Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Te/Fi in the context of economics

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Te/Fi in the context of economics

    I was in a politics tutorial today, and we were discussing the economists who involve themselves in political thought in some way or another, such as Hayek and Nozick. I realised how perfectly the pursuit of the economist characterises Te. There's a complete disregard for anything that is ineffective or inefficient, and the whole concept of economics is completely action-orientated. And this is just why it needs Fi. Fi is the opposite of economics, effectiveness regardless of morality and the like. It introduces the notion of morality, forcing the Te to consider such phenomena as the environment and other human beings. Political philosophy is about creating an ideal system by which to live from a moral standpoint, and effective action gives little concern to this. And this is precisely why Te and Fi work so well with one another.

  2. #2
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,084
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I was in a politics tutorial today, and we were discussing the economists who involve themselves in political thought in some way or another, such as Hayek and Nozick. I realised how perfectly the pursuit of the economist characterises Te. There's a complete disregard for anything that is ineffective or inefficient, and the whole concept of economics is completely action-orientated. And this is just why it needs Fi. Fi is the opposite of economics, effectiveness regardless of morality and the like. It introduces the notion of morality, forcing the Te to consider such phenomena as the environment and other human beings. Political philosophy is about creating an ideal system by which to live from a moral standpoint, and effective action gives little concern to this. And this is precisely why Te and Fi work so well with one another.
    Um, Economics is a -Ti/+Te subject. Will you please for the love of anything sacred quit saying that ENTjs are economical? There is not a single socionics type description that says this. All the descriptions have the ENTj as being risk taking and prediction oriented. They know how to play the market and take big risks. They in no way are "economical" or care about economics. If you think you are an ENTj and you consider yourself economical, reconsider. You are probably ESTj.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  3. #3
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yo, Ez. Should this explain why I thought my economics classes missed the point completely?

    Seriously though, I don't know if I could ever motivate myself to a knowledge of economics. It's just so damn impersonal! F U numbers!

    Edit: And graphs!!!1!1!!
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Economics in general is certainly a discipline -- Ezra is perfectly right about that. Hayek is a thinker, Milton Friedman is a thinker, game theorists are usually thinkers, etc. That is not the same thing as saying that types tend to be economical, of course. They certainly tend to be risk taking and market oriented as hitta says, much more so than types. So, where do you contradict each other?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Should this explain why I thought my economics classes missed the point completely?
    Why did you think that?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    Rick has Greenspan and Soros listed as ENTp's. Perhaps they aren't career economists, but Levitt is and Rick has him listed ENTp too. Karl Marx was an economist of sorts and he is frequently typed ENTp (and a good counterexample against normative/"ethical" economics necessarily being more Fi than Ti.)
    At least Marx is proving the point, because he had a different perspective than the perspective that is typical of those who understand economics correctly. Marx was, and still is, totally wrong.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    In any case, I mentioned Marx mostly to address the normative/ethical issue.
    Can you elaborate on that? What are you getting at?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    As an example, though not quite "economic" but closely related since it involves the concept of "utility" - I think Peter Singer when developing his normative ideas uses Ti in addition to Te and Fi[/typo]. I think Ezra's comments on Fi were too simple.
    What does that have to do with Karl Marx? And can we agree that Peter Singer is an INTp?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    Karl Marx used Ti to formulate normative constraints. Singer as a utilitarian ethicist also formulate normative constraints. Singer's ethics - though based on significant amounts of Te (I agree with an INTp typing for Singer) - employ Ti too.

    Ti may act as a moralizing force in merry quadras. The original post seems to imply that Fi alone does so in serious quadras. But with Singer I am trying to demonstrate - Te in practice isn't necessarily so ethically blind.

    Considered togeather with Marx, another conclusion may be that economics itself is not so ethically blind. (Consider the subject of welfare economics and the different utility maxims economists have come up with.)
    I don't know how to determine the truth of your theoretical explanations here, but I don't disagree with what you say; it is compatible with my empirical observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    While I may agree that among the most prominent economists can be easily found some nondubious representatives of the Ti-Fe axis, I would call the bunk of nowadays' economics - both research and practice - to be extremely centered on gamma NT's.
    And I completely agree with that too.

    We seem to have an uncommon kind of consensus here. That doesn't seem to happen too often on this forum, so I find it interesting.

    Perhaps even more interesting is that even though you, hitta, seem to think that we disagree in content and not just in words, I am not sure that is the case. On many things you say, I can't really find anything substantial that I clearly disagree with. You seem to be talking from an almost purely theoretical position, and you don't seem to have compared what you claim with reality. You seem to link some of your theoretical statements/descriptions with the wrong pieces of empirical reality, but it is hard to tell for sure, because you are so reluctant to discuss real life examples of famous person's with a supposed specific type.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Gammas are not economical in the least bit, nor have I ever seen a description that said that they were. Gammas spend spend spend.
    Does that contradict anything I, or someone else, have said? In the practical sense of the word "economical" that you seem to be using here, I totally agree with you that INTjs are more "economical" in their behaviour than, for example, INTps. And I see that difference as in harmony with the differences between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra. INTjs are not risk takers, and they are reluctant to spend money.

    In fact, most of the Alphas I have met in real life have shown a contempt towards gambling, financial risk taking, and accentuated market oriented perspectives in general. They have tended to not like the spirit of capitalism, and they have tended not to understand what I regard as the underlying mechanisms of a free market economy, which I strongly associate with Gamma. Personally, I also associate this Gamma perspective with game theory, Darwinism, socio-biology, empiricism, and a -based view on science in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Phaedrus, you are not INTp, you are probably INTj, quit kidding yourself.
    Many people have said that, but I still can't see any good reason why that could be even possible. It doesn't make sense to me, not even according to your criteria. According to your descriptions of the differences between INTjs and INTps, I seem to be an INTp even if I disregard my own criticism of some of your statements in your INTj and INTp desriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Anyone that thinks that ENTjs are economical needs to review socionics type descriptions. ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions. Economical types are Alphas and Deltas. I am 100% certain I am correct, as well as I am 100% certain that the majority of the Russian socionists are correct on this.
    I agree with that. But isn't it obvious that this is no argument against what I, ifmd95, or FDG have said? As FDG correctly put it: being economical does not equal being economical -- surely you must agree with that logical distinction and its relevance in this context?

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Economics is a -Ti/+Te field. -Ti/+Te is about analyticalness, reducing expenditure, being fundamentally sound. Alphas and Deltas strive for everything to be sound, and economical. They analyze things exceptionally well.
    But still, you seem to confuse the concepts here. I don't understand why you do it. There is no need to.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    To say that Gammas also analyze things well is a logical fallacy, a myth. Alphas and Gammas are supposed to be polar opposites, hell they use the opposite functions(whether you look at Model A or B). Logically they have to be black and white to each other. Gammas use common sense "on the go" logic. It is dumb to keep talking about Gammas in the light that you are currently talking about them in, because it is logically impossible for them to be this way, they have to be different than Alphas otherwise what would be the point of types? So, do me a favor and everyone quit being stupid.... K?
    And you continue to view everything with your theoretical glasses on. When shall you start to check if your statements correspond with how these types are in real life? It's not impossible to do that, you know. There are many nearly indisputable examples of each type, whose attitudes and behaviours we can compare your theoretical predictions with.

    You can't know for sure that your interpretations of those theoretical descriptions are correct, if you never go out in the real world and observe real life examples of the types in action, or read about them in biographies etc. And we can't know for sure that you have misinterpreted the theory either, if you refuse to discuss things in relation to (famous) people that we both have typed and whose type(s) we both have a strong opinion about. You still have the chance to comment on some, or all, of the famous people I have suggested a cerain type for -- for example Peter Singer, whom I see as an almost uniquely clear example of an INTp.

  10. #10
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,084
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    I don't know how to determine the truth of your theoretical explanations here, but I don't disagree with what you say; it is compatible with my empirical observations.


    And I completely agree with that too.

    We seem to have an uncommon kind of consensus here. That doesn't seem to happen too often on this forum, so I find it interesting.

    Perhaps even more interesting is that even though you, hitta, seem to think that we disagree in content and not just in words, I am not sure that is the case. On many things you say, I can't really find anything substantial that I clearly disagree with. You seem to be talking from an almost purely theoretical position, and you don't seem to have compared what you claim with reality. You seem to link some of your theoretical statements/descriptions with the wrong pieces of empirical reality, but it is hard to tell for sure, because you are so reluctant to discuss real life examples of famous person's with a supposed specific type.


    Does that contradict anything I, or someone else, have said? In the practical sense of the word "economical" that you seem to be using here, I totally agree with you that INTjs are more "economical" in their behaviour than, for example, INTps. And I see that difference as in harmony with the differences between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra. INTjs are not risk takers, and they are reluctant to spend money.

    In fact, most of the Alphas I have met in real life have shown a contempt towards gambling, financial risk taking, and accentuated market oriented perspectives in general. They have tended to not like the spirit of capitalism, and they have tended not to understand what I regard as the underlying mechanisms of a free market economy, which I strongly associate with Gamma. Personally, I also associate this Gamma perspective with game theory, Darwinism, socio-biology, empiricism, and a -based view on science in general.


    Many people have said that, but I still can't see any good reason why that could be even possible. It doesn't make sense to me, not even according to your criteria. According to your descriptions of the differences between INTjs and INTps, I seem to be an INTp even if I disregard my own criticism of some of your statements in your INTj and INTp desriptions.


    I agree with that. But isn't it obvious that this is no argument against what I, ifmd95, or FDG have said? As FDG correctly put it: being economical does not equal being economical -- surely you must agree with that logical distinction and its relevance in this context?


    But still, you seem to confuse the concepts here. I don't understand why you do it. There is no need to.


    And you continue to view everything with your theoretical glasses on. When shall you start to check if your statements correspond with how these types are in real life? It's not impossible to do that, you know. There are many nearly indisputable examples of each type, whose attitudes and behaviours we can compare your theoretical predictions with.

    You can't know for sure that your interpretations of those theoretical descriptions are correct, if you never go out in the real world and observe real life examples of the types in action, or read about them in biographies etc. And we can't know for sure that you have misinterpreted the theory either, if you refuse to discuss things in relation to (famous) people that we both have typed and whose type(s) we both have a strong opinion about. You still have the chance to comment on some, or all, of the famous people I have suggested a cerain type for -- for example Peter Singer, whom I see as an almost uniquely clear example of an INTp.

    INTps aren't how you think they are, and I ain't viewing shit with my theoretical glasses. Read the damn type descriptions.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I may agree that among the most prominent economists can be easily found some nondubious representatives of the Ti-Fe axis, I would call the bunk of nowadays' economics - both research and practice - to be extremely centered on gamma NT's. When I speak about the "bulk" what I mean is

    http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.all.html

    Having read articles from many of these sources (some skimmed, I have to admit - wouldn't have had the time otherwise), I can attest to the rather striking fact that probably a percentage over 60 of these people are...ENTjs.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,084
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gammas are not economical in the least bit, nor have I ever seen a description that said that they were. Gammas spend spend spend. Phaedrus, you are not INTp, you are probably INTj, quit kidding yourself. Anyone that thinks that ENTjs are economical needs to review socionics type descriptions. ENTjs in socionics are portrayed as have good predictive ability, and tend to make risks based on their predictions. Economical types are Alphas and Deltas. I am 100% certain I am correct, as well as I am 100% certain that the majority of the Russian socionists are correct on this. Economics is a -Ti/+Te field. -Ti/+Te is about analyticalness, reducing expenditure, being fundamentally sound. Alphas and Deltas strive for everything to be sound, and economical. They analyze things exceptionally well. To say that Gammas also analyze things well is a logical fallacy, a myth. Alphas and Gammas are supposed to be polar opposites, hell they use the opposite functions(whether you look at Model A or B). Logically they have to be black and white to each other. Gammas use common sense "on the go" logic. It is dumb to keep talking about Gammas in the light that you are currently talking about them in, because it is logically impossible for them to be this way, they have to be different than Alphas otherwise what would be the point of types? So, do me a favor and everyone quit being stupid.... K?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •