Te/Ti Ego and Dinosaurs

[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.

[Slacker]

Steve's Ti example uses too much specialized language to make it a good comparison. You'd have to know the specialized language to understand it regardless of your type and what you value.

[force my hand]

Thinking in the same vein as posts above, Te seems to employee a 'black box' approach: punch in some data and have it spit out an answer. Ti might be more concerned with evaluating the process within that black box to form a consistent framework that deals with categorical inputs and associated outputs.

[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]

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.

Something is wrong here, because as usual, my eyes cross after two lines of a Ti example, and the Te is completely clear to me.

The Ti sample and Te sample seem to be written at different levels of complexity, for different readers or purposes. I prefer the dino example because the two versions are more or less equivalent.

Steve's Ti example uses too much specialized language to make it a good comparison. You'd have to know the specialized language to understand it regardless of your type and what you value.

I don't think it has anything to do with socionics elements, ftr. Language and complexity aside, what Ashton and Steve probably attempted to do is show that Te focuses on the function and Ti on the definition - except it fails because the examples don't really fit it, not nearly to the same point as the original one with dinosaurs. Clear Ti style would be closer to formal definition or the formula, not necessarily explanatory like in this case. Similarly, Te isn't limited to dry facts never going beyond the surface, as the second example implies. While in a way both address the functionality as well as nature of TNT, I'd say it isn't really representative of Te, either.

Also, it might be a case of "I don't like it so it isn't in my quadra" on Steve's and Ashton's part as much as it is on labcoat's or Golden's.

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.

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

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

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.

You could just as well say that I take socionics relations for granted, or clubs, or temperaments, or whatever other aspect of theory I see work in practice.

It's something that struck me as accurate when I read it and fits rather well with my experiences of real users (and even real people). It's also something that made me realize you're ILE when I first came across it, by the way. I'm not saying it to reaffirm that I agree with the typing or whatever, merely to illustrate with a real... well, forum life example that it's a significant aspect and one often replaced by the view that functions represent a sort of "thought processes", which leads to stereotypes, such as those about ILEs you used to battle against. People expect Ne-egos, especially Ne-dominants, to be something like holographic thinkers, and I suspect it's your rather strict deductive approach of a cause-effect thinker that makes them call you a Ne-PoLR - LSIs represent this style as well, while SLEs and LIIs are holographic thinkers. Disregarding it and projecting thinking style on ego functions directly is probably the reason for at least some misunderstandings.

Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:

Together, these relations make the socion an energetically cohesive unit. First of all, we have 8 pairs of dyads, or dual types. The purpose of these relations is to "even out" or balance the individual's life activity. "As far as we are aware, without this, the individual's full-fledged intellectual realization is impossible." Secondly, the 8 dyads split into two energy rings (or tracks) of four dyads apiece. These dyads are connected by a one-way connection; new information only flows in one direction. Information in these two rings flows in opposite directions, creating an "induction" effect between the two.

These two energy rings are pairs of supervision rings going in the same direction. They correspond to process/result dichotomy (and I don't care if it was Reinin who named it so, he didn't "invent" it), but more importantly they are described as one-way information flow. Sharing a thinking style might be part of the reason why this flow is so effective, and more so in supervision than in benefit, while exact function arrangement explains it being one-directional.

Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.

[The Ineffable]

Aiss, I don't see the support in what you say, neither the connection between your conclusions with this array of statements. Please take is somehow systematically because it's impossible to tell what's a fact, what's observable (with several exceptions) and what does that conclude.

I don't ask you to take all the types and show how Process/Result applies on them, but first of all please at least point out what understanding of Process/Result you use. The "thinking styles", too.

For example you say:

Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:

How? Where is the reason for which they "exist from the beginning of socionics"? They only coincidentally correspond to one of the many rings of the Socion. I could also invent the "defecating style" and assign it to another ring, does that mean that it's correct and based on Socionics? No. There must be some evidence and explanation.

Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.

Either way you take it it's the same thing. Yes, there's a possibility that people don't know what these terms mean, so they use them incorrectly, so they're wrong even more. This is why I quoted Wikipedia, so that any confusion to disappear. Use the dictionary and you get the same thing:

The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
---
a. a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
---
a. any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
b. the process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.

Your relativism is unjustified in this case, IMO. BTW, what users are you talking about?

The only confusion that I see that can happen is the meaning of "categorical". It has two meanings that however, both apply to how Ti is used. They are related, though, categorical in terms of "categories" means the same "black-or-white" approach, true/false, or the absolute conclusion.
---

So let's put it this way, take your description of Process/Result (or maybe some thinking styles, I didn't figure out what you clearly associate with what) and your understanding of deduction/induction and explain how they emerge from each other. Let's discuss, I'm interested in case you're on something real.

[Timeless]

What the fuck is wrong with you, people?

"You people?"

[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.

[1981slater]

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?

Dinosaurs are BIRDS

[1981slater]

Dinosaurs are BIRDS

NO, birds are little dinousaurs actually

[golden]

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

Something is wrong here, because as usual, my eyes cross after two lines of a Ti example, and the Te is completely clear to me.

The Ti sample and Te sample seem to be written at different levels of complexity, for different readers or purposes. I prefer the dino example because the two versions are more or less equivalent.