for instance they don't get surprised/astonished/angry when something with 1/100 chances to fail actually fails, because in the conceptual world that's something normal, but Extroverts, while they can (formally) agree in theory with the Fields rule (sorry for the potential tautologies), and that what happens is technically correct, they are focused on the "wieght" or "strenght" of everything in their experience, how this can influcen them and others, this 1/100 is not merely a number but it becomes an object with a certain potential, having a factual weight.

For this reason Extroverts are mobilized by virtually everything, to make a comparison, the Introvert assimilates information as if it were a history episode, while the Extrovert as if it were news. There is no great difference between current events or remote past events except that the current ones can regard you and you can act on them, the things that you read in the news actually exist, they *are*, they are things, but the historical facts don't exist anymore, they're just a story in your mind that can at most make you change your view (framework), but certainly you can't act on them.
---

[1] - indeed many Socionists agree that Logical Introtims share a lot of traits. The difficulty of many in distinguishing between LII and ILI based on their external attitude substantiates this fact.
[2] - the same way, thinkers are always confused what is "attraction" or "compatibility", what opposites and what similarities attract. They always failed to explain the facts because of over-simplification, not counting all the factors, let alone environmental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I don't recall Jung implying that. You might be reading too much into it, conjecturing stuff that isn't there.

---

Yeah, as I said, that first impression might be due to the fact that he's putting the different perspectives into sharp contrast so the distinctions are clear.

Quote:

---

:Te:: ↪ objective evidence → [subjective inference → objective evidence → subjective inference → subjective inference…] ⇒ judgment.
:Ti:: ↪ subjective inference → [objective evidence → objective evidence → subjective inference → objective evidence…] ⇒ judgment.

Where the intermediate steps in the process are arbitrary and can be either; what's key is where the root of that thinking process is founded.

---

Well then our thinking on the subject may be much closer than I thought. And that's a very good quote of Jung that you brought up....that if an introverted thinker is momentarily preoccupied with some external object, it has no significance for typing.

What Jung is saying here, and what you've put so well, is that the type is defined by one's grand overall evaluation or perspective on the scheme of things, like one's most underlying sense of purpose. And so in between, one can act in all sorts of ways that would appear to be like other types. One can be a Te type but have intermediate steps that are dealing with subjective inference, or a Ti type but have intermediate steps that are dealing with objective evidence. When one then goes to "what does this all mean for me," then it goes back to whichever is one's "home base," but in between there's a lot of shared territory...which goes to show how silly it is on the forum when someone sees something someone said and exclaims...there it is! He used Ti! So he's a Ti type! Etc.

But how does that square with what you said above:

Quote:

---

unvalued functions can't be understood or directly experienced in any way approaching firsthand conscious apprehension

---

It appears that if the intermediate steps mirror the processes of the "unvalued" function, then indeed unvalued functions can be understand and experienced consciously...specifically, through those intermediate steps.

That doesn't mean that you can exactly experience things from the perspective of someone who has a different life purpose. But you can kind of understand the other person because in the intermediate steps, you can act almost exactly like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

No. Black Box Fallacy.

---

Actually, what I said isn't an example of the "black box fallacy." What I was referring to was the fact that you said that as intermediate steps, a Te-oriented person also makes subjective inferences, and a Ti-oriented person also considers and cites objective evidence...and more specifically, the quote you mentioned by Jung that makes this even more clear..."It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. "

In other words, essentially, a Ti-oriented person "does Te," and a Te-oriented person "does Ti" sometimes.

You might say that the intermediate steps "don't matter," but that's just your evaluation of their relative importance. If someone does something, it probably matters to that person to some degree.

The "black box fallacy" would be if I had said that because a person of one type can parrot the external behavior of another type, or can arrive at similar conclusions (but in a different way), then the person can have an inner understanding of or empathy with the other person.

But that's not at all what I was saying.

It's interesting that you cite an article which is arguing that even if computer programs can pass the "Turing Test," that doesn't mean they have human intelligence. The issue there is that it's talking about two obviously different things: computers and humans.

But here, we're talking about one thing...humans. Jung came up with a hypothesis that humans are differentiated to some degree, although it's not 100% clear to what degree he saw this differentiation as absolute. You can have a "strict" model where people of different types are completely and utterly different, or you can have a less strict model where types are just vague tendencies, matters of degree, and relatively fluid. But in any case, it's just a hypothesis.

The simplest explanation is that people are mostly alike, because they're human. We acknowledge that there appear to be differences between how different people behave. But the idea that people are hard-wired such that a Ti-oriented person can't experience Te, and vice versa would certainly need some hard evidence in order to merit acceptance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

You seem to be assuming that if people don't agree with something, they must not understand it.

---

Cuz they don't.

---

:thumbsup:

Ashton's problem is that he insists that the way he sees "values" equates closer, "phenomenologically," to what he thinks of as "using" a function. In reality he's just being a stubborn ass by sneakily arguing semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The simplest explanation is that people are mostly alike, because they're human. We acknowledge that there appear to be differences between how different people behave. But the idea that people are hard-wired such that a Ti-oriented person can't experience Te, and vice versa would certainly need some hard evidence in order to merit acceptance.

---

Which is exactly what he was saying, so idk where your reply actually disagreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The simplest explanation is that people are mostly alike, because they're human. We acknowledge that there appear to be differences between how different people behave. But the idea that people are hard-wired such that a Ti-oriented person can't experience Te, and vice versa would certainly need some hard evidence in order to merit acceptance.

---

Which is exactly what he was saying, so idk where your reply actually disagreed.

---

Maybe we agree more than it appears; maybe it's just arguing over semantics. But I was saying that because people use both Ti and Te, both can have some (albeit imperfect) first-hand experience of the perspective of the other type. And Ashton said I was making a "black box" fallacy in saying so. That's all. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Actually, what I said isn't an example of the "black box fallacy."

---

Yeah it was, because you're making assumptions that you're not observationally privy to, and attempting to reverse-engineer claims about their operation.

---

Well, in the same sense that we all make the "black box fallacy" when we assume that other people actually exist and that we're not just witnessing a computerized facade that makes it appear that the things that happen around us real.

It's an assumption, but I think it's a useful one, to assume that it is real, and that other people exist, and that when they act in similar ways to ways that we sometimes act, they have underlying internal processes somewhat similar to our own.

It may not be true, but the alternative is that we're living in the Matrix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Your entire premise rests on the assumption that 'subjective inference' = Ti and 'objective evidence' = Te.

They don't, now stop.

---

Actually, you're the one who used those terms for Ti and Te. My premise that people use both is not dependent on those terms at all. In fact, I would probably describe Ti and Te differently, but I was discussing based on what you had said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

:Te:: ↪ objective evidence → [subjective inference → objective evidence → subjective inference → subjective inference…] ⇒ judgment.
:Ti:: ↪ subjective inference → [objective evidence → objective evidence → subjective inference → objective evidence…] ⇒ judgment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

:doh: No, I did use those terms for Ti and Te—you're misunderstanding.

---

You mean you didn't? See why someone might misinterpret what you're saying? :) I understand very well that thinking is a process; it's not equivalent to an isolated example of evidence or inference. I've made that point many times.

However, the issue here is, your very own explanation of Ti and Te in this thread shows how similar they are in so many steps. The only difference according to your schematic is their starting point, and they both have intermediary steps of the same "type" as the starting point of the other one. It's right there in your post. And even if you decided you didn't agree with what you posted anymore, it's also implied in the Jung quote that an introverted thinker may be temporarily "preoccupied with concrete objects." That is not to say that a Ti thinker can represent the Te thought-process in its entirety...simply that they use the same kinds of steps.

It's like this:

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1....
Can never be
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0....
no matter how many digits are added to the right...
because the first started with a 0, and the second started with a 1.

However (by way of analogy), if one gets to know both 0s and 1s, one will have a general idea of the other sequence.

Anyhow, I guess whatever you meant in your schematic, I'll continue to agree with Augusta that people use both functions, and you'll probably continue to believe that this is impossible....probably because of the semantic distinction Gilly was talking about. It doesn't look as if either of us will be able to convince the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

3. As we know, Jung's Introverted Thinking describes an Introverted type with an Ego Logic.

---

Wrong. He specifically refers to the "Introverting Thinking Type" as an "Introverted Rational Type".

He concludes each section of chapter X with "Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types, Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types, etc."

When he refers to the Introverted Thinking Type he is referring to the type who is an introvert with the thinking function dominant. He further clarifies this by referring to the introverted thinking type as a rational type. So, he means a Ti Dominant type, not an IXTX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion

Wrong. He specifically refers to the "Introverting Thinking Type" as an "Introverted Rational Type".

He concludes each section of chapter X with "Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types, Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types, etc."

When he refers to the Introverted Thinking Type he is referring to the type who is an introvert with the thinking function dominant. He further clarifies this by referring to the introverted thinking type as a rational type. So, he means a Ti Dominant type, not an IXTX.

---

Watch out if you keep pointing this out against all odds there might be a forum wide consensus that the Fi information element is also rational. That would fly in the face of commonly held wisdom where F is commonly given random, inexplicable behaviours such as 'I feel this okay, and I'm an F type thats my excuse' et cetera.

This type of identification isn't right if Jung is the reference. F has some 'rational' deduction behind it just as T has, but it is driven by observed momentum and instinctual deduction rather than logical deduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

Watch out if you keep pointing this out against all odds there might be a forum wide consensus that the Fi information element is also rational. That would fly in the face of commonly held wisdom where F is commonly given random, inexplicable behaviours such as 'I feel this okay, and I'm an F type thats my excuse' et cetera.

This type of identification isn't right if Jung is the reference. F has some 'rational' deduction behind it just as T has, but it is driven by observed momentum and instinctual deduction rather than logical deduction.

---

*bites*

"i feel this okay" - what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lungs

"i feel this okay" - what?

---

The explanation I seem to be told frequently for 'why feelers do things'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

The explanation I seem to be told frequently for 'why feelers do things'.

---

what kind of explanation would be more in line with theory?

ethical functions can be a little more sophisticated than "i feel i do carnal rah rah" but in and of itself behaving in accordance with guiding feelings isn't something i would describe as random and inexplicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

The explanation I seem to be told frequently for 'why feelers do things'.

---

Well, since you're an ethical type Jim and just itching to tell everyone why they do what they do, why don't you give a complete expository on how you work. Btw, I don't think you know what rational means in the context of functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Well, since you're an ethical type Jim and just itching to tell everyone why they do what they do, why don't you give a complete expository on how you work. Btw, I don't think you know what rational means in the context of functions.

---

Well, since you know enough to never offer your own opinion perhaps you should tell us all of your amazing knowledge shouldn't you pumpkin? ;)

Do you disagree with Sharp?

Thinking, as a function of logical discrimination, is rational (judging). So is feeling, which as a way of evaluating our likes and dislikes can be quite as discriminating as thinking. Thinking and feeling are called rational because both are based on a reflective, linear process that coalesces in to a particular judgment. - Page 13

And further on...

As a subjective process, it may be quite independent of external stimuli. In Jung's view it is a rational function, like thinking, in that it is decisively influenced not by perception (as are the functions of sensation and intuition) but by reflection.

In everyday usage, feeling is often confused with emotion. The latter, more appropriately called affect, is the result of an activated complex. Feeling not contaminated by affect can be quite cold.

Moreover from The Collected Works of Jung, Book 6, par. 725:

Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lungs

what kind of explanation would be more in line with theory?

ethical functions can be a little more sophisticated than "i feel i do carnal rah rah" but in and of itself behaving in accordance with guiding feelings isn't something i would describe as random and inexplicable.

---

I think they are extremely sophisticated functions, often pulling on analogues of experience and using benchmarks to deduce reasoning, the idea that I had after reading Jung roughly followed as: When I tried talking to someone before the result was poor, so I'm going to try this because it is a clear alternative which appeals to the motivation of the other party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felafel

@squark: he called you pumpkin:o

---

And here's little hurt feelings princess; another glorious member with no opinion on psychology but plenty of viewpoints on what people should do and what they should say.

So what are your viewpoints on the thinking function as described by Jung, do you even have a viewpoint? Perhaps you have someone else's opinion you can regurgitate?

It would be nice if you could prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felafel

:lol:

---

:lol: exactly - you have nothing and you are not to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felafel

@squark: he called you pumpkin:o

---

heh, yep, he did. I know what he's trying to do - it's funny to me, and won't work. But mine worked. hehehehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

heh, yep, he did. I know what he's trying to do - it's funny to me, and won't work. But mine worked. hehehehe

---

Another notably incompetent hero who couldn't even rise to the challenge of stating what they thought about the topic. One would at least assume an individual with extraverted thinking in their creative position would at least have a source they could draw on. So far you don't have shit to contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

Another notably incompetent hero who couldn't even rise to the challenge of stating what they thought about the topic. This is not thinking cognition in the Jungian lexicon.

---

My thoughts on the topic are littered all over the forum. If you're that interested - go look them up. If you'd like to ask me a direct question, you may also go that route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

Do you disagree with Sharp?

---

@squark derp, direct question in post 41. Yes or No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

@squark derp, direct question in post 41. Yes or No.

---

Do I agree that rational functions are evaluatory? Of course. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand the limitations? Do you understand the difference between how Fi makes evaluations and their criteria and Ti? What does internal statics of objects mean to you, and what makes you think that anyone is forgetting its rationality? :D Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Do I agree that rational functions are evaluatory? Of course. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand the limitations? Do you understand the difference between how Fi makes evaluations and their criteria and Ti? What does internal statics of objects mean to you, and what makes you think that anyone is forgetting its rationality? :D Have fun.

---

So you can't quote Sharp's Jungian Lexicon and nor can you provide a different source, valid examples could have included, but are not limited to: Sharps Collected Works of Jung or Psychological Types to add weight to your original complaint.

The origin of this is clear: You specifically aimed to critique a reply which expanded upon a post made by ArchonAlarion which is directly discussing Carl Jung's Psychological Types and also that I made the post. I shall elaborate how this is apparent.

You misconstrued two points, one that the discussion was about Socionics hence you lent on the crux of internal statics of objects in your refutation which is never mentioned by Carl Jung at all as Socionics is a later model and also the fact that I made the post because you had no complaint about ArchonAlarion's.

Still you haven't explained a single viewpoint you hold in any depth because you are afraid of honest and direct critique.

There are three options which you can choose, in the first you can come prepared to such grand declarations and prove me wrong (not hard to do), second, you could not come prepared and lose face again. There is a third action, you could save time and choose to ignore my posts if you don't think they have value to you. I will not be offended, this would be a beneficial outcome to me and I would be happy to respect that.

Dude, I summarized the thing into a single word, and answered the only question you asked me. Now it's your turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Dude, I summarized the thing into a single word, and answered the only question you asked me. Now it's your turn.

---

You have neither answered if you agree with Sharp's Jung Lexicon nor answered in a single word...

Seriously? :lol: You must be putting this on, I didn't think you were this paper thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

You have neither answered if you agree with Sharp's Jung Lexicon nor answered in a single word...

Seriously? :lol: You must be putting this on, I didn't think you were this paper thin.

---

Actually, I did summarize what he said into a single word and answered your question. Read what I wrote, it's there.

And you're going to keep up with your usual handful of tricks: evasion, strawmen, baiting through attempts at condescension and minor insults, anything but a direct answer. So, I'm stepping out of this silly game now. If you'd like to answer the questions I asked you, knock yourself out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

knock yourself out.

---

Literally, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thePirate

Literally, please.

---

Lol.

What have I done?

*Never necro...*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion

Wrong. He specifically refers to the "Introverting Thinking Type" as an "Introverted Rational Type".

He concludes each section of chapter X with "Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types, Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types, etc."

When he refers to the Introverted Thinking Type he is referring to the type who is an introvert with the thinking function dominant. He further clarifies this by referring to the introverted thinking type as a rational type. So, he means a Ti Dominant type, not an IXTX.

---

It is easy to make that mistake. Ti as a standalone function does not exist in Jung's work, as Introversion is a block attitude, so we can in no way tell that. Now, we might believe that no matter how one would look at the relation between Introversion and Thinking, whether they make part of the same function or not, we get the same thing, right? This is not the case, though.

Jung describes the Rational types and Irrational types are dominated by the respective functions and attitudes, but only because of that reason. Jung believes that "irrational" and "rational" functions are in contradiction with each other, this is why he does explicitly say that he treats them separately. That is it. In his "Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types" tells us just that he treated only the types having Thinking as Principal function and a Introverted attitude. I was very well aware he was not describing IXTx but IXTj. This is another aspect of differentiation of the way Socionics defines the p/j distintion compared to Jung: in Socionics, a Logic/Ethic is not a "rational" function, contradicting the other, "irrational" functions; these attitudes emerge solely by the positioning of these j and p information elements and they work perfectly together (in fact a Ji is inseparable from one of the two Pe, and the other way around in both manners). If we assign the rationality on Ti, for example, we would have to admit, the same way Jung did, that the two functions in a block are contradictory, which is not the case in Socionics. in fact we know from the relationship descriptions in Socionics that many Irrationals go very well with many Rationals and the other way around - there are some better relations betwen Irrationals and Rationals than between some between types in the same class.

In a nutshell, in Socionics, orientation (Bodies/Fields) is not separable from a function (or IE) while Cyclotymy/Schizotymy is merely emerging from the nature of the IE as Base function, also the Extroversion depends solely on the orientation of Base. In Jung, Perception or Judgment are traits that go with the functions, while the Extroversion is an pan-block attitude.


Makes sense? I can see how hard it is to read this argumentation for someone who does not have the full schema of reasons in mind, but I don't have the time to restructure and reformulate. Just me know if anything needs clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfckr

Apparently you overlooked the last section of Chapter X in Jung's Psychological Types

---

That is chapter XI. This is where Jung explained his multi-function model and made the opinion of scores of schoolars which does not match this alleged Jungian model I only heard of on this forum.

In my opinion you misinterpret what is writen there, Like I said, Jung assigns the Rational/Irrational on these "information elements", Thinking and Feeling are Rational by themselves, not only when put on the Principal function. He tells about their contradiction with the other two functions here:

Quote:

---

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.

---

That view is not applicable to Socionics. There are only two strict necessities (if and only if) for forming a block:
- one function has to be empirical, the other mental (bodies VS fields)
- both have to be either dynamic or static

The attitudes are given solely by the way the leading function is set-up:
- T or F => Schizotym (so-called Rational)
- S or N => Cyclotym (Irrational)
- Bodies => Extroverted
- Fields => Introverted