Te and clinical roboticness

[Radio]

Te is a warm blanket of sociopathy I wrap around myself every night to keep the guilt away. <3

[krieger]

i find that with any supposedly "logical" socionics function there is an enormous well of "ethical" stuff bubbling under the surface and the "logic" serves as a means of pooling tons of things together from that well and pumping it into a single channel. so "logic" is in a sense a much harder hitting form of ethics or emotion. but also one where the motivational precursor to the activity or decision can not be singularly identified.

the reason why it is logic is because it takes a step back and strikes a balance between emotio-etical drives, contrasting them to the alternative ones such that each individual drive has a downplayed influence and isn't flown off the handle on the basis of.

ethical functions relate to logical functions the complete opposite way; they start out with the clinical, matter-of-factly observation and then draw the conclusion in a context of extended scope. it goes from a small-picture judgement straight to the big-picture judgment, without being bothered by the lack of information in the other small picture segments of the big-picture context in question.

my suspicion is that the direction of the inference is determined mainly (but not exclusively) by function values... "observation" in the narrative above relates more to PiJe and "judgment" more to PeJi... the typical direction is from observation to judgment in the process of learning and opposite in the process of applying knowledge to form predictions.

are some quadras more inclined to learning and some more to applying knowledge / predicting? i'm not sure, but tentatively no.

i'd like to write more on this, but would need to spend time thinking.

[Raver]

Sounds like you might be confusing Ne with Te. Look at the greatest examples of that in our time (Steve Jobs, etc.) and time and time again, it's Ne that does this, not Te.

Weird, I often find I'm a victim of this whenever I think of an idea. o_O

Not sure how you could derive either static ethics/morals (more Jungian) vs. collectivist vs. idealist (more Socionically) as the above.

As far as Te being the mean, killer of puppies, double-dipper of potato chips, late returner of library books, cruel mattress tag ripper-offer, crusher of dreams and instigator of pure evil- it's quite simple, really: Te is just misunderstood. For example, when we eat babies and look satisfied afterwards, it's not because we are gloating at the traumatized mother, it's because of the delicious nutrients we just consumed.

Lol.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

When something bad happens to somebody who picks fights, starts hate, is generally evil: They had that coming, you have to admit.

When something bad happens to somebody who picks flowers, spreads love, is generally good: It's just plain sad. They didn't deserve it.

When something good happens to somebody who picks fights, starts hate, is generally evil: Makes you angry. They didn't deserve it.

When something good happens to somebody who picks flowers, spreads love, is generally good: Makes you happy. A warm fuzzy happy ending story.

Now of course, the character in the story is rewarded for their consistency. One good deed or splash of empathy doesn't make somebody good just like one small incident of a good guy losing their cool doesn't make them bad. It's complex. There's a lot of ambiguity in the world and a lot of debate whether somebody deserved that and how much of a victim they truly are. Usually the way to cut people the deepest is to have a very cute innocent fluffy type character to be horribly and brutally murdered. This usually motivates the Hero of the story to kick the Villain's ass.

[willekeurig]

When something bad happens to somebody who picks flowers, spreads love, is generally good: It's just plain sad. They didn't deserve it.

yeah, kill dem flowers!