I need to know what Te means to you

[ouronis]

Check this. It's an interesting POV about the dynamics of TiFe vs TeFi.

I have a bit of a problem with this. Can Te users really say that they blanket trust one source, if they've decided it's good? There are many types of sources: newspapers, journals, concentrated experiments, surveys, essays,on and on. So an LIE goes through these, and on the basis of who seems trustable on an ethical level, chooses their sources? That seems pretty ridiculous. Personally, I do pay attention to the reputation of my source, in considering to what degree I should cut the person slack. But beyond that, it has to make sense. What rational isn't going to evaluate something on terms of if it makes sense. Sure, there are initial sources we must go to to base all our information on, but when we first reach these sources, we very rarely have the ability to evaluate the truth of the claim, because the claims themselves are frameworks proposed from absent facts and as yet unknown principles. In that case, does an LIE decide based on if the person can be trusted? If so, they open themselves to a large blindspot. Will they eventually reexamine their views on the basis of what is clearly contradictory to them?

If they don't reexamine, and you could call this my bias, but I seriously doubt this claim has any validity, it would seem to contradict what allows for fully-formed opinions.
@Contra
I get very bored by pure science as well. I have come to discover that principle discovery, such as work Alan Turing or Vi Hart(annoying math youtuber) would do, is not my cup of tea, and I can't really think in that way. I've always had problems with proofs, I guess because I lack focus on all the possibilities of universal structure. At the same time, I can't say that I dislike applying my ideas to life. I guess it boils down to this, whereas (possible) Ti would be concerned with these overarching rules, I would be concerned with turning them into weird(or simply intuitive in the colloquial sense) ways of doing something if I have no goal, and if I do have a goal, create as comprehensive a solution as possible, i.e. make it run on rails(if I'm being paid). So I think I may have understood the difference between my mindset and Ti-Ne, which will annoy Myst if true.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I have a bit of a problem with this. Can Te users really say that they blanket trust one source, if they've decided it's good? There are many types of sources: newspapers, journals, concentrated experiments, surveys, essays,on and on. So an LIE goes through these, and on the basis of who seems trustable on an ethical level, chooses their sources? That seems pretty ridiculous. Personally, I do pay attention to the reputation of my source, in considering to what degree I should cut the person slack. But beyond that, it has to make sense. What rational isn't going to evaluate something on terms of if it makes sense. Sure, there are initial sources we must go to to base all our information on, but when we first reach these sources, we very rarely have the ability to evaluate the truth of the claim, because the claims themselves are frameworks proposed from absent facts and as yet unknown principles. In that case, does an LIE decide based on if the person can be trusted? If so, they open themselves to a large blindspot. Will they eventually reexamine their views on the basis of what is clearly contradictory to them?

Imo you have not properly understood the ideas exposed in the thread. They are an expression of cognitive bias, that should not be taken to the extreme. Expat did an excellent job commenting the faults of every cognition in a neutral way, without presenting any case as inherently better than the alternative. He also made quite clear that no healthy person adopts a radical position about this:

It is self-evident that (1) any healthy person, extrovert or introvert, needs the input of external information and (2) no healthy person accepts every external information uncritically. Everyone has what I will call "internal filters" that help them pick up, from external information, what is "useful" or "useless", what "rings true" and what "sounds like nonsense". We all have observed cases - here or IRL - of equally clever individuals saying things to each other like "you're so naive to believe that" or "isn't it obvious?" etc. This happens because people have different "filters". When the "filters" are, say, "calibrated differently", then of course you have different views on what is obvious or not, or on what you should believe or not.

Also:

Unnecessary disclaimer: as in anything in socionics, these are trends, not absolutes; obviously Fe-Ti quadra types will also develop preferences for one source over others, if it turns out to be consistently reliable; and the other way around for Fi-Te. But I think that when there are moments of mutual incomprehension and accusations, that's how it tends to happen.

For explaining a situation as clear as possible, limit cases are quite useful, because they present the highest degree of contrast. For the FeTi vs TiFe division, extreme examples could go as follows:

-A FiTe valuer that once a source has been subjectively chosen as absolute, would be trusted blindly. Like if the source says 2+2=3 in one page and 2+2=5 in the next one, and still, the source is right (!!!)... A Fi valuer is also Ti devaluer, logical consistency will be ignored due to the subjectively assigned validity. Religious nutjobs, for example.
-A TiFe valuer that because as something makes sense to him/her, it's automatically true even if evidence points otherwise. For example, conspiranoid nutjobs. Anti-vaccinantion groups; corporations are "evil" (neither I affirm this nor the opposite) so they have to do evil things -> vaccines do not actually prevent diseases but they spread them (!!!)... You can see how logical consistency is chosen above factual evidences.

These are extreme cases representing unhealthy beahvior. No healthy person will usually be like this: because an Fi leading has still Ti role and vice-versa (etc), because everybody can acknowledge his bad inclinations and learn to correct them and... because common sense.

Imo the easiest way of observing this FiTe vs TeFi differences could be in those situations which are inherently subjective (no answer is objectively better). In such circumstances, everyone will naturally be inclined to choose according to his own nature.

[ouronis]

Imo you have not properly understood the ideas exposed in the thread. They are an expression of cognitive bias, that should not be taken to the extreme. Expat did an excellent job commenting the faults of every cognition in a neutral way, without presenting any case as inherently better than the alternative. He also made quite clear that no healthy person adopts a radical position about this:



Also:



For explaining a situation as clear as possible, limit cases are quite useful, because they present the highest degree of contrast. For the FeTi vs TiFe division, extreme examples could go as follows:

-A FiTe valuer that once a source has been subjectively chosen as absolute, would be trusted blindly. Like if the source says 2+2=3 in one page and 2+2=5 in the next one, and still, the source is right (!!!)... A Fi valuer is also Ti devaluer, logical consistency will be ignored due to the subjectively assigned validity. Religious nutjobs, for example.
-A TiFe valuer that because as something makes sense to him/her, it's automatically true even if evidence points otherwise. For example, conspiranoid nutjobs. Anti-vaccinantion groups; corporations are "evil" (neither I affirm this nor the opposite) so they have to do evil things -> vaccines do not actually prevent diseases but they spread them (!!!)... You can see how logical consistency is chosen above factual evidences.

These are extreme cases representing unhealthy beahvior. No healthy person will usually be like this: because an Fi leading has still Ti role and vice-versa (etc), because everybody can acknowledge his bad inclinations and learn to correct them and... because common sense.

Imo the easiest way of observing this FiTe vs TeFi differences could be in those situations which are inherently subjective (no answer is objectively better). In such circumstances, everyone will naturally be inclined to choose according to his own nature.

What does health mean in this context? I suppose thats a big question that basically amounts to "psychologically unbalanced vs balanced" or "at norm level functioning." Still, it can just be argued that either extreme case is just poor reasoning and not being open to redefinition of the objective.

I am not quite convinced for the need for this distinction in typing myself or anyone self typing yet..It's morning though maybe Ill realize it later.