Definition of :Ti:

[aestrivex]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

huh? what?

[xiuxiu]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

How so? How could it be irrelevant? TC's conclusion was_wrong_and I don't think you could relate being wrong to a function.

because it was simply an analogy for the result of two opposing forces clashing and one overpowering the other. of course it has no real-world usefulness because it failed to take into account the triviality you both pointed out (a Te observation if there ever was one), but as an illustration of principle it is still valid.

[xiuxiu]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

huh? what?

read bold then my reply to rocky

[aestrivex]

because it was simply an analogy for the result of two opposing forces clashing and one overpowering the other.

that was perhaps the intended analogy, but that wasn't what was written.

[Gilly]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

How so? How could it be irrelevant? TC's conclusion was_wrong_and I don't think you could relate being wrong to a function.

because it was simply an analogy for the result of two opposing forces clashing and one overpowering the other. of course it has no real-world usefulness because it failed to take into account the triviality you both pointed out (a Te observation if there ever was one), but as an illustration of principle it is still valid.

Actually, it seemed more like a weak-Ne observation

[aestrivex]

how is the observation weak Ne? it doesn't reflect my understanding of the actual analogy.

ugh this discussion is stupid. i would ramble on about exactly what the observation is but i dont care anymore.

[Gilly]

Not yours, Rocky's.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is a good point; can Ti really be used to make an ethical judgment like "Murder is wrong"?

I'm actually pretty sure that Ti is the only function that single handedly comes to that particular conclusion.

Fi's judgment would sound like: 'murder is disagreeable', after which 'murder is wrong' would follow as a natural second step.

Te would provide a string of reasonings as to why murder is detrimental to society and humanity (or anything that people in general can sharedly relate to).

Fe would put the general audience's feelings about murder into words.

goes from a general assumption (a social consensus), then breaks it down to the specific in a certain situation - e.g. their default position is 'murder is wrong', but when a critical situation arises, they may bend this rule a little e.g. 'murder is wrong in some cases, but not this one'.

goes from a specific assumption to a general rule - in a critical situation they are rigid with the position they hold - whether murder is always wrong, or only in some cases (two different types could have different views).

So, a type wavers in their moral position over time, but builds up a viewpoint gradually - a type is certain of their position over time (it is the widely held view, typically).

But, when a situation arises, is dynamic on it's views (they are flexible), is static (views are already made).

(The same applies to + :wink: )

While forms views on an inductive logic, forms views from its social setting (typically from family contact\small, familiar groups), then rigidly defends these views.

seems to follow the common (but hidden) desires\views of a wide group of people, and is able to adapt its viewpoint during a critical situation for its own needs (or the group's).

[Rocky]

Not yours, Rocky's.

... he did group the two of us together... BUT my point being tc pretending that he can see the world through superior reasoning capabilities while at the same time his reasoning actually came off as a bit childish... I mean, if we are to believe that Ti is as xiuxiu and tc describe, and we believe that they use it in the manner they do, then it seems like they only use pseudo-Ti... using it but only using it with minimal grasp of the concept and not fleshed out with the most clarity.

[discourse]

Oh yess! Thats what Ti is. A mess! If the murder is bad then it is not justified. But people will get away with it. So are some murders justified? Take exhecutions as an example. People kill people as a punishment and in the name of the law. Does that mean I can commit a murder and get away with it? If I will kill Bill my IT specialist from Moscow who emigrated into Estonia couple of years ago, I would end in jail. But if I am in a war and will kill my terroristic enemies, then I am an hero. So how can a murder be a bad thing? The law saies it's a bad thing. Well it does usually. Then acording to a law killing people means no-no! But then again, law is one thing, my beliefs are another thing. Even if I don't kill that Michailov the IT specialist from Moscow, in my mind I could think it's a right thing to do. The law may say it's bad, but my beliefs may be better for me. I won't do it only because I don't want to go to jail, in my head I may think it's a right thing which just doesn't have a right to be done in our society.

And the moral Fi people will hate me for that now!

But my example was Ti and Ne. Ti and Se is different. More dogmatic and doesn't care on what grounds that belief lies on, as long as it sounds right for that ISTj, its right and others are wrong.

[Rocky]

...Take exhecutions as an example... But if I am in a war and will kill my terroristic enemies, then I am an hero...

Technically, neither of these are considered "murder".

The law may say it's bad, but my beliefs may be better for me. I won't do it only because I don't want to go to jail, in my head I may think it's a right thing which just doesn't have a right to be done in our society.

And this is called having "anti-social" or "sociopathic" personality disorder (or, more extreme then that if you talk about murder) and very few people hold this belief.

[Gilly]

Not yours, Rocky's.

... he did group the two of us together... BUT my point being tc pretending that he can see the world through superior reasoning capabilities while at the same time his reasoning actually came off as a bit childish... I mean, if we are to believe that Ti is as xiuxiu and tc describe, and we believe that they use it in the manner they do, then it seems like they only use pseudo-Ti... using it but only using it with minimal grasp of the concept and not fleshed out with the most clarity.

As I said, it is analagous to the functioning of Te, but is irrelevant to the way it actually manifests in use (except as a symbolic representation as to how it is used in logic; ie, tc's description, applied to a logical function, is Ti).

[Rocky]

Not yours, Rocky's.

... he did group the two of us together... BUT my point being tc pretending that he can see the world through superior reasoning capabilities while at the same time his reasoning actually came off as a bit childish... I mean, if we are to believe that Ti is as xiuxiu and tc describe, and we believe that they use it in the manner they do, then it seems like they only use pseudo-Ti... using it but only using it with minimal grasp of the concept and not fleshed out with the most clarity.

As I said, it is analagous to the functioning of Te, but is irrelevant to the way it actually manifests in use (except as a symbolic representation as to how it is used in logic; ie, tc's description, applied to a logical function, is Ti).

So do you think tc's dominant function is Ti, or is he faking it?

[dreikin]

In short, "who will win."
Example: boat runs against the current. Boat has velocity of 5, current has velocity of 10. Which way will the boat go? In the direction of the current.

Ah, relativity...

1. If the observer is on land, observing the current and the boat, they may observe the current going by them at -10, while the boat is going past them at +5. The boat, relative to the current, would be going at 5 - (-10) = 15.

2. If the observer is on the boat, they may notice the current is flowing past the land at -10, and that (according to their speedometer) they are proceeding at +5. Since the speedometer only measures speed as compared to the water it is going through, this would actually be -10 + 5, producing a net speed of -5.

[xiuxiu]

because it was simply an analogy for the result of two opposing forces clashing and one overpowering the other.

that was perhaps the intended analogy, but that wasn't what was written.

i think you read past what was intended by it and in the process generated arbitrary objections. this is not really meant as an insult, rather a note of something you do often which is why i wonder if you are intp. also rocky and you both resonated with each other on the first page.

[aestrivex]

if i'm deciphering your message correctly, i don't know why you would classify an observation such as "velocity is not related to force; therefore your statement is meaningless" as Te.

but i don't care anymore.

[xiuxiu]

Not yours, Rocky's.

... he did group the two of us together... BUT my point being tc pretending that he can see the world through superior reasoning capabilities while at the same time his reasoning actually came off as a bit childish... I mean, if we are to believe that Ti is as xiuxiu and tc describe, and we believe that they use it in the manner they do, then it seems like they only use pseudo-Ti... using it but only using it with minimal grasp of the concept and not fleshed out with the most clarity.

again, it comes off as childish because the analogy was inherently (read; purposely) oblivious to the physical axioms themselves which it had no interest plugging in to begin with because it only needed to be analogous to a concept, that being the interplay of two forces. a concept is a vague abstraction to be fleshed out later, in this case with physical laws. you're reading way too far into it. and for the record i disagree with tc's post in general so don't group me with him PLEASE. thanks.

[dreikin]

hmm...

v = integral(F/m * dt, from t=a to t=b) + C, where m is the mass of the object the force is being applied to, and C is the starting velocity of the object.

(and btw, they WERE given vectors, just 1D ones: one is opposite to the other, therefore i and -i.)

[Rocky]

and for the record i disagree with tc's post in general so don't group me with him PLEASE. thanks.

ahahahaha ok

[tcaudilllg]

How is it people always seem to end up discussing me more than the content of my posts...?

[UDP]

Weak Ti

[Rocky]

How is it people always seem to end up discussing me more than the content of my posts...?

... because people question your sanity to begin with.