Te & Ti

[Ezra]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

[aestrivex]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

wtf?

[Ms. Kensington]

oh boy. .. Isn't there a philosopher/philosophy and socionics thread somewhere?

[1981slater]

= being "clever"
= being "smart", intelligent

= to be a wealthy redneck
= ...

= to cheat, if necessary
= to be honest

[1981slater]

= "I want to win"
= "I want to be the best"

[Joy]

LOL

[implied]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

wtf?

+1. this seems off.

[Ms. Kensington]

Since Ti is concerned with the internal structure of things, it is as if it is independent from experience, although the structure can be acquired. Te is not concerned with this but needs input from the world of a dynamic nature, and that's why it appears to be linked to experience. But I agree that the description of the functions is not correct. As I've said before, it's as if a Ti type uses deductive strategy in an inductive world while a Te type seems to use inductive strategy in a deductive world. If that doesn't make sense, (or if i've got it mixed up) just take it as : Everyone uses both Ti and Te and neither is linked to a particular mode of logic in essence. I think.

Mode is a Ti keyword isnt it?

[Mea]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

wtf?

+1. this seems off.

+2. I agree.

[implied]

Since Ti is concerned with the internal structure of things, it is as if it is independent from experience, although the structure can be acquired. Te is not concerned with this but needs input from the world of a dynamic nature, and that's why it appears to be linked to experience. But I agree that the description of the functions is not correct. As I've said before, it's as if a Ti type uses deductive strategy in an inductive world while a Te type seems to use inductive strategy in a deductive world. If that doesn't make sense, (or if i've got it mixed up) just take it as : Everyone uses both Ti and Te and neither is linked to a particular mode of logic in essence. I think.

Mode is a Ti keyword isnt it?

i agree, but aren't there even dichotomies that address that this isn't directly linked to Ti/Te preference? like farsighted/careless, bla bla.

[Ms. Kensington]

maybe it's time for me to read up on dichotomies? For some reason osmosis seems to be my method of choice for learning !

[implied]

maybe it's time for me to read up on dichotomies? For some reason osmosis seems to be my method of choice for learning !

maybe not! i sort of think they're useless. only time i've ever done a dichotomies table successfully it gave me ENFp.

[Logos]

= to cheat, if necessary
= to be honest

Idiocy. of all function values outright honesty, and in any case to cheat is to violate . If is indeed a cheater's function, then what of socionics? You destroy it.


I don't think you know what you're talking about.

So it is social rules and etiquette!

[Logos]

= to cheat, if necessary
= to be honest

Idiocy. of all function values outright honesty, and in any case to cheat is to violate . If is indeed a cheater's function, then what of socionics? You destroy it.


I don't think you know what you're talking about.

So it is social rules and etiquette!

If etiquette demanded that one cheats -- it would still violate just as much.

Ah (he said haughtily), but would it violate or just your sense or value of ?

[Gilly]

to cheat is to violate

How so?

[Blaze]

[quote]

= to cheat, if necessary
= to be honest

what about Fi?

but what about naomi?

[munenori2]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

That's an interesting idea. Happen to know what type Freud might have fallen into? Looking at how he viewed the world compared to Jung, I would say that this breakdown (Freud as a strong Te valuer and Jung as a strong Ti valuer kind of fits). Also, I would agree that a lot of the philosophers I've read are INTjs, especially Kant and I would say Wittgenstein was as well. I don't know many of my fellow philosophy students very well so I won't try to make wild guesses about their types, but I've had a professor for a couple of classes that I'm fairly positive is an Alpha NT. It probably falls into the realm of pure speculation but most of my philosophy classes have had a pretty similar feel to them, the exception being a few Chinese/Eastern philosophy classes I've taken. I would almost say they had a more NF feel to them, though maybe that's me being biased because I connected more to the intention and direction of the material. Confucius and Mo Tzu had some pretty good stuff, but Chuang Tzu was the bomb. I despised the Legalists with a passion though...

[Logos]

@Logos and Gilly: Can bonds can be developed on anything less than honesty?

@imfd95: Of course there are times when Serious types are going to lie/etc., because this is the sort of thing you have to do sometimes, however:

-ego types tend to be uncomfortable about it and fervently wish it was not necessary.
-ego types seem to have a better idea of when it is "ok" to be dishonest (though mostly are not inclined to do so).

In the context of being very much about one's personal bonds and relationships, we see the -egos being typically too nervous about them to do anything to threaten them (much like their unwillingness to approach others -- even in the extratims (relative to other extratims)). types are obviously more confident about what they can do within the bounds of their relationship.

Dishonesty is also probably the worst thing for -- a saboteur.

Are you suggesting that dishonesty is more prevalent amongst / types, especially with good ole -Kant and his Categorical Imperatives or Rawls's Veil of Ignorance? And you never answered my question, and your response here seems to indicate that it is not so much a violation of , but your sense of .

[Logos]

No, though I am suggesting that they are relatively more comfortable with the idea than / types because of the lack of emphasis. Everyone uses every IM element, etc., and all relationships of one's own choice -- regardless of the types involved -- are built on ... and most people (I hope) are decent people, not inclined towards habitual dishonesty.

O RLY??? I'll repost here: What about good ole -Kant and his Categorical Imperatives or Rawls's Veil of Ignorance? And you never answered my question, and your response here seems to indicate that it is not so much a violation of , but your sense of . And does cheating necessarily break or violate bonds? Or are you merely projecting your values onto functions in an act of sanctification?

[Logos]

O RLY??? I'll repost here: What about good ole -Kant and his Categorical Imperatives or Rawls's Veil of Ignorance?

No, though I am suggesting that they are relatively more comfortable with the idea than / types because of the lack of emphasis. Everyone uses every IM element, etc., and all relationships of one's own choice -- regardless of the types involved -- are built on ... and most people (I hope) are decent people, not inclined towards habitual dishonesty.

has undoubtably more to gain from dishonesty, as ifmd95 suggested it may be necessary to preserve the mood or something to that effect.

And you never answered my question, and your response here seems to indicate that it is not so much a violation of , but your sense of . And does cheating necessarily break or violate bonds? Or are you merely projecting your values onto functions in an act of sanctification?

My statement was intended to be an answer but I guess I will try again --

bonds (i.e. relationships) cannot be built on anything less than honesty -- if it is not honest, then it at the very least changes the relationship -- instead of having a relationship with a person, both people have only a relationship with some imaginary thing you created. It sabotages -- violates -- your bond with that person.

I also value logical consistency but I'm not exactly going to pin that on my quadra values.

So you cannot conceive of an -dominant lying or cheating as a means of preserving the bonds in place? Can you not conceive why would be as potentially equal in its disdain for lying or is your bias of clouding your objective thinking? And the original word at hand was cheat, which does not seem to be tied necessarily with . So once more, is it that is being violated by lying, dishonesty, and cheating or is it your sense of ?

[Gilly]

@Logos and Gilly: Can bonds can be developed on anything less than honesty?

No, but you don't have an Fi bond with, say, work or a test that you're "cheating on."

[Ezra]

has undoubtably more to gain from dishonesty, as ifmd95 suggested it may be necessary to preserve the mood or something to that effect.

Thunder, that's not true at all. Honesty/dishonesty is an individual or situational thing. To say otherwise is like saying that all Se types are high school bullies; or all Ti types are more intelligent than ethical types. Ridiculous.

I know an ESFj who has hardly told a lie his entire life, and who candidly admits that he wouldn't be able to keep a straight, convincing face anyway; I know a delta NF who lies relatively frequently and convincingly, in situations where he believes it's "for the greater good". (That personally pisses me off because I think, "Who is he to determine what the 'greater good' is for everybody else?".)

The reasons/actions surrounding the honesty/dishonesty may be type-related; but honesty/dishonesty itself is a very individual/situational thing and can be expressed by all types.

I can understand where she's coming from, Carla.

I think although it may not be true, what she's implying is that a Te/Fi valuing type has no excuse to lie. Put a Te/Fi and a Fe/Ti in this favourite example of having a drink with an asshole. While the Fe-valuer would say "why not?", the Fi valuer would say "he's an asshole; why drink with an asshole?". Then the Ti-valuer says "because he's my sister's boyfriend, and he'll be married into the family soon", while the Te-valuer would say "I don't like him, therefore I won't drink with him. Simple as".

[Ezra]

I mean, really, if I thought Ti/Fe types were generally prone to lying I wouldn't be talking to any of you, would I?

I still don't understand. Why would a Te/Fi type have no excuse to lie (moreso than a Ti/Fe type)? Eg: The delta NF I know who lies because he believes it's "for the greater good". Different reasons for lying, perhaps yes, (as Ezra suggested) ... but having no excuse at all?[/quote]

Let me try something. Why does each type lie?

Ti-/Fe-valuing type

ESE To preserve the social mood (links in with 2w3, 3w2 social agenda)
SEI To get on and enjoy themselves (links in with 9 agenda)
ILE To make headway (a 7 thing)
LII To preserve the fact that their logic is infallible (links with the 5w6)

SLE To get what they want (8)
LSI To preserve (their) order (8, 1w9)
EIE To maintain/gain popularity and support (3w4, esp. politicians)
IEI To maintain their inner world and personal values, as well as their own mood (4)

Fi-/Te-valuing type

LSE I just couldn't see them needing to lie (It's a 1 thing; an honour thing)
EII For the greater good, as you said, Carla
IEE ''
SLI Same as LSE

LIE ?
ILI Again, ?
ESI Moralists; why would they lie?
SEE To get someone into bed (7w8)

Lying seems to be interlinked with Fe/Ti, because while I can think of a reason why every Fe/Ti type would lie, this applies to only a few Fi/Te types.

[Gilly]

The kind of "honor" you're talking about has nothing to do with valuing Fi/Te, and I'm not sure it applies to the general mindset of a Delta ST.

[Gilly]

Well, in general, you're basing these descriptions only on ego functions, despite the fact that Super-Id functions are more often thought of as a type''s "motivations."

[MysticSonic]

"I misread it before I bolded it actually. I think that Te/Fi as functions/IMEs/whatever have nothing to gain/everything to lose from dishonesty (though that might be desirable in some circumstances, who knows). Sorry about that, I was too quick to post."

Wow bullshit ITT

[Blaze]

yet another fucking example trying to diss Fe/Ti types. what a crock of shit this thread is.

thunder you don't think that every type, every quadra has the ability to twist reality and lie? give me a break.

[Logos]

Thunder, please just stop speaking in circles.

[Jonathan]

Idea:

Te is concerned with that which is a posteriori; what you know from experience. Ti is concerned with what is a priori; what you can know before you've experienced it. This is why so many philosophers are Alphas - they value Ti, and this, coupled with Ne, is the ideal.

Like most attempts to simplify IM Elements by mapping them to something else, this is incorrect.
Ni is also concerned with knowing things before having experienced them. That's why Ni is so often associated with making predictions.

[ScarlettLux]

Wow. Ezra. You have got to be kidding me. Shut up. Ti/Fe linked with lying and Te/Fi just not? I've been reading some of your posts lately and they are getting more and more ridiculous as your ego keeps growing. You talk as if you've been studying Socionics for your whole life (which is about as long as mine and that isn't very) and that you are Expat-in-training or something. The authoritative air with which you state your "findings" (that is what it comes across as, like you are attempting to make yourself appear that you are ZOMG the first person that ever thought of that brilliant idea which in reality is as old as Socionics molasses) ... ugh I can't stand it anymore.

Especially the other thread you just created regarding how find Socionics type .. something about points to consider? Oh my goodness, the damn irony of that is just unbelievable.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[UDP]

Threads like this.. I don't know. It seems like it is destroying the forum. People get offended, it is not really structured towards producing anything it seems. I have not read the whole thread, nor do I intend to, but it seems there have been a lot of threads like this lately. You have to question if the hyper analysis is really leading anywheres.

[UDP]

I could easily be wrong.

What have you actually gained from this thread? I am more than willing to acknowledge gains, if you have made them.

[Ezra]

Wow. Ezra. You have got to be kidding me. Shut up. Ti/Fe linked with lying and Te/Fi just not? I've been reading some of your posts lately and they are getting more and more ridiculous as your ego keeps growing. You talk as if you've been studying Socionics for your whole life (which is about as long as mine and that isn't very) and that you are Expat-in-training or something. The authoritative air with which you state your "findings" (that is what it comes across as, like you are attempting to make yourself appear that you are ZOMG the first person that ever thought of that brilliant idea which in reality is as old as Socionics molasses) ... ugh I can't stand it anymore.

Especially the other thread you just created regarding how find Socionics type .. something about points to consider? Oh my goodness, the damn irony of that is just unbelievable.

Enough of the drama, girl.

I'd say my ego has dropped incredibly in the last month.

[Gilly]