From my limited understanding, I think Te is about raw facts, regardless of how those facts "sound" to people. Are they true? What do they imply? What is the confidence of those facts and how do they relate to other facts? I don't think there is necessarily a one size fits all definition of Te. Smiling, persuasing, etc, does not change the facts or reality. It is less about the social niceties and about the objective realities, although social niceties are an objective human reality, so...mind fucks. Other types argue for raw facts too. Much has to do with underlying philosophical assumptions about reality, which go beyond typology imo.
a fact you suspect is made up is not a fact, not yet anyway
Te likes facts, real ones
even better Te likes people who bring real facts to bear, not just a bunch of presumptions along with some Fe bullying. the tone people take in describing to what lungs "should" like and expect from her dual is precisely how you know its not coming from LIE and is not Te. its more like Se Fe posturing and its whats so annoying about half the posters here. you can just tell they're not reliable sources of information who have not done their homework and in the same breath pretend to be the types who would have done precisely that. its Donald Trump when you want a Bill Gates, etc. they constantly play catch up rewriting history as if its not obvious they're just full of shit and spend more time worrying about the impression they're making than the real states of affairs. and then they say something like we should be into that. I don't know anyone who's into that. well maybe some posters in this thread defending Adam. not me and not lungz and its not Te. I would also say the whole "my dual belongs to me they just don't know it yet" is an inherently aristocratic take on things which people like Adam passively exude unwittingly which is a major turn off to democratic types. I happen to think this is precisely where Aylen and Adam part ways
I see. I think this post is further proof that you are completely ignorant of socionics functions and Jung in general and do you really think you know a thing about why or how I come and go? Please stop making up lies that you have nothing to back up. You are probably the type that rushes off to read a little Jung before you invoke his name. You are more transparent than that piece of crystal I just posted. Do yourself a favor and go use it. ESE should be a meme too, with one of the faces @fox pointed out in your video typing thread.
You actually have no idea what an ESE is at all.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
we have a similar view. I associate Te with empiricism but it seems like the trend lately is away from that association and more towards the view that Te is about 'doing things' regardless of whatever the thinking process is behind the 'doing.' there's so much conflicting information that I'm not going to argue about what is more accurate...what I do know is that the latter characterization falls flat on me and isn't what I seek, personally.
Have you ever met some a bit extreme LIE entrepreneurs IRL? Many are somewhat fact spinners, masters of tax tricks (they always get caught), exploiting every little loophole to make more money, obsessive about getting every penny out of their customers, investing in ponzi scheme-like things can also be their thing.
All of this is quite well described in Strats' articles.
Believe me with me and Adam you are probably getting a pretty good deal.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Te is about the function of information. I've seen Delta's get their facts wrong too and stick with it, as I recall strat described it for delta too. It's something like pride and wanting to be right, but often it's about what's going to work for the situation. There are people with a headload of facts that never do anything with it and there's nothing that can be done with it. Bookworm does not equal Te. What is it with these weird function descriptions people imagine.
its called gambling and neither of you two seem particularly good at it, its interesting you want to spin your lack of ability of it as a virtue
Ni is not about lies its about unknowns that may become known and knowing it beforehand. distinguished from lies, which is what SLE does.
its funny you take some kind of didactic tone with me when you're obviously out of your league, but whatever, fools will be fools
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I think that FDG has ethical IE as a role function.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
there's a lot of different descriptions out there, but when I was starting out, I based my understanding on this.
Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives these types confidence on being well-informed on the same matters, which enables them to enter arguments related to them with confidence on their knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. Another manifestation is an evaluation of external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. It leads to an inclination to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, as well as a sense of self-worth connected on being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that the individual knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.
to me, this is indistinguishable from an empirical worldview and incompatible with expecting people to be convinced to do things for no ascertainable reason.
thinking you're right when you're wrong is a Ti projection onto Te. the ascription of pride and "wanting to be right" is an ethical projection. for all you know Te is right, inasmuch as it matters, and they "want to be right" because if you just went along with it it would be the quickest path to the goal (which is the Te, as opposed to Fe) definition of "right." they are stubborn in proportion to how sure they are of the outcome and the course of action (Fi). You have a right to be stubborn if you know your shit. Te types are hardworking. Work can take the form of study.
honestly this place is a mess
Yes, pure Te is representation of empiricism. It is used as a way to dismiss it as a whole without argumentation. Jung created his system in opposition to empiricism and it has evolved since, creating numerous branches of Jungianism. It was a reaction against "scientism" even though that term is often used incorrectly to label the scientific world view as equally limited as other ways of knowing, as the scientific method has revealed more truths about reality than any other way of knowing. Certain ideologies hate this and have reacted in an ironically postmodern manner. The gnostic way of knowing is on equal footing with the philosopher of science. Jung thought he was one such gnostic and held truths that others could not see. Whether this is true or not is besides the point. His system assumes that this is the case.
Of course "doing things" is important. How else would we obtain objectives, right? I think that is more Te coupled with pragmatism, another philosophical school and certain living philosophies and work ethics, that one's life is only valuable in how much one produces. This is useless unless the production has purpose and meaning for the individual and isn't just mindlessly a cog in the machine, so to speak.
Jung repeatedly said his system was based on empirical observation. no I won't cite it. Go read him if you actually care. it was more like the "rationalist system" came after Jung (your so-called "evolution"). Jung was by no means "in opposition to empiricism"
edit: whatever, I googled it since it was easy.
"Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information"
(Te can also be wrong/stupid, but better than nothing when nothing is the alternative)
Delivery is another matter, I agree that the preachy tone can be annoying. Just like Betrand just got annoyed by me on post #3016, I guess.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
lol if you think "I see Adam Strange in this description" isn't just a restatement of the problem, not the solution
I don't have a solution to your idiocy
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
aw is your Fe mobilizing hurt
second-hand information is still external: gossip and so on. which is still tolerable and imo within the realm of Te because its accuracy can be judged by the receiver of the information instead of "take my word for it."
it's not the tone. a condescending tone can be tolerable if i think i can put stock in what the person is saying. (i was going to list people here this applies to for the sake of comparison but i don't want to be insulting, haha.)
i think adam is considered Te because he focuses on efficiency and doing things, but along that line i think kim could be ESE because she's emotionally expressive.
good point. somehow there are still people i take more seriously than others.
but this doesn't seem to be entirely type related ie. @squark. (who i don't see relying on personal antecdotes)
Last edited by ashlesha; 01-04-2018 at 09:05 PM.
I view both Adam and FDG as LIE, as I feel supervised by both but FDG seems a lot calmer/empathetic and better socially adjusted. I think people are just attributing Adam's corniness to being Fe which is overly simplistic and not true- like years earlier this Fi valuer was saying they hated when a Fe valuer told them to smile more when they didn't want to smile... but I'm a Fe valuer and I hate that stuff too. Adam Strange is universally annoying not for socionics reasons- but because he comes off like this annoying mormon boy that knocks on the door of your house thinking he has all the right answers or something. FDG is confident in his logical abilities too, but he just doesn't come off like that. And it's not a Fe thing- it's an Adam Strange thing.
Supervision actually has a lot of empathy (especially one on one in a Fi sense- which is how you ESIs are gauging it) - so if I am being chummy or amicable with an LIE it's for that reason, not that they are a smelly Fe valuer like me. Also it's because I know how to get along with people well and I'm a good diplomat - though I definitely have my moments of being an asshole.
its pretty obvious to me this is a case of Te knowing its own and Ti just going by rote so as to be fooled by behavioral descriptions without the rest of the underlying theory in place to really parse the information. thus to them LIE is the description sufficient for anyone to imitate in the most obtuse way as as to really "be" that type. suffice to say that is not a psychological portrait of a person. that is a purely social game and its precisely in penetrating beneath that surface that socionics has all its real value. to treat it the way it is is like just taking the "which pokemon are you" test, etc. these "its all subjective" criticisms just become self fulfilling. its like, yes, its subjective, no, it doesn't mean there aren't better or worse uses of the thing. Jung was all about discerning exactly that. the real value in Jungian psychoanalysis is to see precisely this principle for what it is, but its precisely the sort of thing that if you don't see, it still nevertheless colors everything just with all the pitfalls ignorance brings with it. the goal is to penetrate to the psychological level where you can see people self typing as a hologram extended outward relating back to them. that is what psycho analysis is, it takes the phenomenology as is and tries to retrace from where its coming from. the way people treat socionics here gives up the game before it even starts. its ridiculous in the same way Adam is a "rehabilitated" 8. its like he defined the goal as met. you might call such a thing "demonstrative Te" in the same vein as all of Trump's "victories"
Last edited by Bertrand; 01-04-2018 at 09:01 PM.
aren't you really short? maybe to define yourself as a "big man" i.e.: LIE and meet your goal that way. just one possibility? truth is I don't know enough or care enough nor am I qualified to "put you on the couch" so its just speculation
people think that's harsh but that's what psychoanalysis is. you gotta be real about what drives you. hint: its probably ugly. don't ask if you don't want a real reply
well, that's the irony of course. LIEs in reality are no better than anyone, the point is why you would pretend to be one when you aren't if you didn't attach subjective significance to the idea. my point is not that your subjective delusion is justified, that was never the point. it was always that it operates as some bizarre form of wish fulfillment with all the appurtenant irrationalities
in other words, if it were the case that objectively Se doms were the "big men" and you were being objective and if you consciously wanted to be something you're not, and we were somehow living in a world were you can be what you're not just by pretending, then yes it would make more sense for you to pretend to be a Se dom and not LIE
in other words, your objection is predicated on you being fully rational, objective, and self aware of what is real and what is driving you, which is precisely what psychoanalysis denies (quite reasonably I believe) as a starting point
the beauty of typology is it actually explains why you'd want to be LIE from a SLE (or any Ti type) lens and answers precisely the question you pose
the valued functions shape the form the imitation takes as well as the "dream" itself
I am trying to consider what people say about myself, not what I personally consider to be "true".
Due to my job and well, in general due to the fact that I like to interact with people, I receive a lot (way too much for my liking) feedback about my behavior. There is absolutely no mention regarding in positive feedbacks.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Bert right now: R-/Fi- – ethics of disapproval.
IEE could work, maybe. LII? ESI? Too much for SLE.
R+/Fi+ – ethics of forgiveness. Even though weak, I think, it is way easier to relate.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
if that preference was meaningful they'd act in accordance with producing compassion and sympathy; in other words, you can't just unilaterally expect such things without considering to what extent your own behavior influences their possibility. well, you can, but you're going to continually frustrate your own "preference" which makes it look like its not a real preference at all, or you're the worlds biggest neurotic. its like saying I prefer chocolate and always buying vanilla, if you turn around and blame the universe for the lack of chocolate in your life I don't know what to tell you