is this Ti/Ni differentiation valid?
copied from the philosophy thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
:Ti: + :Ni: start from different points, but can make similar conclusions (though some are quite different). Also, particular schools of philosophy aren't going to have people of the same type anyway.
:Ti: goes from 'I think, therefore I am' - if a :Ti: type can be certain of anything, it is when it makes a thought about something at a given moment, that thought is genuine, even if nothing else is. From there, :Ti: types build a framework of knowledge on this, which they hold to be more valid than anything else (otherwise it is replaced).
:Ni: seems to be 'the universe is here, therefore I also possibly exist'. So, :Ni: types see themselves as a small cog in the running of the universe - they see everything as predetermined by 'universal' laws - the individual is a minor part in this.
:Ti: types see nothing as truly knowable outside their own experience - while INTps are limited by universal laws, INTjs are limited by local\internal laws.
Both INTps + INTjs can become convince of an idea (become religious etc.), but for different reasons. INTjs might see a supreme being as the only possible cause of their internal, personal thinking, whereas INTps might consider that laws as universal as the universe itself could only have been created by a supreme being. So both types can be 'delusional'. But INTps can seem like 'mystics' because they attempt to go locally experienced rules (or laws) to find the universal laws outside human experience - they go into the void. The universal laws, being universal must exist - but are not necessarily observable by mere mortals etc. etc.
do INTj/ps identify with their respective dominant functions here?
Re: is this Ti/Ni differentiation valid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
copied from the philosophy thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
:Ti: + :Ni: start from different points, but can make similar conclusions (though some are quite different). Also, particular schools of philosophy aren't going to have people of the same type anyway.
:Ti: goes from 'I think, therefore I am' - if a :Ti: type can be certain of anything, it is when it makes a thought about something at a given moment, that thought is genuine, even if nothing else is. From there, :Ti: types build a framework of knowledge on this, which they hold to be more valid than anything else (otherwise it is replaced).
:Ni: seems to be 'the universe is here, therefore I also possibly exist'. So, :Ni: types see themselves as a small cog in the running of the universe - they see everything as predetermined by 'universal' laws - the individual is a minor part in this.
:Ti: types see nothing as truly knowable outside their own experience - while INTps are limited by universal laws, INTjs are limited by local\internal laws.
Both INTps + INTjs can become convince of an idea (become religious etc.), but for different reasons. INTjs might see a supreme being as the only possible cause of their internal, personal thinking, whereas INTps might consider that laws as universal as the universe itself could only have been created by a supreme being. So both types can be 'delusional'. But INTps can seem like 'mystics' because they attempt to go locally experienced rules (or laws) to find the universal laws outside human experience - they go into the void. The universal laws, being universal must exist - but are not necessarily observable by mere mortals etc. etc.
do INTj/ps identify with their respective dominant functions here?
The descriptions here are symbolic of Socionic truths regarding these two functions. However, I also find them misleading. Because one is a perceiving function, and the other a judging function, you really can't compare them on the same terms. :Ni:-dominant types, both ILI and IEI, may use :Ti: also. Therefore, all these types may sometimes identify with the :Ti: description in certain circumstances.
I don't think all :Ni: types view themselves as a cog in a machine.
The basic point, that :Ti:'s thought is self justifying, and that :Ni: with :Te: seeks to discover "the way things really are," instead of just "dictating" reality, is valid.
Re: is this Ti/Ni differentiation valid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
do INTj/ps identify with their respective dominant functions here?
My comments on that in the Philosophy thread are based on the premise that we compare the types INTj and INTp. Jonathan's objection, that a judging function is contrasted with a perceiving function, is a valid one, and I'm not sure that we can explain all these differences in perspective with reference to just two functions.
The main difference in philosophical outlooks between INTjs (Subjectivists) and INTps (Objectivists) is, I think, primarily due to the difference between :Ti: and :Te: , not :Ti: and :Ni: , even though :Te: as a creative function is different from :Te: as an accepting function, and probably heavily influenced by :Ni: .
Immanuel Kant is an example of a :Ti: philosophical outlook, which focuses on the limits thinking, the limits of meaning. Such an approach often leads to anti-realist (more often called "Idealist" in philosophical terminology) views on reality, that is also often linked with relativism in one or several areas.
Karl Popper is an example of a :Te: philosophical outlook, which focuses on solving philosophical problems. It focuses on truth instead of meaning, which it sees as secondary. (In the :Ti: perspective one cannot pose questions of truth until the question of meaning is addressed and answered.) The :Te: approach usually leads to realist views on reality.
The difference between Realism and Idealism (anti-realism) can roughly be explained as the difference between the belief that the world has a structure in itself (with or without us knowing it) and the belief that it is due to our language (or our way of thinking) that the world can be said to have a structure. (Notice the phrase "can be said" -- meaning) The world's "structure" (and therefore also any question of truth) is dependent on us (our thinking categories, our "language games", our culture, or some other framework) in the :Ti: perspective.
The :Te: attitude towards philosophical problems is usually more serious (and Serious too, I think) than the :Ti: attitude. According to a :Te: philosopher like Popper, philosophical problems are genuine problems that we should try to solve (which means finding the true answers to them). If Wittgenstein is an INTj (as Rick thinks) he is a good example of a more "Merry" attitude, where philosophical problems are seen as confusions due to a misuse of ordinary language. The problems should not be solved but rather dissolved, when we realize that we are mislead by our own thinking. Such a "Merry" attitude is of course less interested in questions of Truth than in questions of Meaning.
Re: is this Ti/Ni differentiation valid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
The difference between Realism and Idealism (anti-realism) can roughly be explained as the difference between the belief that the world has a structure in itself (with or without us knowing it) and the belief that it is due to our language (or our way of thinking) that the world can be said to have a structure. (Notice the phrase "can be said" -- meaning) The world's "structure" (and therefore also any question of truth) is dependent on us (our thinking categories, our "language games", our culture, or some other framework) in the :Ti: perspective.
The :Te: attitude towards philosophical problems is usually more serious (and Serious too, I think) than the :Ti: attitude. According to a :Te: philosopher like Popper, philosophical problems are genuine problems that we should try to solve (which means finding the true answers to them). If Wittgenstein is an INTj (as Rick thinks) he is a good example of a more "Merry" attitude, where philosophical problems are seen as confusions due to a misuse of ordinary language. The problems should not be solved but rather dissolved, when we realize that we are mislead by our own thinking. Such a "Merry" attitude is of course less interested in questions of Truth than in questions of Meaning.
I agree with your analysis on how the functions would relate to different approaches. :Te: thinking is clearly more problem-solving focused, whereas :Ti: thinking seems more like syntactical analysis.
However, one might get the impression from this that people of the different types approach the same questions in these different ways, because of their type. That leaves out the complicating issue of appropriateness.
For example, some questions lend themselves to being seen as matters to be solved concerning external reality. Socionics is a good example. When Augusta wrote about Socionics, she didn't see it as merely a syntactic problem; it's clear she was trying to understand how things actually work. Similarly, Tcaud, who people tend to accept as LII, has been grappling with solving real problems regarding attempting to type people he's met who he thinks don't fit into the system without some sort of modification.
On the other hand, in the case of some matters in philosophy, "dissolving" the questions is probably the correct approach. There probably are some paradoxes that are actually confusions based on how people are thinking about the situation. In this case, defining things clearly may help resolve the problem.
Socrates, who a number of Socionists feel is ILI (though some forum members here seem to lean toward LIE...still Gamma), tended to ask clarifying questions that probed how people were thinking of a problem. Often, the other person in the dialog had a sense of certainty about an issue, and Socrates showed that situation was more ambiguous than the other person thought (one case for Socrates being an irrational type, although maybe this is a case for crea-Ni too). He did this by getting into definitions of terms.
In the cases encountered in Plato's dialogues, focusing on how people are defining things was the correct and appropriate approach, because the problem was that people hadn't properly analyzed the source of their convictions.
So, while in your theory,your distinction makes sense, in practice, it's a little more complicated.
One other interesting thing that seems related. In another thread, Slava suggested that Te rather than Ti may be more inclined to focusing on syntactic manipulation. I know juxtaposing this may seem like a leap (I don't have to time to get much into the connection/implications right now). It just suggests that sometimes ones intuition on which one is which (Te vs. Ti) may be thrown off depending on one's vantage point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Thats sorta similar to how Te types use systems and dont examine nor care how the internal components inside of it make it do what it does. And how Ti types need to know the components of a system to be able to string it together. Ti would then understand the internal working of the system and coul then modify it so that it has the same functionality, while the Te types only modify that which is external to the components they are presented (wich have subsystems)... its probably the same with Se vs Si
So if I care about how things work...e.g., if I always insisted on proving everything in math class and hated to memorize formulas....then I must be a :Ti: type?
:Te: types don't care about how anything works?
Well it depends what frame of reference you look at it from. From the Ti frame of reference we see a box with components inside but we want to see the essence of that box so that we can connect other boxes to it at the lowest levels instead of at the highest abstraction levels. I'm sure Te sees it the same exact way, however what is highest level for Te is lowest level for Ti. So when you are talking about math, you are dealing with terms that are defined by a stack of other terms and thus the symbolic manipulation and replacement would be more of a Te thing. Where as Ti would memorize the forumlas and use them as tools.