Regardless what you had in mind, your propositions match my older statements (I can find them and paste them here). I recall at least one example, it was about a software patch.Originally Posted by itdoesntmatter
So you're approved, move along.
Regardless what you had in mind, your propositions match my older statements (I can find them and paste them here). I recall at least one example, it was about a software patch.
So you're approved, move along.
"Categorical" refers to the kind of conclusion that you end up with after you perform an induction, i.e. something applicable in general to many instances of a certain generalizing type. So it's neither inductive, nor deductive, but the thing you have after inducing and the thing you need before you can deduce.
What has always been dead obvious to me about Ti is that IxTjs reach these categorical statements in ways that look rushed and unjustified, hence inductive. These judgments appear seemingly "out of nowhere".
Now I don't care if someone wants to claim Te types do induction of some variety too, but to call Ti primarily deductive is just patently false. Drop the issue.
I was never claiming that Ti restricts to deduction. I said that Ti may be necessary and sufficient - that means that deduction can't exist without Ti, that induction is a Ti type of information. That deductive reasoning is in the field of Ti, that's it. I said "may be" because I'm not yet certain about it, I didn't have the time to put it on all sides, just apparently this is it.
I neither claim that the usage of other functions can't be categorical.
I rather tend to see my own Ti-demonstrative as being demonstrated in using Ti-like models and structures with (relative) ease while not really caring for them, but merely for their usefulness, never considering them "real" but rather a sort of filter which can help assess information, but can also limit perspective. "Ease" is referring less to ability of understanding these or lack thereof, and more to using them confidently, where weak and devalued Ti may be more mistrustful of possible limiting or blinding effect and not even try. I'd say the biggest difference with valued Ti is that I don't try to create a perfect the model or value it in itself, with an attitude that it's impossible to reduce the world (or its aspect) to an explicit formula like this.
It's not far from what you're saying, really, but I seriously wouldn't describe it as "stripping down theories for data, facts, and statistics", nor such systems as "useless" (see above paragraph).
Lol alright, how would you describe it I don't really see the difference between what you wrote and essentially stripping down theories for useful information, but whatever, a more pressing issue...
I don't like the propoganda that Ti is "possibility or perspective limiting". I think this is maybe what it feels like to a Te type but not what the function is about. Jung describes it clearly in his psychological type paper that Ti is subjective, in other words the organization of factual data into systems is a subjective issue, not an objective one. The goal of Ti isn't too build a "theory of everything" and reduce life to some perfect intellectual model. The goal of Ti is to organize information into a structural system that makes sense to that individual. Much like a language has certain rules to its structure. While that structure is useful, ultimately its subjective to a culture. Other languages exist with different structures and word order and rules, its a different framework. Ti isn't about imposing a single minded view to something. Ti is about establish an arbitrary structure, in the same way an architect construct a building, the Ti type constructs theories which store Te data analogous to the room in a building. The Te type differs in that instead they work with this raw data directly instead of pulling it from the framework. The framework itself isn't really that important, the framework is just a matter of introversion. What remains logically valid in either case is the actual factual data, whether in its raw Te form or in its subjective Ti form.
There's a huge difference between using a model and considering it useless. IMO. Also, the way you put it isn't something I'd ever agree with, and I consider it potentially misleading to others. That is, I don't see it apply to myself, but I still think I'm Te-ego and agree with the general point you're making, so while I see what you're getting at I still call it a misrepresentation, if not misconception.
Yeah, propaganda. Did you read what I wrote, that it's what weak and devalued Ti fears, not strong? I'm using these, but they'd rather not.I don't like the propoganda that Ti is "possibility or perspective limiting". I think this is maybe what it feels like to a Te type but not what the function is about. Jung describes it clearly in his psychological type paper that Ti is subjective, in other words the organization of factual data into systems is a subjective issue, not an objective one. The goal of Ti isn't too build a "theory of everything" and reduce life to some perfect intellectual model. The goal of Ti is to organize information into a structural system that makes sense to that individual. Much like a language has certain rules to its structure. While that structure is useful, ultimately its subjective to a culture. Other languages exist with different structures and word order and rules, its a different framework. Ti isn't about imposing a single minded view to something. Ti is about establish an arbitrary structure, in the same way an architect construct a building, the Ti type constructs theories which store Te data analogous to the room in a building. The Te type differs in that instead they work with this raw data directly instead of pulling it from the framework. The framework itself isn't really that important, the framework is just a matter of introversion. What remains logically valid in either case is the actual factual data, whether in its raw Te form or in its subjective Ti form.
You describe Ti like it is in Ti-ego, but Ti information is external static fields aspect, something which can be called a structure, defined system, a model. When you are describing it in ego function like this, you're necessarily including both Ti and Te aspects, which I thought you were trying to avoid, your point being that all Thinking types "use" both types of information. Ti aspect is such systems, and this highly personalized development of it you describe is in ego function. Te as aspect is concerned with explicit actions (functionality?) of objects, but as ego function, Te has also been associated, by Jung and I think in socionics as well, with external (outside of self) and External (explicit) standards. Yet explicit systems and standards are still Ti aspect; super-id Ti is apt at using and discarding them rather than creating a personalized one of far greater complexity (which you described above as far as I can tell, though I agree "reducing" wasn't a good way to describe it, as much as I tend to perceive Ti information this way). Inner picture of the world for me is Ni, it's personalized intuition that dictates the language I speak, while the Thinking isn't so.
That is how I understand subjective vs objective difference, as emergent from personalizing or depersonalizing the aspect. It also works to show the difference between introverts and extroverts, the former's primary focus obviously being on the inside (introverted, personalized element in base function) and the latter's on the outside (extroverted, depersonalized element in base function), with the secondary focus reversed.
(Personalized and depersonalized are probably very bad words again to use apart from describing Thinking, but that's not the point. Don't take it personally, Fe-egos.)
Also, while your analogy might be descriptive of Ti in general, it's rather against your own point about perspective not being limited by it, seeing as by all accounts, language you use does affect - and in particular, also limits or expands - your perspective. In socionics, probably preferring any information aspect over others does it, but what I was talking about is a specific reaction I've observed in weak Ti-types (esp. some Delta NFs).
I think you meant Te-Base (Extroverted type). The personalized Bodies/Fields comes from the Base function, right?
Edit: and I also think that you're not careful enough with the difference between B/F and Internal/External. I understand what you mean and I overall agree, although I think the way you explain it can't make the difference, maybe you even confuse them a little.
No, I meant Te-ego. Underline "standards" as well, "outside of self" part was descriptive of them. Primary focus in Te-creatives is on the base obviously, but Thinking is still related to external standards in them (which is why I call it "objective").
Although, the idea of "personalized" extroverted element when it's base is interesting...
I think the way people call Te a "black box" (referring to transparency, like in testing) is confusing it with internal/external, so I don't know how far we do or don't agree on it, really.
I'd say:
- modelling what's inside, "black box" vs directly examining things, "white box" is internal vs external - this isn't perfect comparison, but Te definitely isn't the former
- focus on outside-of-self standards vs your personalized inner model of the world etc. - bodies vs fields
Probably the way I'm explaining B/F doesn't work well for internal elements, especially internal objects, but I think the problem is with the words and not the idea here. I find it closer to objective/subjective because I see objectivity in something that can be described as external standard. Using a scale gives you an objective result; using personal experience and impression gives you a subjective result. Then again "internal scale" isn't probably all this objective, and possibly talking of quadrants would make more sense, but I'm not sure if it's even worth it to establish objectivity/subjectivity levels.
Then it's wrong, I mean it's not Socionics. As you know, there was some place where Aushra refuted this opinion of Jung. I don't deny that you might have not read "socionists" saying this thing, but they were wrong. Like I said, Wikisocion claims (at least claimed when I read the last time) the same thing, that this is a more "modern interpretation" of the B/F, while in fact it was borrowed from Jung disregarding the Socionics basics, because it's simpler and easier to understand for them. I repeat a fact: Aushra dismissed it *after* Jung, on purpose.
Obviously - it is in fact where you came from but you forgot, Jung was talking about Introverted/Extroverted types (equiv of Fields/Bodies Base), while he didn't make quite big difference between the type and the primary function. This is the closest you can get to Socionics on this idea.
Introverted types often (I'm not sure if always) end-up in referencing everything to their internal view. The Extroverts are the opposite, think about LSI vs SLE.
I don't know how this is connected to our issue, but anyway, I recall that you once associated them to Internal/External. At the time I wasn't careful about what exactly "black box" and "white box" mean, but now that I was interested in whether they're exact or not, I found that they correspond to things that were known and agreed for a long time - that Ti analyzes the structure of any system for correctness and consistency, while Te tests its functionality for outcome and results.
Maybe it all traces back to your view that somehow (or "maybe") all Ti types are consciously subjective, throwing their sometimes unjustified stubbornness on that, that they stick to some view because it's "their view". This is wrong and you should (IMO) face this directly, to resolutely clarify it to yourself, don't let it hang in the air anymore.
IMO this approach is mistaken. I saw others people using it (eg. anndelise) but really, it's totally off, in the end anything we know and perceive is subjective because it's always only the image of reality that our brain makes. If this has been taken as paramount, science would not even have existed in the first place, we could not even talk about logic, facts, truth, fallacies, and so on.
I understand your confusion, Bodies, Dynamic and External are similar, and so the other three. But they are different things and only a confusion about the nature of each can cause that. "External" are things that have a support, that are either supported by hard factual evidence (normally Te and Se) or a correct reasoning, proven rules, or even a reasoning based on made-up rules/assumptions/conventions (which they themselves may be subjective, but not necessarily the reasoning based on them) etc.
It's like the movies, some are fantasy, others are realistic. When watching a fantasy one, you're forced to use your Internal type of information (Intuition and Ethics), otherwise you can't accept something that doesn't make sense. External functions simply don't process the largest part of that because it's not real, not externally supported.
This doesn't mean that External information can't be mental, or virtual, but it still have strict external bounds - eg the conditions and assumptions, nothing more or less. But when you're trying to solve a paradox - no matter if it's mathematical or something that happens in real life and you can't understand - you are forced to use Internal functions again to try to view things differently (now this is what I call "subjective"), to "break the rules" in your mind to check if something sensible can emerge, or - if you choose to limit yourself to the reasonable or factual - dismiss its existence altogether. That's what usually makes LIIs lock themselves away to ruminate complex dilemmas while LSIs are so resolutely skeptical about "nonsense".
---
Now Bodies/Fields is harder to understand, but at least you can certainly tell which is not Internal/External using exclusion: when that's nothing like different view, personal view, hope, arbitrary convention or assumption, something not certain, feeling and intuition in the general sense.
Concluding, the easiest and most accurate method to differentiate what comes from B/F from what comes from Ext/Int is to use this exclusion, that means to avoid focusing on the Gamma values (it has nothing to do with the fact that you're an ILI, Aiss) at first, direct your analysis on the ones that are B+Int or F+Ext instead, and eventually the behavior/reasoning of the types that prefer them (in Ego). This is what I used, to create my understanding and have a so strong opinion on the IAs, I didn't try to keep it secret, just I thought that it's obvious.
Last edited by The Ineffable; 01-14-2011 at 01:41 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote