Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Beta Ti = reason

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Beta Ti = reason

    After reflection, I have observed that we most often use the word \"reason\" to describe movement towards or away from something. Given that Ti w/sensing (which I shorthand Ti(S)) observes movement, it would seem that the many \"flavors\" of movement which we are led to believe exist under the dual-type theory/parallel type theory/two-type theory/whatever are to be classified on basis of their roles as explanations for movement towards or away from something. For example, consider the weakening of the U.S. dollar. Weakening is of course a beta Se (Se(T)) phenomena, and money is gamma Te (Te(N)). What is the explanation given for the weakening? Time and time again, it is the movement of investors away from U.S. bonds on basis of reduced return on investment. (gamma Ni or Ni(T)) As the economic outlook clouds, investors move elsewhere. This is why ISTj is a strategist: to avert economic defeat, an LSI-LIE would reason, it is necessary to pump money into the dollar and therefore increase the rate of return. This in turn will draw investors back to U.S. bonds.

  2. #2
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You've described how an ISTj-ENTj would reason... but couldn't every element similarly be a reason for something?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes but, in the Ti(S) case there is no other way to cognize of the variations. Honestly, Ti(N) types don\'t usually think in terms of reason, do we? We think \"this person did this because she\'s like this\"; we try to get away from the reasons themselves... something that has a clear reason doesn\'t warrant our attention. ISTjs always ask, \"what is the reason?\" Other Betas do, too.

    It explains why Beta Ti is so dry.

  4. #4
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    449 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Yes but, in the Ti(S) case there is no other way to cognize of the variations. Honestly, Ti(N) types don\'t usually think in terms of reason, do we? We think \"this person did this because she\'s like this\"; we try to get away from the reasons themselves... something that has a clear reason doesn\'t warrant our attention. ISTjs always ask, \"what is the reason?\" Other Betas do, too.

    It explains why Beta Ti is so dry.
    Have you considered the effect that thinking has in a dialetic framework?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    Have you considered the effect that thinking has in a dialetic framework?
    What do you mean? Do you mean have I considered thinking at the EM level? Well it\\\\\\\'s apparently the effect that situation, even the existence of a thing has on something else.

    Consider hotelambush\\\'s case. He\\\'s a mathematically inclined LII, meaning he has an EM type of LIE. Functionally, Te(N):Ti(N) it would be variability: the quantitative nature of objects. This of course goes well with Ti(N):Te(N) mathematical laws. (I\'ll get back to you on how... tired)

  6. #6
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    449 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    What do you mean? Do you mean have I considered thinking at the EM level? Well it\\\\\\\'s apparently the effect that situation, even the existence of a thing has on something else.

    Consider hotelambush\\\'s case. He\\\'s a mathematically inclined LII, meaning he has an EM type of LIE. Functionally, Te(N):Ti(N) it would be variability: the quantitative nature of objects. This of course goes well with Ti(N):Te(N) mathematical laws. (I\'ll get back to you on how... tired)
    But what about the epistemological nature of quantitative assessment?

  7. #7
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    What do you mean? Do you mean have I considered thinking at the EM level? Well it\\\\\\\'s apparently the effect that situation, even the existence of a thing has on something else.

    Consider hotelambush\\\'s case. He\\\'s a mathematically inclined LII, meaning he has an EM type of LIE. Functionally, Te(N):Ti(N) it would be variability: the quantitative nature of objects. This of course goes well with Ti(N):Te(N) mathematical laws. (I\'ll get back to you on how... tired)
    Why all the backslashes?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

Posting Permissions

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