Yeah, posting that picture was my way of indicating doubt that your statement was true. I'm as prone to rabbit trails as the next guy. :wink: (May vary depending on who the next guy is. Women do not qualify for this comparison.)Originally Posted by Blaze
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
I remember times when I was trying to explain something, I give them a central concept in the explanation, they ask a question that falls within the realm of the central concept, I repeat the concept, they ask another related question, I repeat the concept. I guess I expect them to think of all the implications of that concept. Te types don't expect that, so it might seem like they're repeating unnecessary information, but they just don't look into the implications of a central concept as deeply, so to them they are just providing additional information and not repeating themselves. I know I'm repeating myself.
The saddest ESFj
...
I would say this goes beyond the realm of Te and Fe. Implications can involve multiple information elements, including perceiving ones *khemNikhem*.
Much of the time I ask people to repeat themselves in order to organize my thoughts when I am asked a question. I have been typed LII, and am inclined to agree with that conclusion. A particular type I see frequently mentioned in this thread that is said to repeat themselves is ESE, the dual of LII. I wonder if there could be any relation to this?
ESE repeating something gives the LII time to construct their ideas.
Would you prefer if I had said "logical implications" instead?
The saddest ESFj
...
No, Fe judges relevance to the argument. Ti judges logical consistency, which has nothing to do with relevance. Relevance is whether a piece of information matters. That is not a logic issue, it is a value issue. Maybe you're confused because it's atypical to think of Fe and Fi as mechanical processes the way I am showing you they are. Most people think of Fe and Fi in terms of the experience of the function, which means identifying the values themselves. What does Fi value? What does Fe value? Those are the questions people typically ask themselves when they think about Fi and Fe. But how do these values impact how we see new data? and how do these values form from raw data? How do these values work mechanically? Well, with Fe a system is determined to be either working or broken; a judgment which happens in degrees; and then new information is valued based on whether it complements or destabilizes the system at hand. Information which destabilizes the system at hand is irrelevant information. Information is irrelevant when it doesn't fully address the point. Irrelevant information is "bad" information. This is different from Tis ability to detect logical inconsistency, which focuses specifically on where the system contains contradictions and then aims to repair those flaws. This is not considering relevance, because it doesn't consider information outside the system at all. Fe is making judgments on new, external information where Ti is making judgments on the system itself. For Fe, whether a thing matters is determined by how it impacts the system. The word impact is basically synonymous with relevance.Depends on the sort of relevance.is better than
for judging relevance to an argument.
is probably the best function for determining what we care about in general, without it being clear what we're trying to do with it. Relevance is probably more a Ji thing than anything else, come to think of it - it depends on the thing's relation to whatever else. (Fi=what is relevant to me, Ti=what is relevant to the problem I'm trying to solve.)
By saying that relevance can occur in different contexts, you're really just saying that Fe can be thought of in terms of various functions. So you can have Fe in the context of Ti, Fe in the context of Te, Fe in the context of blah blah blah.
In conclusion, I am right. There is no question about that.
Why do you think Te types are always believing irrelevant information matters? It's because of their weak Fe function.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 03:52 AM.
i didn't say YOU draw straight lines. i said Ti draws straight lines.Ti cuts to the chase about logical consistency, different than the way Te meanders, depending on what's going on.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
messes up browsers.
Last edited by implied; 04-15-2010 at 01:53 AM.
[Insert metahumour here.]
Quaero Veritas.
No. Ti isn't just logical consistency, it can also determine what variables within a system are essential to reach a desired conclusion. If A then B, and B is the goal, then all that is necessary to get to B is A. C is irrelevant. That's logic. Fe has nothing to do with that.
Your arrogance is laughable. The irony is that this statement is redundant (you wouldn't write it if you think it is wrong) and thus weakens your position.
Why is it that ESEs have a reputation for being repetitive?
Depends on the sort of relevance.
Stan is not my real name.
Crazedrat I am very inclined to believe you on your assertion that that Te types say irrelevant shit thinking its relevant, however I'm in need of some examples outside my own experience. Are you sure it's just not the communication between Fe and Te that is flawed? In my own expirience I have to struggle translating my objections into Ti consistency things to point out irrelevancy to Te types because they suck ass at seeing what I mean.
You can't get a man on the moon with "straight" lines.
Now... since you have proven to me that you are not capable of reading and understanding the things I say, since I am just way above you, I demand that you no longer speak in this thread.
You are absolutely correct. They just plain suck at seeing meaning and relevance (Ti and Fe). And yes, I am sure. Look at my detailed explanation up there. That explanation shows in detail why this is the case. You want real life examples? All you really have to do is pop onto stickam and have a conversation with Ashton. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll start making a list on my desktop. I am titling it "Examples of Te types getting lost in irrelevant information". I am going to spend the next week recording things I notice into this document, and I will present my findings to this forum after that time is up. I guarantee you - the results will make it very clear - Te types can't identify relevant information if their lives depend on it.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 08:53 AM.
Hey! My Ti is 4d! That's as much as your dual's!Would you prefer if I had said "logical implications" instead?
I suppose you might mean different "implications" than I do, because ESEs aren't known for liking these - see Ni-PoLR; it's so obvious in some ESEs I know than I can't dismiss it as inaccurate, yet what you say seems to contradict it - unless we're talking of different things.
You know nothing of Te.
Both Te and Fe evaluate external information, while Ti and Fi make generalization about it rather than choose a specific piece. Except Te and Fe work with information differently. Te is objective evaluation, "what is relevant to this problem". Fe is subjective evaluation, "what is relevant to these people".
That's why Ti types often draw hasty conclusions - it's hard to argue their logic but unless they've really worked for a while on a topic, usually easy to find counterexamples. Te types on the other hand try to "become experts" on everything within ten minutes, and unless they become real experts on the subject, they'll say a lot of inconsistent things which are easy to point out.
Focusing on a detail is a trap many types fall into, not the least you, claiming it must be Fe because F deals with values the same way T deals with logic. Except the value of the information and the values you believe in are totally different things.
Last edited by Aiss; 04-14-2010 at 10:49 AM.
.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 10:08 AM.
Identifying the problem (where the system fails) is more in Ti domain, it's far-fetched consequences - Ni, what's the problem with the relationship - Fi, etc. You can't reduce it to one or even a few IEs. Each of them plays a part in what issues we focus on; each type is different in their tendencies, and these are still only tendencies.
All the time you spoke of "irrelevant information" meaning "irrelevant problems", then accused me of focusing on irrelevant information because I didn't guess what was important to you ("whether the problem itself is relevant"), but answered about the matter at hand (Te vs Fe and relevance of information).
This is the case of the same that I tried to illustrate with subjective vs objective comparison - Fe often focuses on personal relevance, which is why it takes things personally even if they weren't meant as such, while Te often focuses on practical relevance, relevance to objects, and tends to miss personal references.
This is because Te focuses on explicit, and Fe on implicit content, similarly to how Ni focuses on implicit, and Si on explicit consequences.
This was an example illustrating choosing specific vs general information (in socionics speak, bodies vs fields). I only spoke of Ti and Te types here. Yet you read it as referring to you personally - perceiving implicit information rather than explicit one. Which serves as a nice example to above comparison.On this subject I am an expert.
Edit:
I started writing a reply then walked away, so I only noticed what you added now.
This is Fe accusing Te of focusing on explicit meaning. Which is exactly what I said earlier. You're assuming your interpretation (implicit one) is better, because it's the one you use. All I said here is relevant to the matter of relevance; yet you insist it's meaningless, because you look for a different meaning, and don't see the one there is.This basic flaw in your interpretation of the meaning of the word relevance, and your natural attempt to reduce it to something meaningless actually clearly demonstrates how Te types struggle with relevance.
Last edited by Aiss; 04-14-2010 at 10:43 AM.
true. you need imagination for that (Ne)!! are you saying that i'm over-simplifying?
this thread is about repeating things...i'm simply saying that it's Ti that doesn't like redundancy. there's no need to continue to point out facts that have already been established. i'm saying that Ti sees simple facts as straightforward, that things that have already been established, there is no need to go over and over and over. that once something is said, it's been said. that there is a a lack of logic in being redundant.
redundant enough? lol
Last edited by Blaze; 04-14-2010 at 11:15 AM.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 12:45 PM.
You're wrong about what my point is.
You're focusing on an irrelevant detail to this discussion, which is my use of words "people" and "problems". It is a (vague) example what these functions are best at in real world; if you want to speak in purely theoretical terms, you can define Fe as "implicit interpretation of perceived content", and Te as "explicit interpretation of perceived content". That's my point. That's how I say "internal dynamics of objects" and "external dynamics of objects" work in communication.Problems was a word you came up with. And then you associated the word people with Fe. I originally explained myself in very clear terms using logic statements on the most mechanical level. These terms of yours only confuse the issue further by putting more meaningless boundaries on the functions which we have to further define. There is no reason people and problems can't be interchangable terms for Fe and Te. I tried to address this language problem you created by explaining to you the importance of a mechanical approach to analyzing functions, but I didn't get through to you, because you are still using this language like "problems" and "people", which has no place in a discussion on functions.
OK, if you have a problem with "practical relevance", use other terms. I see this one didn't convey my point well enough. I meant relevant to the situation, to what you're trying to do, not why.You are misusing the word relevance. Practical applicability is the correct phrase, not practical relevance. This is just you conveniently using the word relevance and then falling back on relativism. The phrase "practical relevance" pays no respect to the actual real world experience of relevance. The problem with relativism is it neglects real experience. It is an existentially meaningless concept which has to be avoided by any reality oriented person. When we make definitions, from now on, I want you to give them a real world basis. So, for starters, why don't you define what the meaningless phrase "practical relevance" is in real world terms? The truth is this phrase does not reflect the experience of reality at all, it's a mitigating phrase you're using to push the definition of relevance toward relativism and ultimate meaninglessness. Contrast with the phrase personal relevance - it has an instant meaning and real world application.
So you speak of what is relevant to you - this discussion. I speak of what is relevant *to* this discussion. That's the example of this other-relevance-which-is-not-actually-personal.So continuing talking about how meaningless your phrases are. I can think of a practical task I need to accomplish because it is personally relevant to me, and then I could try to construe this as naturally described as "practically relevant"; but I would know this is a stretch from the real definitions of the word. I can tell you immediately in one sentence what's personally relevant to me right now: this discussion. But in order for me to think about what is practically relevant to me, I have to actually twist the definition of relevant to incorporate the concept of applicability first.
Fair enough. Should have written Ti/Te-ego.No, it was actually an example of a language confusion, and any correlations and deeper meanings you've distilled from it are imagined. I skimmed over your term "Ti type" and immediately read it the way I use the term "Ti type" interchangeably with "Ti valuing type"; that is, a type with Ti in their quadra. That resulted in the misinterpretation of the paragraph.
Value judgments depend on the value system. Do you use the same value system when assessing a potential employee and a potential lover? Is the same information equally relevant in both cases?Again trying to make everything relative. The word relevance, on its most pure qualitative level, IS a value judgment.
Stan was quite right... but as apparently you'll only listen to my argument if I type it myself, I'll do so.
True, but it also isn't part of the decision as to what is relevant. It's how we got into the situation, not something that we're saying about the situation.(The underlined word above is an embedded value statement)
The lack of logic statements is basically the point; if something cannot be connected to the system, then it's irrelevant. That's how it works. If we add another logic statement, C→A, then C is relevant. But unless it has a way to affect the result, it isn't.
Consider this: you can't determine the irrelevance of something via
"Reaching B" is what other things are expected to be relevant to - the connection, as per Objects/Fields. Choosing this goal will likely have been done by an Xe function, but this is not a matter of relevance but of interest.
Aaand it looks like I'm contradicting Aiss, who considers Te and Fe the relevance-deciding functions. But whatever, I may or may not sort that out later.
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
Who are you to make demands? I demand that you go fuck yourself in front of a moving train.
OK, but that sort of value or personal relevance you're talking about I'd equate to Fi, not Fe.
(as for the rest, Brilliand does a better job of explaining it)
You can go ahead and keep telling yourself that you're better than everyone; it doesn't make it true.
The type of relevance you're talking about is extremely subjective. If you don't value Te you're obviously more inclined to see things Te types say as irrelevant, same with Fe.
Stan is not my real name.
Looking at it in this light, it may be that what Crazedrat means by relevance is simply "I do/don't care about that way of looking at things" which just makes it a matter of "do I value that function or not."
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
Looks like each of us is arguing our rational ego function is responsible for relevance. Which is probably true, as we interpret information with it, so in a way it defines relevance for us. Although I kind of think perceiving ones come into play as well. It's a big deal for ILI/LIE what's relevant in longer term, for example.
The way I see it, Te chooses relevant information and Ti draws conclusions. It's entirely possible I'm confusing my creative and demonstrative here, of course (especially since by dimensionality theory demonstrative is stronger), but I rather think Te deals with facts and Ti with generalizations/conclusions.
That makes sense. It's entirely possible thatand
Perceiving functions have some effect, though they might only influence the topic we choose, which affects the relevant/irrelevant decision indirectly.
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
There is alot of text, but this gets to the bottom of it all and is the most important issue.
This reply is just for novelties sake
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 08:17 PM.
relevant
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance
2 : proportional, relative
synonyms: relevant, germane, material, pertinent, apposite, applicable, apropos
Definitions 1a and 1b are consistent with my use of the word. This definition is relevant to this discussion, in 1b meaning. Do you mean 1c?
Also,
relevance
1 a : relation to the matter at hand b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence <giving relevance to college courses>
2 : the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user
That's exactly what I meant by saying you confuse relevance with values and beliefs. "Universal values" you speak of have nothing to do with "relevance". This is because relevance isn't universal; see meanings above. Things are or aren't relevant to other things; context is everything here.Value judgments depend on the value system. Do you use the same value system when assessing a potential employee and a potential lover? Is the same information equally relevant in both cases?
Do you believe in an ultimate reality which determines whether or not a thing is true? Or do you believe that personal perspectives endlessly define and redefine truth? You say value judgments depend on the value system - but if this argument is taken to its extreme there are no universal values. The things a person values in a lover compared with an employee share abstract similarities. This abstraction represents the persons universal values. There are specific, highly situational values, and then there are overarching, recurring values. Now, if you walk up to this person and ask them what things they value in people, they would list to you these universal values - they would not list off to specific traits they valued in one instance. In evaluating whether a thing is relevant we must at all times try to use ultimate reality as our standard for evaluation, and not delve into specific instances unless it has been justified. It is true Te considers information which is relevant to itself, like every function. But in terms of the most universal standard for relevance, Te does has problems considering relevant information.
I wouldn't care about sexual orientation of potential employee; in most if not all cases this information is completely irrelevant and not discussed in this context.
Yet when assessing a potential lover, this tiny bit of information can be a deal-breaker; it's not only relevant, but crucial.
Whether or not according to the person's universal values it's OK or evil/hell-deserving/whatever. It may affect the judgment in the above situations but still the difference will usually be there.
Universal values as such are usually connected with Fi and Ti, by the way.
You're telling me that relevance is only situational and cannot be thought of in a universal sense based on some very non philosophical dictionary definitions, but let's examine the implications of that claim. If there is no such thing as universal relevance this implies we can make no universal considerations. Barrack Obama, considering things universally, is more relevant than a redneck drinking beer on his couch. Tell me: why can't the matter at hand have universal implications? Let's assume the matter at hand can be a very important, universal matter. (Because it can). In this case any relevant information is more relevant than information deemed relevant to the redneck drinking beer. This allows for statements like "Te types are bad at considering relevant information"; relevant information has been given a universal context. I will make this concession: Te types can consider relevant information, it's just generally less relevant.
You are right, I am considering relevant synonymous with valuable. How about I say this:
Te types do not consider valuable information.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 09:08 PM.
I don't want to have the same argument about the word "valuable", although it has a broader meaning and works for what you mean. I think I got your point, and I kind of agree - see above about universal values. There are universal values I won't compromise on (or that's what I like to think about them), but I'm skeptical about placing them in a system, forming absolute truths.
Last edited by Aiss; 04-14-2010 at 09:15 PM.
Why on earth would it be "crazedrat says so"? Haven't I spent the last hour typing out replies to you?
When I talk about value, I'm not talking about beliefs or a value system - that is Fi. I'm literally talking about value - value as it pertains to a specific set of circumstances - a judgment on a things importance, bearing, significance, and relevance.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 09:31 PM.
I see you posted a good 10 minutes before my edit - I didn't see your reply, whatever it might have been, before editing, believe me.
So you mean it universally or pertaining to a specific set of circumstances? I'm getting lost. Which probably means it can actually be Fe.
Actually this "value" you're talking about now sounds an awful lot like. Imo the word "relevant" is way out of place being used for that, since that sort of value indeed has little to do with context.
Anyhow, it seems reduced to a language mix-up at this point (as far as the word "relevant" is concerned), and I'd like to leave it at that. Further discussion of the difference between
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
I found that odd too. It's a contradiction, not something related to your PoLR.
My guess is he isn't too sure what he means by "universal."
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
"
Ok thats pretty much exactly the problem I have with Te types and what I tend to see as "irrevelevant" or basically unhelpful as to solving my thought problems. That is the Te types do not give information relating to the logical chain of my thoughts, they give outlier, tangent information that prevents me from organizing my thoughts to reach a conclusion. It's just the way it is. That is it breaks up my thought process and is not good for me and prevents resolving of problems for my own use. I'm sure this is actually just another way of saying its socionics stupid!
I had Fe-egos telling me things to the effect of "don't confuse me more", or even accusing me of attempting to manipulate them. The way I see it they're looking for logic and explanations, not facts - as in, want their facts put together. Not sure if it's right, just how it seems from my POV."
Ok thats pretty much exactly the problem I have with Te types and what I tend to see as "irrevelevant" or basically unhelpful as to solving my thought problems. That is the Te types do not give information relating to the logical chain of my thoughts, they give outlier, tangent information that prevents me from organizing my thoughts to reach a conclusion. It's just the way it is. That is it breaks up my thought process and is not good for me and prevents resolving of problems for my own use. I'm sure this is actually just another way of saying its socionics stupid!
The value is a judgment on a particular set of circumstances. Circumstances can be either universal or specific, but the universal set of circumstances is a particular set of circumstances. I was using the word specific in place of the word particular here, and it was confusing. So there are two senses of the word specific being used - one which means smaller and less universal, the other which means particular, and unique. It was just a bad use of the word, the word particular is much better.
Part of the definition of relevance is the phrase "matter at hand". By discussing circumstances I am speaking directly to that.Actually this "value" you're talking about now sounds an awful lot like
There are language mix ups in this argument, but at its core it's a relativist avoiding absolute definitions. I have made no concession to relativism in this thread, and you've not even come close to addressing the issue.
OK, let's recap one more time and see if we can understand this.
Imagine I am a Te type and I am finding associated information on a given topic. The topic is tropical animals. So I start listing off random facts about tropical animals which I find on wikipedia. Now, you are telling me that these random facts are relevant to the topic of tropical animals. I agree this is true, ~if the topic of tropical animals is valued~. The insertion of the word relevant redefines how we think about tropical animals. It indicates the topic of tropical animals is now an ideal which is valued. You can find associated information on a topic which is valued, or a topic which is not valued. Now, you could rephrase this and describe these random facts associated with tropical animals in any number of ways. You could simply say the facts are connected to the topic of tropical animals. Are all things connected to a topic also relevant to a topic? No. If I ask ask a person to describe a crime to me, I don't want to hear about the music that was playing in the background while the crime occurred. That information is irrelevant, but it's connected. So the act of exploring facts and evidence does not inherently find relevance. This only happens if the facts are connected with a valued ideal. What I am telling you is that the topic of tropical animals may very well be irrelevant on a universal level. No one really cares about the details of tropical animals. Te types consistently explore topics which are irrelevant. They explore relevant ones too But the topics that Fe types choose are relevant, because their entire psyche is aimed toward discovering relevant topics.
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-14-2010 at 11:45 PM.
True either way. Here you're saying that A→B is false if A is false. No, it isn't; A being false would technically make it true, but more intuitively, the causal relationship is valid even if the cause hasn't happened.
Facts about tropical animals are relevant to the topic of tropical animals regardless of whether we care about that topic.
Here's the language mix-up: relevance does not imply caring, at least not when the topic is specified. The shortened statement "this is relevant" might sometimes indicate caring, but it doesn't always, as shown by the case of a person arguing a point just because the person they're arguing with is wrong, not because they care one whit about the actual topic.
Sherlock Holmes [typed LSE as I recall] would be interested (in the music at the scene of the crime).
I'll replace "relevance" with "importance" for this section. Importance is not determined solely by feeling functions -
Ah, but some people do! I don't know who, but this is the sort of topic that is dearly loved by a small minority. Of course, no one caring yet doesn't demonstrate that something is objectively not cared about (weird enough of a phrase as it is, but I'll go with it) - you have to prove that no one can ever care about it in order to prove that.
EDIT: My use of "objective" may be a bit unclear here. By an "objective" truth I mean something that is universal and unchanging.
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
It's not important to think about whether the person cares about the topic, that's too subtle to determine or even really think about. The value happens as the random facts about tropical animals become measured in terms of their relevance to the topic of tropical animals. The topic of tropical animals becomes valued by the mere act of using the word relevant; it's the value which determines relevance. In the example, the person is not free to investigate information outside the realm of tropical animals. Why is that? It's Tropical Animals is a value, and he's investigating information relevant to tropical animals.
Whether the person values tropical animals in a way isolated to investigating the topic or if it matters to them in the greater scheme of things is a different discussion which has nothing to do with whether tropical animals is a value.
I don't see how this represents what I'm saying at all.
No, I really only have to prove that the vast majority of people don't care - and that is actually exactly what I meant when I said "no one really cares about tropical animals". Clearly I realize there is someone who cares about it, but it's not a universal value and that's all that matters for this discussion.
this basically does not matter. what are you trying to suggest? are you trying to refute the concept of universal values? This argument doesn't accomplish that. It only shows that values occur in levels of importance. As far as I can tell this proves nothing in terms of the actual point of this discussion, maybe you can elaborate.
This example is based on terrible premises since every person uses every function throughout their lives. Giving complex examples involving real world people and then labeling them as particular types, observing behavior, and offering this as meaningful evidence for the behavior of the types dominant function - I am sure you see the flaw in doing that. What's more your argument is based on a language game where you compound functions on top of one another and imply this has meaning for the functions behavior in isolation. But I'm glad to see you using a value word like "Importance", which on its basic level is formulated by the value functions Fi and Fe.I'll replace "relevance" with "importance" for this section. Importance is not determined solely by feeling functions -
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-15-2010 at 02:29 AM.
First, if a Te type is researching tropical animals on wikipedia, it probably means they need to, for whatever reason. Granted, one might get sucked in by wikipedia and end up reading about a totally different thing... but there will be no random listing of the facts unless relevant to the topic of conversation. Te-base might be more likely to talk than Te-creative, but Te itself doesn't mean the constant need of communicating (something I rather connect with Fe-base, from my experience).
I totally agree with that. I hate it when someone tells the whole story including who was dressed how and where they met them and what was the food etc., all of which turns out to be totally irrelevant to the point, once they finally get to it.Are all things connected to a topic also relevant to a topic? No. If I ask ask a person to describe a crime to me, I don't want to hear about the music that was playing in the background while the crime occurred. That information is irrelevant, but it's connected. So the act of exploring facts and evidence does not inherently find relevance.
It's almost amusing that it's Fe-base types who subject me to this all the time. (And these are one of the typings I'm most sure about anyway, not made because of it.)
Now I disagree. You're again using relevance as relating to values, and not clear about whether these are personal (individual values), or universal values believed in by a group of people (which still doesn't make them objective; a lot of these systems contradict), or a valuable information as in one that can actually be useful.This only happens if the facts are connected with a valued ideal. What I am telling you is that the topic of tropical animals may very well be irrelevant on a universal level. No one really cares about the details of tropical animals. Te types consistently explore topics which are irrelevant. They explore relevant ones too But the topics that Fe types choose are relevant, because their entire psyche is aimed toward discovering relevant topics.
That you value something doesn't make it objectively valued.
My mother is ESE too. She gets extremely upset when I tell her that I understood the first time, doesn't matter how polite I'm about it. Any ideas what should I do?Yeah we do this. But we don't do it with everything, just when we feel we haven't been clear. Which might be a lot if we're explaining stuff... it has nothing to do with YOU just that we aren't sure if we communicated in an understandable way.
I totally do this.
Well it depends on the focus of the research--depending on the focus or what this research is being used for--not every piece of info is relevant to that. However, I guess I might agree that Te types (perhaps more so Te leading) do like to get a broad overview so that they know everything rather than reducing it to a bottom line or something. Te types may be more interested in simply knowing for the sake of knowing and may like to divulge the great depths of things they know to others. Wikipedia, for instance, is a largely Te endeavor (imo). Fe types find the way Te types tend to explain everything they know about a topic as boring as, yes, possibly irrelevant, because it doesn't "get to the point" (it doesn't reduce everything to a point--that's what Ti does). I have a feeling this kind of thing might be what you mean. I wouldn't agree though that Te types have no sense of relevance. Although I would think they would tend to ramble more explaining all of their knowledge in depth (most particularly Te leading), they do know how to break things down and determine what is relevant to a discussion/argument and what isn't, logically speaking (they do have strong Ti).
Well if it's being researched for an assignment or something, it's relevant because that's what the assignment is about, not because it is valued (though apparently there is value/necessity in doing the work/completely the assignment such that the alternative of not doing so has not been chosen).I agree this is true, ~if the topic of tropical animals is valued~. The insertion of the word relevant redefines how we think about tropical animals. It indicates the topic of tropical animals is now an ideal which is valued.
If it's not for an assignment, but for the sake of interest, then it's because the person is curious about tropical animals and can't get enough of reading about them. So I suppose it then has value in that this topic is important to the person researching it. It could be in the way of "I love you [tropical animals] and I want to know everything about you."
I don't think Fe helps to determine that the music playing in the background is not relevant to solving the crime/figuring out what happened, not at all. But I agree with this:You can find associated information on a topic which is valued, or a topic which is not valued. Now, you could rephrase this and describe these random facts associated with tropical animals in any number of ways. You could simply say the facts are connected to the topic of tropical animals. Are all things connected to a topic also relevant to a topic? No. If I ask ask a person to describe a crime to me, I don't want to hear about the music that was playing in the background while the crime occurred. That information is irrelevant, but it's connected.
---The act of exploring facts and evidence does not inherently find relevance.
Going back to your example, I'm guessing the "ideal" here would be "solving the crime" which is "important" because something happened of great impact that affected other people and that was somehow wrong or unjust. So relevance here bears an emotional significance--it means something that the crime is solved in the emotional sense. Otherwise why solve it at all? I'm not sure if emotional motivation of this sort is Fe, and Fe alone, but maybe.This only happens if the facts are connected with a valued ideal
I heavily disagree with this. Perhaps you'll have to call me a "relativist" as well, but I do not believe the topic of tropical animals is universally meaningless. The color of some tropical bird's foot may mean nothing in the "grand scheme of things" though. There is a grander scheme way of seeing things where one can ask when they think someone is focusing on small, irrelevant detail "does that really matter? is it really important?" and I would agree it's often not. However, everyone is going to define their "grander scheme" differently.What I am telling you is that the topic of tropical animals may very well be irrelevant on a universal level. No one really cares about the details of tropical animals. Te types consistently explore topics which are irrelevant. They explore relevant ones too But the topics that Fe types choose are relevant, because their entire psyche is aimed toward discovering relevant topics.
I really do think that absolutist ideals are related to Ti/Fe though, possibly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
