Te vs. Ti test question
feedback please
Do you prefer to
-know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency, or
-explore the details of something, examining the related system of laws/rules (scientific, mathematic, organizational, or structural)?
know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency
looks like that question needs to be re-written lol
O_oOriginally Posted by Joy
looks like that question needs to be re-written lol
it does sound a little bit like Se now that I look at it from that angle
(btw, I said that because you answered Te, which is your PoLR)
ohhhhh, maybe thats me trying to be like my dual?
ESTps are Ti though, not Te
oic, nvmd then
if you read it as Se instead of Te, your answer would make sense
I see no way in which that could be confused for. Just seems like a bad question to me.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Ti
Yeah, I agree. A lot of people on this forum say Te is about knowing the facts. For that matter, saying that Ti is about exploring the details sounds like Si.it does sound a little bit like Se now that I look at it from that angle
Facts are a function of logic.
Please explain. I see facts as raw material. Logic is the structure that puts them together. You perceive "facts." For example, you see something, and perceive that as a "fact." Then you can make a logical deduction about that fact.
Do I really have to explain myself? EVERY definition of logic deals with facts. It's not even a question.
The questions asks which of two arbitrary steps of understanding we prefer.
Nah. Let's suppose R = reality f= facts l=logic, then
R=l(f)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, they mention facts because logic is a method of processing facts. Logic is a function operated upon facts to achieve a result, just as a meat processor is a machine that operates upon meat to produce sausage. What you are trying to say is that the meat operates upon the machine.
INTp
No, I said logic deals with facts, I never said that facts define logic. Though using facts is very logical... probably to a fault though. You can often use logical reasoning to make a good case for something that isn't true in reality, which is why it's dangerous and shouldn't be trusted too much.
It appears to just have been a semantic misunderstanding then - what you originally wrote ("logic is a function of facts") seems to come off as (to use FDG's notation) f(l), whereas what you just said is l(f).
INTp
I'm Ti, I love to take things appart to model the system in my head. The later I can recognize similar structures and mechanisms around me. Things at low level seem to appear every where. Atoms are everywhere, screws are everywhere, standardized components are everywhere. Socionics types are everywhere. With Ti I can make and remember true statements about systems and then derive new truths from them using unconscious ven diagrams and by visualizing the system and eliminating/activating parts of it.
Ie. Premise: The light turns on when I flip switch 1 on
Premise: The light turns off when I flip switch 2 off
Premise: The light does not turn on when Switch 3 is off
From this we can deduce that both switches are most likely in series in the closest most simplified version of the results. Of course it might be more complex in reality, but usually things are found in simplified form, and even if they are not, thats fine because the Ti person would learn a simpler version of the system anyways and implement it elsewhere.
-Slava
What a great replacement for a nany
Not even that. Using my notation, "Logic is a function of facts" would be l=R(f), since the facts would be forced in the indipendent variable position.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
http://www.understandingcalculus.com...erentials.htm:
"if f is a function of x, f(x), then its value changes as x changes"
I think we should stop "is a function of" in this context. Logic's more like an operation or algorithm (or set of them) than a function.
INTp
That's probably not the best definition of a function. I remember I once had a math teacher who hated when people used the word "changes" like that.
I don't remember the technical definition of a function, but I think it's something like this:
...a mapping (F) of one set (we'll call set X) into another such that if j and k are members of set X and F(j) = F(k), then j=k.
In any case, at least we have consensus that T isn't the same as facts; and the idea that it is the same (at least in the case of) is a misconception that I've seen a bit on this forum, in people's personality "tests," etc.
that sounds like some fucked up wiring... beyond just having the line and the load reversed
haha oops... switch 2 off should be switch 1 and switch 3 should be 2 :-), i had to fix some wiring in my head first,.
-Slava
What a great replacement for a nany
Re: Te vs. Ti test question
seems like in most every socionics website, Te/Ti difference is pretty much defined like:
-know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency, or
INTp can get hung up in the details of something. ISTp departs from any fruitless activity.-explore the details of something, examining the related system of laws/rules (scientific, mathematic, organizational, or structural)?
raw unprocessed information sounds like/
to me.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
i prefer both of these things. sometimes i am a bit cursory but i will eventually see the need to look in depth at something when i feel it is vital to my understanding of it. i need more Se.
I don't.
Ever read Wittgenstein? Sounds like you've pretty much got it already. The Tractatus part of it anyway. What a concise summary though! Brilliant.Nah. Let's suppose R = reality f= facts l=logic, then
R=l(f)
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Option one. I'd say this is more of a test to tell Result thinkers apart from Process thinkers. Process thinking is the kind of thinking that investigates issues deeply and cares about connections that aren't immediately relevant from the viewpoint of utility.
it's a bad question
it's a bad question
it's a bad question
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
it's a bad question
it's a bad question
First one.
it's a bad question
Because both Herzy and I said the first one, which is Te, and you think we can't possibly be the first one if we're both SLEs?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote