Te/Ti Ego and Dinosaurs

[Crispy]

Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

Thoughts?

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah, perfect.

Te gives you the external form, because they are extraverts, evolution.
Ti gives you the points, the descriptions that make up that thing.

[The Ineffable]

Thoughts?

Sounds very good, yes, but could you please check if it isn't a mistake there? It should be:
= inductive
= deductive

(can this book be found somewhere?)

[Crispy]

(can this book be found somewhere?)

http://www.amazon.com/MBTI-Socionics...4820090&sr=8-1
Depending on the computer, I have had varied results with pressing the "surprise me" button to preview more pages on amazon, but I bought the book and it's pretty good. However there's nothing about MBTI in it despite the title (He regards them as the same, but uses Socionics functions in the book), and has a 16X16 subtype system with 256 (too) short descriptions that I haven't yet been able to correlate to DCNH because of his confusing system. The descriptions of functions are good but some of his other ideas are strange/interesting. His typings of famous people seemed a bit off however.

[The Ineffable]

uses Socionics functions in the book

There are some references where some functions match the ones in Socionics while the others differ/opposite (eg. L. Thomson, L. Berens). Some of them introduce new and often useful things, so worth reading, but with great attention.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick glance for a .pdf version of that book to d/l, but no dice. I did incidentally run into some IE descriptions that were apparently lifted from it though. Haven't read them so I dunno what they say.

Need a bit of thought, but I'm stunned: this is the first time that I don't bind Socionics Si associated with comfort and pleasure, but experience and effects. However, the guy borrowed "subjective/objective" from Jung. If you noticed, for Fields information he talks about "our reality" instead of dealing with the rules, as the Fields aspect are about.

I don't think deductive/inductive works for elements, but rather for their combinations in IM types. LIEs have result (synthetic, inductive) thinking style while ILEs process (analytical, deductive)... so it makes sense that both of you would voice this objection, while for Crispy (LII, result) his base function described as "inductive" might still ring true.

Well that's because you took those thinking styles for granted. I'd not accept your argument for the reason that they're based on something even more ambiguous and (IMO) arbitrary.
Then, I don't know whether you used real forum users or something else to confirm this for yourself, but in the first case, if Crispy is LIE that would mean that your observations (if they exist) determined this inclination in a Te type again.

I think that Ti and Te may be necessary and sufficient for deduction and respectively induction. Indeed IRL both Bodies and Fields information is required for both the usage of Logic and to apply those kinds of reasoning, but that's not the point of it. For example the premise of "all people are mortals" requires different processes to appear, but that's out of the scope of the deduction itself.
If anything, a type may be considered deductive and inductive, from a certain perspective, based on Extroversion (eg EXXx inductive, Bodies observes and Fields assimilates), but in any case I disagree with the idea that it has anything to do with Process/Result.

[krieger]

Oh yeah. This reminded me of some vs. contrast stevENTj posted once:

Both look like Te to me. I read the second passage more easily (by a long shot) and am more inclined to write that way.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

I agree. The reason is that you can't arrive at a categorical statement without making an induction of some kind. The case-by-case view on the other hand is stand-alone justified. The induction/deduction difference is rather useless, though. The two depend so much on each other that it's hard to even imagine the use of one without a counterpart use of the other. A person that uses one or the other in isolation would be unable to think for him/herself.

I hate this thread.

[Creepy-male]

If Te is the above descriptions, Ti would be like a very elegant formula expression the relationship between one thing and another, and the things affecting that relationship. The Ti information is all heavily packed down, but is rather like a von Neumann machine in that you can unpack it all into an expanded construct.

Like,

y² = 4ax

That's the equation for a parabola. It's basically the raw materials for constructing relationships that yield more useful information. A mathematician carries around those rules in his head (because high schools and freshman courses love teaching you useless legwork ), but you could just as easily have a rulebook that codifies them, and have a machine extract the information you want. Or a monkey. Or someone with zero mathematics background.

I agree that the top description from StevENTj just looks like a gigantic Te dump of disembodied factual information (like dates in history).

I think Te PoLR for me is like, I can never register information unless it's constructed as logical and causal relationships. However, the spirit of the comparison is basically valid, the examples used were just very very weak.

Sorry about this post being an incoherent tangle.

[The Ineffable]

I agree. The reason is that you can't arrive at a categorical statement without making an induction of some kind.

So why do you agree then? It's deduction which is categorical, induction is not.

Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises.

The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

What the fuck is wrong with you, people?
---

The two depend so much on each other that it's hard to even imagine the use of one without a counterpart use of the other. A person that uses one or the other in isolation would be unable to think for him/herself.

True but irrelevant. A car without a driver can't run, that doesn't necessarily mean that a car without a driver can't exist. It's ridiculous. The same happens with abstract concepts, and in fact the sciences as well are separated because they deal with different aspects, although they depend on each other (psychology, biology, chemistry, physics). You can't just say that chemistry doesn't exist because it depends on physics.

[Aiss]

----->>>> Interpretation of concrete information
------>>> Extraction of abstract information

That's interesting. I tend to see external as implying internal and I still see it working for Ti/Fe and Si/Ne to an extent, but the abstract/involved might be the missing piece here, one that removes the asymmetry...

/ Source is always true, interpretation is arbitrary.
/ Source is arbitrary, deduction is always true.

objectivity----meaningless----factual----<interpretive>----poetic----meaning----subjectivity
subjectivity----arbitrary----correspondence----<deductive>----analytical----reason---objectivity

I would rather say, "source is always taken as it is" - true as in, "source X saying Y" means exactly this, that source X says Y, while whether it confirms Y or not is a matter of interpretation already. But yeah, that's how I tend to see it in general... except I'd say Ti can imply Fe as in, actions are interpreted in light of explicit principles, examples of which had recently been mentioned by Ti/Fe valuers here. Though abstraction is potentially a better way of looking at it.

Not bad. Though I'd agree w/ ephemeros about = deductive, = inductive. Not that either is uniquely one or the other… nevermind, fuck too many details. Don't feel like explaining atm.

Out of curiosity, I did a quick glance for a .pdf version of that book to d/l, but no dice. I did incidentally run into some IE descriptions that were apparently lifted from it though. Haven't read them so I dunno what they say.

Also that board is way nicer looking than ours. I think the new government should upgrade vB.

I don't think deductive/inductive works for elements, but rather for their combinations in IM types. LIEs have result (synthetic, inductive) thinking style while ILEs process (analytical, deductive)... so it makes sense that both of you would voice this objection, while for Crispy (LII, result) his base function described as "inductive" might still ring true.

I've only looked at Ni and Ne descriptions so far and they seem alright.

[Crispy]

Oh yes I do believe the closest thing to Inductive/Deductive dichotomy is Process/Result. I just included those cause they looked like a conclusion to the dinosaur example. The author of the book is LII as well so that would explain why he identified with the dichotomy.

[Trevor]

The first one is Dynamic. The second one is Static. That's as far as I'll go at this point.

[EyeSeeCold]

Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

Thoughts?

----->>>> Interpretation of concrete information
------>>> Extraction of abstract information

/ Source is always true, interpretation is arbitrary.
/ Source is arbitrary, deduction is always true.

objectivity----meaningless----factual----<interpretive>----poetic----meaning----subjectivity
subjectivity----arbitrary----correspondence----<deductive>----analytical----reason---objectivity

[lemon]

Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

Thoughts?

I like this. What is written for the rest of the functions?

[Creepy-male]

Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

Thoughts?

Yea I think this is good, however I think it suffers in one vein, that being that I don't think Ti or Te egos actually think or talk literally like this. This example is a good example for discerning the difference between the function, but not a very good example when applied to people. So in other words yes I think its good, but its purpose for usefulness in my opinion only really extends into the realm of understanding the theory, and not into anticipating the behavior of individuals with Ti and Te.

One key element to this is that, any Ti or Te ego will have the other function (Te for Ti-ego or Ti for Te-ego) in their id block as a strong function, but not preferred. A Ti type for example is talent/strong at using their Te and Ti functions, but integrates the Te into a their Ti, because it's there ego preference. A Te type integrates the Ti into their Te, because it's there ego preference.

This is made more physical by considering a Ti type taking data, facts and statistics (Te) and using them to build a structural/theoretical understanding of something (Ti). They are not poor at understanding data, facts and statistics.... but their urge is to integrate this knowledge into a structural system, a theory. The system they choose is usually a matter of subjective preference (hence the introverted function).

Te's do the reverse, stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics. They usually look at the subjective systems as being useless in and of themselves, they are only looking to extrapolate the objective facts from the system.

The point however that I'm making isn't all of that though, its that real Ti and Te types are likely to draw upon both functions from time to time. So a Ti type isn't going to simply be bumbling around claiming everything must fit into a little theory, they may even be big data heads, memorizing tons of objective facts, looking into statistics, be talented at dealing with objective facts.... but more often than not and if given enough time the Ti ego will want to try to systematize these facts into a structural system of their understanding, because its part of their ego, they are more preferential to this form of logical information.

Really the odd thing is that Te and Ti are the same thing, logical information, but they are two different forms of that information. The nature of the information doesn't change but the nature of the person's perspective of that information does change. The Ti type views the logical information from within a subjective framework. The Te types views the logical information from an immediate objective framework. But its the same information, the distinction in viewpoint is merely an introverted/extroverted difference, the introvert being inward facing, the extrovert being outward. The introvert takes in the information from the logical objects (into their system), the extrovert takes out the information (from their system) or observes the object as is.

[MatthewZ]

Found I fun little example drawing distinction between and

From the book: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung

Question: What is a good description of dinosaurs?
Answer: Dinosaurs came out of the sea onto the land, dominated the animal kingdom, and then a meteor hit our earth and they all died.

Answer: Dinosaurs are lizards, possessing a spine, presently extinct, represent an early life form with a limited intellectual capacity.

is procedural and deductive.
is categorical, formal and inductive.

Thoughts?

And they'd both be wrong.

Dinosaurs evolved from already-terrestrial reptilian species. Furthermore, while the "single meteor" hypothesis is the one most favored by modern evidence, the issue of "what killed the non-avian dinosaurs" is still up for debate, such as with the hypothesis that natural tectonic activity or a multitude of causes ultimately killed the dinosaurs. This brings me to my next point, in that, "dinosaurs" are only extinct by the colloquial definition. From a more accurate phylogenetic standpoint, birds and crocodillians are "modern-day" dinosaurs.

Just to nit-pick, while anyone with a decent education of Latin knows that "saur" means something along the lines of "lizard," Dinosaurs actually aren't. Dinosaurs are "lizard-like" and, cladistically speaking, diverged from the common reptilian lineage long before the emergence of lizards.