why are there 4 points on a compass
Because that is what we call the four directions from any place you can stand silly
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Put it this way, there are probably less then 3 Te doms (first block) on the forum at this time.
Well unfortunately, Jung didn't come up with any sort of universality. He based all of this on his own observations, which means that it's going to be subjective and relative. The observations are going to be limited to the observations at a particular place at a particular time with particular people. Which means that it would be observations based on the early 1900's knowledge. So he defined Te as something like "empiricism". But we now know that empiricism is a false and an outdated philosophy. This would mean that whatever we could talk about Socionically, would be confined to certain limited ideas, such as "empiricism". And as empiricism is about what humans could perceive with our 5 senses, empiricism is too narrowly confined to the spheres of our own, human sensory perceptions. That could hardly be considered to be objective, because objectivity would include the domains outside of human perceptions.
Correct, -S+L is empiricism. +L makes the generalized judgement based on the specific sensation observed. So, if Jung was monitoring a lot of LS+ types then he would have noticed they relied upon empiricism.
The big problem with Jung was that he was an undualized IE- so he didn't have the sensory logic blocks to ground him. It's also a shame that he never cared about getting a strong education in logic. If he did then he wouldn't have made rookie mistakes like mistaking ethics for feelings.
In practice what I have seen is that Te knows *how* to do things, but it is completely helpless to know *what* to do in the first place. You need to understand your own nature, likes and dislikes, needs, wants, what you care about and value, etc. to do anything at all. It's different from Se "doing" in that the problem is really to choose between / filter the different possibilities that you're presented with.
Originally Posted by Delilah
Similarly, Fi has information about what it likes, but it has no idea how to attain it in the practical sense.
@Expat had a somewhat different explanation based on information sources.
Now, the million dollar question is how that is the "same" as Ti needing Fe, Fe needing Ti, etc.
Te points on objective, and hence including on what objectively needs to be done. Besides intermediate goals inside any "how". So to claim it as "completely helpless" for pointing aims is wrong.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
> Fi has information about what it likes, but it has no idea how to attain it in the practical sense.
Fi also relates to information about what other people like and hence helps to understand how to deal with them, including to get something practically. "in the practical sense" you need all 8 functions _equally_
> Now, the million dollar question is how that is the "same" as Ti needing Fe, Fe needing Ti, etc.
The approach of the need between suplementing functions is doubtful as they _oppose_ to each other. But it's possibly to say how a function may complement the activity of other function.
Fe creates objective (for anyone) emotional image for a concrete logical structure - it energizes it to stay, to be chosen among other possible ones. For example, in social hierarchy is supports emotional relation to the concrete formal statuses - assignes emotions people should to feel to them, then those emotions support peoples actions which those statuses assume.
Last edited by Sol; 06-25-2018 at 05:17 PM.
Err I was accidentally clicking like on @Sol 's post while reading the thread (wanted to click something else). I don't agree with that post particularly much otherwise (explicitly disagree with some of it). Though I guess the Fe/Ti part was interesting some, so ok.
Last edited by Myst; 06-25-2018 at 02:52 PM.
its imaginary brownie points no one currr
also Te learns as it goes, that way it doesn't need to waste effort on information that could be useless... if it devotes itself to refining a task it can actually learn all there is to know about the subject and then contribute original knowledge. it doesn't need to pick, up front, some trivial bullshit like Ti does and spend their life studying it in order to make a contribution. of course without Ti types we probably never would have figured out a lot of stuff so God bless em
Currr = ?
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Lol brownie points... If I click like it means that at the least I don't disagree with the post plus I see something that's good in it sure.
It's LII/ILE that spends their life studying abstract stuff. Not LSI/SLE.