Sure I care too if something is correct and maps to reality logically.
Also, I'm ok with just focusing on the logic separately too, like in this test, where the words were just (formal) logical objects and nothing else.
"Agenda" was a specific term here, not the dictionary definition for everyday language.
Well Te sees how objects function, not simply just data. That's its extraversion. Rules can be seen both via Ti and Te, with Ti the reasoning behind the rules is also part of them.As far as what Ti and Te are and how people use them: Take any large system of data, and Ti is your own understanding and interpretation, your consistent system and the connections you make between the items in the data set. Do they all fit? How do they relate to each other, and does it make sense? Is anything out of place? These are concrete connections (in contrast to Fi connections,) Te on the other hand is the general consensus and conclusions, the established facts based on the data. Rules that you memorize and apply are Te, not Ti, because remember Ti is your own understanding of something. Te sees how the data functions, what it does. Ti sees how it is related to other parts and interconnected.
Analogies, uhh, from my Ne PoLR pov, it's Ti only if they are fully matching logical maps. Ti with Ne would probably see it a bit more loosely as the analogies can be good analysis material via Ne.So, for the logic test Aylen posted - all the questions asking how A is related to B is related to C - those questions can be solved through application of Ti. Also, analogies, solving algebraic-type equations, etc all lend themselves to be solved by using Ti. It's all seeing how something is connected to something else, how they all fit together. Whether you include the real, physical world and the properties of that world in your data set as points of reference for making connections and sense of things may be related more to Se vs Ne, or maybe not, but you can certainly include the real world and still use Ti.
Solving algebra equations is like with the rules above (both Ti and Te in the same fashion).
I never said you can't Ti in the real world. I said you can without applying it in the real world, too.
So, my original point was that there is such a thing as proving something as true in logic while not applying it for a practical use. The logical truth on its own has its own separate existence, abstracted away from objects. That's where I disagreed with your original post.



Reply With Quote