Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
I think you mix up a few things here, but it's pretty good. is more than just "see" it's also about measurement.
Yeah, it was not meant to be taken literally, my usage of "seeing" was more as an umbrella for experiencing something as a fact. For example if you are told an imaginary story where the character is married (or was married), any subsequent instance where the character is depicted as bachelor will be a contradiction. So even this was not at all related to perception, in the scope of the story marriage was still a fact, being again processed by Te.

Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
Measurement is a rational thing while seeing is more a perceptive thing. A lot of showing is sensing not . can make a rational determination absent personal or direct perception.
The way I understand it, Te is generally the psychic function that tells what is the case, in its own manner (factual [1]), which acted on, drives towards activities of measurement. My example has not covered this issue for the sake of simplicity, indeed one has to measure to tell the dimensions of the two objects - but then, everything we know could be subject to (re)verification. Indeed measurement pertains to Te, but only the measurement alone, not the contradiction of placing a larger object inside a smaller space. Basically determining the actual size of either of these two objects would become a separate problem in itself, and normally it is only Te that tells these dimensions pf physical objects and Ti won't deny any such information from a 3rd party unless it contradicted higher governing principles [2] - e.g. a body that large that could not sustain itself physically.

Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
Measurement is a rational thing while seeing is more a perceptive thing. A lot of showing is sensing not . can make a rational determination absent personal or direct perception.
My view always was that - in Socionics - no function is per se related to perception. I must clarify several things which I often find confused by several fallacious misuses of the terms:
- I am sometimes using the notion "rational" as describing cognition pretaining to the Fields IEs/functions. It has nothing to do with the Rational/Irrational partition of Jung's theory. It just means mentally or internally induced - the antonym of "empirical".
- I am not of the opinion that S IEs are bound to the senses, neither are they more related to senses than other IEs. The notion of "sensing" is historical, I assume everyone is aware it has not semantic content, its literal sense is no more appropriate to what it denotes than "atom" (indivisible) is for the particle in physics.
- Rationality is an attitude of a personality that is characterized by having the four F and T IEs as accepting functions.
---

[1] - I make this distinction for more than one reason. For example an actual identification would not be a fact in its true sense, it has its internal subjective side.
[2] - could be Fi, too: anything usual depicted as never seen before (e.g. pocket-size elephant). It denies the historical results of induction that form our human culture, which cannot be proven in person. In any case, evidence is paramount and will always prevail, it will trigger revision of public knowledge (Fi) or the models we use for understanding (Ti).