(SeTe) "Submit the report by Tuesday."Originally Posted by WinnieW
(NiTi) "I can't finish it by Tuesday."
(Ne -> Se) "Come in on Saturday."
(Ne -> Ti) "As a lieu day?"
(Ne) "As whatever."
(Ne -> Ti) "How does overtime work in this case?"
(Te) "You just fill in the form. Normal pay."
(NiSe -> Ti) "It's not reasonable to expect me to work more hours just because we didn't plan this very well."
(Ne) "They need it by then, so figure it out."
(Ne) "Can you get someone to help me?"
(Te) "Yeah sure. I'll ask Jo."
(fake story; didn't happen; but that's how I imagine my response to unreasonable Se)
I'll admit I didn't understand your examples, but with this bit at least I know I disagree.
Let's work with something more concrete.
We know that Fi and Ti are "opposites". Not because it says so in books, but from our own observations and analyses.
1. Ti and Fi both address problems in the realm of rational connections and analysis.
1.a. Ti addresses the subjective logical jumps from one object/thought to another.
1.b. Fi addresses the subjective ethical attraction and repulsion between objects/thoughts/you.
(they do a little more, but this is enough for now)
Their scope has a great degree of overlap, so they can both be used to analyse most situations.
These methods of analysis are quite different, so they will sometimes (often?) come up with different answers. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer, so it's unrealistic to expect both to reach a single "truth".
When Fi and Ti disagree, neither can be used to follow the reasoning of the other. Not without a lot of effort anyway.
So whenever you use both, if you want to keep up in the world, you'll need to come up with a way to decide which one to pick when they tell you different things. I've not read much in socionics about how people do that, but there are likely many ways. Likely more than 16.
Say you know all of that. Now you meet a person who seems to often make Fi-driven judgements about situations, preferences, correct behaviour, lifestyle choices etc. It's not something you observe once or twice. You notice it a few times every day and you meet them every day.
Say you're also a person who's chosen to always pick Ti over Fi unless there's compelling evidence that it's a bad idea. You give it such a high priority that you constantly feed it with more information about the world. (Base Ti)
So, often when this person makes an Fi-driven judgement ("I'm vegan because it's wrong to kill animals.") you try to feed your Ti Base with context about them, so you ask "Why is it wrong to kill animals for food?" and you notice that this person is stumped for a moment. You're not clueless about people, so you know that's not a line of thought they'd followed. But they do their best and construct a Ti path to bridge what you said and what they said: "We have a responsibility to take care of the planet." You, being a very Ti-driven person, aren't satisfied with this and want to get to the bottom of it. So you continue with "How does eating a few eggs every now and then harm the planet?" You have to admit that if you've never given this any thought and you're not used to Ti-driven reasoning, answering these questions is a lot of work. But you know that they're thoughtful people who've considered whether they want to be a vegan. They likely prioritised Fi over Ti and neglected the Ti aspect of this decision.
This sort of thing happens multiple times in similar ways.
What would be your conclusion from that?
Mine is that they put a lot of thought into Fi analysis and prioritise it over Ti. They're out of practice with Ti. Ti analysis does not form a big part of their decision-making.
This case wasn't PoLR by any means (it looked more like Role Ti to me, hard to say), but to tie it back to what you said: I can definitively say that "Ti challenges" of that person's life choices made her slightly uncomfortable. It's the simplest explanation. It's not just labeling a correlation without understanding what's going on.
I guess I'm a bad person, but I did it for science.
Reply With Quote