Why does Te jive with Fi? Why does Fi need Te?
Why Te?
Why does Te jive with Fi? Why does Fi need Te?
This is basically the same question as why there are different types. It is a result of differentiation or specialization of the psyche. When one function is developed the complementary function gets repressed.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Not really, i was thinking what is the goal of Fi if it can only be supported by Te?Originally Posted by Tallmo
There are no different "types", or at least it's not fixed at 16 types. There could be 16 different types, or there could be 5 billion different types, or this distinction is meaningless and there are no different types per se. The reason why we separate animals into different species for example, has a clear and distinct mechanistic explanations for it. We don't just say that they are different species because they look different, like different races. There's a clear reason and an explanation.
So the "reason" why there are different Socionics types, is "because we defined and separated them that way" or "that's what we observe". There are no clear explanations.
There are no "goals" in evolution. Perhaps at best, you could say that it has adapted to certain things.
I think it goes to objective/subjective and logic/ethics. a thing cannot be viewed as objective and subjective at the same time, therefore you can't value both Fe and Fi to the exact degree without them extinguishing eachother. thus we say a person exhibits a "preference" which is to say they view one as more convincing than the other and spend more time viewing things in those terms. the same goes for logic, in other words, you cannot think objective and subjective to the exact same degree and move, rather one must pick one or be frozen, or, in the best case, find the "perfectly" rational idea that works from both ends. This is the fine line between madness and genius. In any case, Fi compliments Te because subjective feeling does not conflict with objective logic, rather they are dual to one another. What this means is you can act on a subjective feeling premise and entertain objective logic on its basis at the same time without them extinguishing eachother. True one may find difficulties with the other, but this information is considered helpful in the sense that it adds to the picture rather than takes from it. In other words, Fi and Te are complimentary in the sense that, barring one becoming tyranical and therefore unhealthy, they always work better in tandem because they synergize by creating a fuller picture of the situation in a way that promotes the ends of both perspectives. The problem is people here have so many mixed up ideas about Ti and Fi and Te and Fe that they think Fi extinguishes Te because they mistake Fe for Fi and see a battle between Fe and Te as the "battle" between Fi and Te, when in fact either they are simply wrong and it is Fe v Te, or they are simply imagining the "battle" in the form of projecting a Fe motive on the Fi. People fail to see the harmony in "conflict" between duals, and regularly read in "harmony" in conflict between conflictors, because this place is messed up. The truth is you can feel the harmony if you're Fi and Te and working together and you don't need anyone to tell you about it. And that would be my advice to a Fi valuer looking to understand Te. Think about what it is you like about logic when you find yourself liking someone's logic. That tells you what you need to know. Trying to Ti it out can be confusing and counter productive, and that is not a slight on anyone's intellect, its a slight on the nature of Ti.
Fi says my subjective ethical premise is primary, Fe says the objective ethical premise is primary. You can't say the objective ethical premise is primary and then try to view the world at the exact same time with the objective logical premise deciding the course of action, because the objective logical premise by definition takes out the objective ethical premise as soon as it is applied. in other words, the objective ethical premise is reduced to one data point and is no longer the controlling perspective the second you step into Te. Its describing actions in a logical not ethical sense from the point of view of the objects. In other words, everything I'm saying here is Te, because its taking people and concepts as objects as they are. Fi is necessary because it provides a goal or an ethic, but it originates in the individual not in the objects. In other words, as soon as you take the goal from the objects in an ethical sense Fi is displaced and Te is no longer the lens viewing things. Fe displaces both Te and Fi, and Te requires Fi, because there is no such thing as pure Te except on paper. In the same way there is no such thing as pure Fi, there is only repressed and primitive Te, but it is nevertheless there. And these two major camps Fi/Te and Fe/Ti are conflicting ways (by this I mean they displace rather than compliment one another) of viewing the world. the theory is they are inborn forms of cognitive circuitry that either through experience or simple genetics gains ascendancy in the mind of the individual. However they are fundamentally living in the same world, and we can say that when these perspectives all can agree on something we have found something more or less "true" in the best sense of the word. this would be things like, "slavery is bad" or "2+2=4" no matter what side you view it from it tends to hold up (there are exceptions of course, but the idea is in general it satisfies most people to a high degree)
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-02-2018 at 08:37 AM.
Well here's the problem. If they were not conflicting but complementary, then there would be no need for separation or "specialization". They would both be the same thing.
Of course. Or a common typology is actually 2 types: men and women. But im talking about the socionics/jungian types now. These are based on a certain phenomenon. This is a socionics forum, I cant constantly repeat what i mean with "the types".
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
This is very weird analog but think it as RSA algorithm.
There is private part and then there is public part. Do it back and forth but origins are kept secret.
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
Well sure, and when we ask why there are men and women, then we can answer: because having men and women allow for sexual-reproduction, which its act diversifies the genes, which is advantageous for adapting to the changing environments. And of course, you can explain that there are biological differences. But there is no explanation for why there are 16 types. Of course, Socionics is not an explanatory model.
You could say that Socionics is an "instrumental" model, as in it is only treated as an "instrument" for being able to predict something. We're not interested in why this or that or whether there's a proper explanation for it. Could separating people into 16 types better able for us to predict people and their relationships? Maybe yes, maybe no. But there are drawbacks to not asking the question of "why". Without asking the question of "why", we just assume that certain things to be true, and it doesn't allow the model to progress from there, by being able to come up with new problems to solve, by being asked the question of "why".
Last edited by Singu; 06-02-2018 at 09:27 AM.
in like the very beginning of psychological types Jung explains why diversification and specialization of types developed and its basically the same reason as male-female differentiation, which is to say by splitting things and creating selection pressure you create adaptations that strengthen the organism over time in a more effective manner than if it stayed non diversified. this is also why unification is not the same thing as regression and that infantilism is bad and individuation is good because of the progression at work, in essence it uplifts the organism, it is the motor whereby the collective advances via the individual effort
One way to look at the rational functions is from a sociological perspective on institutions. In that case rational functions become approaches towards institutional mechanisms.
When taken as institutional mechanisms, it become more or less logical that Fe and Ti go together: in the social sphere, Ti describes the rules of conduct, which apply to everyone equally, in all cases. Fe is the mechanism by which the rules are enforced, as emotional interactions decides who is in and who is out of the group.
Likewise, Fi and Te belong together, at least in the social arena: Te describes what the most effective and/or efficient approach is in certain situation (which differs from other situations and thus requires a unique approach in which generic, systematic Ti rules cannot be applied). Fi, which is more individualistic ion nature than Fe, is the emotional mechanism providing the moral incentive for acting differently on a case-by-case basis. So to answer your questions: Fi validates Te and restrains it. It is not so much that Fi needs Te, but what would be the use of Fi if there is no Te to have an effect on?
Perhaps you have heard of the terms "obligation of results" and "obligation of means"? The first one you typically see in the behavior of Fi+Te, the second with Fe+Ti people. Each has their proper place and function in society.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Males and females didn't "differentiate" for no reason. The reason why there's a separation, is because of the purpose of sexual-reproduction. There's no explanation for why should there be different types for no reason other than "specialization".
Perhaps the reason for differences in IQ, EQ and physical abilities are a result of luck and randomness. We don't say that the differences are due to "differentiation", and because they all have specific roles to play in a society or whatever. I see no reason to not believe that the differences in "types" is also due to luck and randomness. There is no other explanation.
Institutions didn't exist until fairly recently. So Socionics types didn't exist before that? Are Socionics types just a recent sociological phenomena?
what makes you think differentiation of this kind is any different from sexual reproduction? its almost certainly a consequence of it and an extension of it. in other words it facilitates natural selection in the same way plumage, aggression, cunning, endurance, and so forth all did in animals but across expanded dimensions. its all simply a form of abstract characteristics that aid in selection and have evolved as a consequence of it. we are simply stuck inside it viewing it from the inside out, this is precisely what consciousness is
I knew there was a reason why I put you on ignore. Now I have one to keep you on ignore.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
im trying to become a post modern american monk and singu is my hairshirt, i need to ignore him without recourse to technology as a kind of spiritual trial
@Delilah They don't jive; they complement and may be the sources of some troubling differences of opinion. Te quantifies information and processes by adapting the rationalization of others while Fi qualifies information and processes by rationalizing independent of people. Te introduces environmental influences to the combined rationalization processes while Fi stabilizes or grounds them. Note that Te and Fi also define two distinct partial information processing configurations and it's these that also contribute to overall benefits. However, an ISFj would have more potential to share priorities and goals with ENTj than say an INTp; an INTp could provide similar strengthening of processes but competing priorities may offset any advantage........
a.k.a. I/O
Such would be the approach of the undualized. I, on the other hand, took the path of complementing my Fi value judgement on Singu with the benefits of the effective and efficient results of applying Te by using the ignore button. How appropriate to this thread! ;-)
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
the thing is whenever you ignore someone there's always this huge conspicuous gap left by them and it makes understanding how the conversation is developing difficult, thus you either have to go back and investigate what they said anyway or ignore every single subsequent response to it by people you may be interested in hearing, thus it just becomes a different exercise in ignoring. the bottom line is one must overcome him at the root or suffer the consequences
i like your style though
I just can't do it
I fully agree, but I have made a major life decision, which is that I don't put up with BS if I can help it, be it online or IRL. Adding the plusses and minusses of this approach, I think this works best for me.the thing is whenever you ignore someone there's always this huge conspicuous gap left by them and it makes understanding how the conversation is developing difficult, thus you either have to go back and investigate what they said anyway or ignore every single subsequent response to it by people you may be interested in hearing, thus it just becomes a different exercise in ignoring. the bottom line is one must overcome him at the root or suffer the consequences
i like your style though
I just can't do it
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
The differences lies in that there's an explanation for the separation of males and females (which is sexual-reproduction). There's no explanation for why there are 16 types.
Of course, we aren't saying that there are "literally" 16 types, we're just saying that perhaps it's a useful way of being able to predict people. There is no explanation, just prediction. We can't KNOW that "16 types" is a universal statement, without coming up with an explanation for why that is the case. If we don't have an explanation, then we'd have to literally "type" every 7 billion people on this planet, to see if there are actually only 16 types of people.
Your explanation comes AFTER the the fact that there are institutions. It's like you can't put 2 + 2 together.
I just don't understand why there are dumb people like consentingadult and Bertrand, who lack the ability to think logically.
Yeah.
A mechanical take on the issue: there exists by definition (Jung) an extraverted and introverted attitude.
In the extraverted (object-oriented) attitude, you can differentiate between rational and irrational attitudes (output or input oriented).
Among rational extraverted attitudes, you can differentiate between feeling and thinking. If you have an extraverted feeling preference, you cannot have an introverted feeling preference (it would contradict the first step of the algorithm), nor an extraverted thinking preference (otherwise you´d be Te). If you have an extraverted thinking preference, you cannot have an introverted thinking preference (for the same reasons as above).
Thus by elimination, a person with an extroverted feeling preference will also naturally have a preference for introverted as opposed to extroverted thinking: because Ti occupies a sphere of reality which does not conflict with Fe. Similarly for Te and Fi.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think that Te can be ruthless and that Fi balance that . When demonstrative Te is in play it can overlook Fi but moralize it up creative Ti instead.
When Jung was talking about Thinking, namely the Extraverted Thinking, he was thinking of something like "empiricism" (what is true is what is perceived by the senses):
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
Unfortunately, he was a victim of the times, during when "empiricism" was fashionable and it was the doctrine of the choice in epistemologically deciding what is "true" or what is "objective". I think this is where the whole philosophical confusion among the Socionics community comes from. These are some seriously outdated philosophies that are based on 18th and 19th century philosophy. And for people who are seriously interested in knowing what is true and objective, such as the scientists, they have already largely moved on from empiricism.
Jung made a mistake, perhaps an understandable mistake as he was neither an epidemiologist nor a scientist, and mistakenly identified "empiricism" as Te, and "rationalism" as Ti (a very poor understanding of rationalism at that). It's a mistake to view empiricism as "objective", as our sense perceptions are obviously subjective, and things like rationality and logic are not necessarily "subjective", either. While we can't claim to know the "Truth", we can at least know that when something is inconsistent or incoherent, then it is false.
In science, we don't claim to know that something is "objective", when it's something that can be observed by the senses, or because it's written in the New York Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Rather we know that it's objective, when it is reproducible. We don't have to bother about tracing back to the "ultimate" source, when we can instead just perform a simple experiment to know that it's reproducible, and hence, we know that it's objective in some ways.
um no that's totally wrong, suffice to say that something happened is objective (this is whats called a fact), whether or not it is true or considered knowledge by some predefined or outside standard is something else entirely. the difference is Te orients itself to the fact that the encyclopedia said x not that x is definitely true. a part of Te is that things are always susceptible to new facts. i.e.: a contradictory writing somewhere else or something to that effect. what makes Te Te is that it all goes into the hopper where Ti denies one on the basis of the other, if one happens to conform to their taste, in other words "too bad for the facts [1]." in essence you're projecting your understanding of Te onto Te, as if that wasn't obvious from the begining where you proceed by putting words into Jung's mouth. if you read Jung you would be well aware that he knew exactly what the problems with empiricism were since the entire first part of psychological types is about sussing out the differences between certain philosophical doctrines of that sort which you talk about but know little. Jung says elsewhere that irrational types are generally considered the most empirical from the outside simply because they deal primarily with the problems perception presents without dominating it first by some kind of rational metric, but "empiricism" (as a doctrine) itself is something different from how types operate or how they appear. empiricism is a philosophy i.e.: a form of thinking doctrine which no type has claim on innately, because anyone can adopt empirical principles into the contents of their intellect, and no type is innately empirical in that sense because type exists outside of and prior to some form of purely thinking doctrine on how best to approach the world. you're trying to shoehorn Jung's entire understanding of how type functions into some tiny little box and saying the intellect supercedes it when Jung's entire point is the intellect is only one room in a larger house. only someone who identifies themselves with the contents of their intellect in the silliest possible way could believe Jung also was also presupposing such a thing by interpreting him with such an assumption kicking around in the background
in sum there's empiricism the doctrine, which is a Ti thing, and then there's how certain types naturally behave which outwardly appears as if they have adopted some form of the doctrine, but they haven't (such a thing is often an anachronism), in the same way that someone who learns massage techniques is not necessarily Si valuing. mainly because the doctrine proceeded from the actions of the natural instance, in essence, people were good at massaging before a book ever got written on the topic, in the same way empricism tries to codify and understand the methods that make certain modes of understanding effective so they can be utilized by anyone. but the two are not the same and the Ti description comes after the actual instantiation of the thing, except in cases whereby a doctrine is developed wholly on the basis of deduction such as something like Descartes' first philosophy (or so he would have one believe)
[1] this is like when people say jet fuel can't melt steel beams and leave it at that. the extroverted thinking type, if they're at all interested, is compelled to seek out additional facts. the entire thing about how Te is a slave to preferred sources is a just a cancerous ignorant meme that persisted around here way too long. its like suggesting if bill gates had read a different textbook he never could have had the success he enjoyed because he would have been totally bound to it, when its precisely the ability of Te to operate outside of a system that is its primary strength. this idea that Te is bound to a system (i.e.: a source in which all faith is placed) is just how Te appears to Ti types were they operating outwardly as the Te type appears to to them. its pure depreciatory projection
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-02-2018 at 11:13 PM.
Something happened - according to what? That would be according to our observations, which is NOT "objective". The fact that you're calling that a "fact" is empiricism. We know that something is objective for one, when it's reproducible. Scientists don't necessarily say, "show me the sources, show me the facts", they say "show me how it's reproducible". We also know that when something is inconsistent or incoherent, then it is false.
The rest is just confused babble.
if you don't think all perceptions aren't phenomena that happened I don't know what to tell you, maybe a phenomenological theory isn't for you. the thing is people can weigh their internal perceptions in light of outer criteria, just because they conflict doesn't mean one isn't real, it means you have to reconcile the two and its not a strict either/or. the entire premise of a psychological theory is how opinions can differ on precisely this basis, but a man's inner subjectivity is also what gives them dignity and creative potential. something you routinely abuse, of course, but still. failing to respect a person's inner life in favor of one "objective reality" in this sense is just authoritarianism and the source of much oppression. the whole idea of one "objective reality" in the sense you (ab)use it is ironically nothing less than a subjective delusion anyway. one that is definitely happening, but one which can be tolerated with enough patience and grace. you can try to demonstrate an error in the conclusion but the point of divergence is in the phenomenological premise, so you're wasting your time unless you have something to say about that
this kind of strict bifurcation is like saying apples/oranges cannot be compared, when in fact you can, by going up one level of analysis (+Ne), and realize they're both comparable on the basis of them both being fruit. this idea that perceptions are real or not is the same Busch league mistake, you simply say they're both real as psychological facts, which is precisely what makes a theory psychological. and it has incredible explanatory power to go about things this way because it doesn't try to exclude information by some arbitrary recourse to artificial notions of "real/not real" which is just a power play at bottom. a lot of your ranting is just crazed anti psychological ideology at bottom, because it wants to view everything in terms of behaviorism and extroverted sensations, which is, shall we say, dunning kruger when it comes to understanding something as complex and varied as people
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-02-2018 at 11:19 PM.
The point is that perception IS subjective. I don't think you'll disagree with that. It's like the whole yanny/laurel thing.
Again the point is, we don't care much about the "sources", because sources will lead to an infinite regress, while a single reproducible experiment can settle the problem.
No actually it's entirely the opposite, authoritarianism is appealing to the authority of sensory perception as the ultimate "Truth", or appealing to the "sources" as the ultimate Truth.
So what you're talking about is the authoritarianism of subjectivism, which is pretty much the ultimate authoritarianism.
Good to see that you have nothing to say other than your own subjectivitism. Your subjectivity isn't necessarily what's true. Anyway this isn't even what I was talking about, and it's getting off-topic.
you just have a super stereotypical beta mindset which is funny because you continually try to get one up on Jung but he's like 20 steps ahead of you
Ah, Bertrand... always thinking that his own subjectivity is more right or more true than the others' (also doesn't notice the irony of trying to do oneupmanship himself by saying "he's 20 steps ahead of you").
I mean of course I'd criticize Jung, as he created this whole confusion that empiricism is what's "objective". And not just merely objective, but the ABSOLUTE of objectivity, by claiming that empiricism is by definition "Thinking", and therefore the ultimate "source" of all objectivity.
Last edited by Singu; 06-03-2018 at 07:41 AM.
Maybe you think your own subjectivity is better than others, oh enlightened one.
I'm offering my own rationale and logic, which people are free to criticize. Unfortunately, Bertrand can't do that as he can only offer ad hominems.
Says the guy who tries to 1up ppl withhis genius sarcasm and passive aggression
True. You would expect someone like him to be a Jordan Peterson worshipping self-aware incel too but he claims to be beyond that.
At least Bertrand is politically honest in his ******ry.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
E and I attitudes are the opposite and incompatible to be in the same time in your conscious.
When Te is activated this supresses Fi in the conscious, shifts it to the unconscious. This makes these functions as linked.
According to my understanding the theory of Socionics says that no one can use two extroverted or introverted judgement functions at the same time. Also a focus on two different extroverted or introverted perception functions at the same time is not doable.
Mean no one can useand
simultaneously, or
and
.
Focus onand
or
and
simultaneously lead to confusion.
In Socionics the percetion and the judgement functions are coupled:
The leading function with the suggestive function, the creative function with the mobilizing function.
The demonstrative function with the vulnerable function and the ignoring function with the role function.
Its descriptive. Socionics is based on the observation that there are 16 kinds of information metabolism. So the model describes these. That in itself is a huge achievement. The "why" is a different problem. It can be interesting though, and people are in fact thinking about it.
About "separating people into 16 types". It simply is so that there are 16 kinds of information metabolism. That itself covers only a small part of human personality, but it is a matter of experience that IM is in fact relevant or central for personality. So it makes sense to have a typology based on that. It's not that there are only 16 kinds of people though. It's just that we pick this phenomenon as the most interesting/fruitful to focus on.
The question why there are types has been asked. It probably has to do with economy of specialization. The idea is that its more efficient having specialized individuals that can concentrate well on certain limited tasks. Erich Neumann has written about this in The Origin and History of Consciousness. This is related what I wrote in my first response to Delilah.
But I've understood that you think it's very problematic to even observe these 16 types. In my experience it is possible in many ways, but I don't want to get into a debate about that now, it's really mostly a matter of real life observations for a long time. This is becoming a derail already.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
They go very naturally together. One way to think about it is that, while Ti can tell you what follows within a framework/with respect to a set of axioms, this leaves open what axioms you might choose to accept as the starting point (which is usually related to what sort of result you are seeking ).
"Why does Te jive with Fi?"
The answer to this question is going to be circular, because the answer could be anything. Basically, there's nothing that would contradict a connection between Observation A and Observation B. It's called a correlation for a reason.
Because Te is an asshole, and Fi is nice
Because Te is calm, and Fi is fiery
Because Te is nice, and Fi is an asshole
Because Te is objective, and Fi is subjective
etc, etc. It could be literally anything. None answers the "why" there should be a connection between the two. The connection could either attract or repel, it could go either way. It doesn't answer "Why does Te jive with Fi?"
To become a causation, it would need an explanation of its internal mechanisms of why should it attract each other. No such answer or explanation exists in Socionics.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
