Te or Ti?

[discojoe]

That's not necessary to do. If you understand something, you shouldn't have to copy others to communicate it.

Not true. If I'm talking to an ENFp, it's much more effective to focus on Te information or the discussion will go nowhere. The most efficient way for me to do that is to "channel" a Te dominant economist. Otherwise I have to translate everything and that takes more energy.

[discojoe]

Sounds like you know what you value, so why do you type yourself Fe/Ti?

Stop asking stupid questions.

[squark]

Not true. If I'm talking to an ENFp, it's much more effective to focus on Te information or the discussion will go nowhere. The most efficient way for me to do that is to "channel" a Te dominant economist. Otherwise I have to translate everything and that takes more energy.

If you always discuss economics through Te, which is what you said earlier, you're alienating the XEIs. Why put so much effort into making something accessible to a conflictor, when you could keep it accessible to those who prefer your natural way of handling information?

[discojoe]

If you always discuss economics through Te, which is what you said earlier, you're alienating the XEIs. Why put so much effort into making something accessible to a conflictor, when you could keep it accessible to those who prefer your natural way of handling information?

Because a lot of people's misconceptions surrounding economics are caused by a lack of Te. The same way an LSI who totally ignores Ne will end up stepping into holes, an IEI who completely disregards Te will walk into walls.

You can't use Ti and Se to disprove Keynesian economics, for example, because it makes perfect sense as a closed Ti system. The only way to prove its invalidity is to bring in external Te information to show how the fundamental premises of Keynesian economics are false.

[Beautiful sky]

Squark-ISTj vrs DJ. interesting.

[Beautiful sky]

My impression also was one of a book report quality, rather than real understanding as well. He comes across as someone who has read something said or reported in a certain way, liked it, and wants to "teach" it to others, rather than someone with an innate understanding or ability to put things his own way. Later in the thread, he says that he uses Te to communicate economics. That's not necessary to do. If you understand something, you shouldn't have to copy others to communicate it.

In my opinion, you can often (but not always) look for allegory, metaphor, or fictional examples showing a concept to find someone who has processed something via Ti or other internal elements, and facts, support, evidence, quotes, or references to particular schools of thought for Te or other external elements. BUT anyone in the fledgling stages of learning is likely to come across as more externally-based, and those who've understood it will internalize it and communicate more that way. So, as an applicable rule, it has little to no value.

Yes, I've been trying to tell him that, but apparently he can't understand the difference. I clearly said, that what he wrote here and has been writing about any external matter is with regards to Te and not Ti.

[Beautiful sky]

If you always discuss economics through Te, which is what you said earlier, you're alienating the XEIs. Why put so much effort into making something accessible to a conflictor, when you could keep it accessible to those who prefer your natural way of handling information?

DJ...this above, the hilighted section is a RULE that is made up by Ti, in processing what you Said.

It is something that I've been pointing out to you that you don't do. Because he writes IF you then X

[discojoe]

DJ...this above, the hilighted section is a RULE that is made up by Ti, in processing what you Said.

It is something that I've been pointing out to you that you don't do. Because he writes IF you then X

Hush. You're barely coherent.

[Beautiful sky]

Hush. You're barely coherent.

Then try hard to understand.

[silverchris9]

Hush. You're barely coherent.

lol.