Thank you very much for taking the time to explain yourself instead of undermining my effort. I really appreciate that. It means more to me that you know really. I know typing these long drawn out posts is a pain, but responding to my effort with your own is a very flattering thing for you to do.Originally Posted by Ryan
Ok, well in response to your first point about just lumping them together and calling it T. Well if you're looking at someone with a creative logic function, the thing is in my experience they tend to also be very good at using and to a much lesser extent than their ego functions still sort of value their demonstrative function. This is why it's incredibly common to see people make mistakes one quadra to the left or right in typing others. They see an instance of a person using their demonstrative function and then sort of are compelled by the just awful atmosphere of this forum to assert and reassert their correctness or suffer the really quite painful lashing of individuals trying to undermine their efforts towards understanding rather than facilitate them. Simply put there's a very strong human desire to achieve and acquire short term victories rather than long terms goals. Even more simply, people want to be correct right now rather than admit and suffer the lashings of their peers, or worse admit that someone who is attempting to punish them for their inadequacies is actually right, so when met with behavior like this it's a very natural and common reaction to just try and say 'no' you're not actually right, I am. Not only to deny the threat victory but to convince their own psyche that they retained some vestige of adequacy in an intellectual pursuit. Honestly, it's a really hard mentality to fight against. It really is both for the person being attacked and the person attacking to sit back and focus on long term returns rather than short term victories. It's really not worth it condemning such behavior either, it just creates more problems.
Personally I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh on your original post. Seeing as the type that most often is mis-attributed to myself is SLE I'm sort of often confronted with the argument that due to my seeing to be a logical individual I must be using Ti or some such thing. I try not to slight people for saying or thinking things like that however, I've got a sort of knee-jerk reaction to it at this point that I'm working on rectifying. Point being I was a bit heavy handed when I initially addressed your post with an opening statement of "I think you're wrong" even if I was trying to be respectful about it. Personally I would sooner describe myself as a rational or practical individual but that is neither here nor there, and I sort of didn't really adequately take your feelings into account initially in my rush to (read knee jerk reaction) to eliminate such reasoning.
All that being said. and speaking plainly without trying to jazz it up or care a whole lot about grammar or punctuation. I think clarifying my original point is perhaps in order. Really what I'm getting at is the idea that the intellectual discipline of logic is just that, an intellectual discipline and it can be learned by anyone who approaches it with an open mind, and the discipline to struggle through the confusing bits. Being able to communicate with others in a fashion akin to formal logic is not necessarily indicative of someone being Ti ego. Perhaps Ti ego types are inclined to interact in such environments, and be compelled to work, communicate, and contribute to such a discipline. However they are not the only ones who can and being able to do so doesn't necessarily mean someone is Ti ego. I've meet non Ti ego types who are shit awful at formal and symbolic logic (the two kinds I am most familiar with), it's true. I've also meet non-ethical types who are just shit awful at performance art (something I am also familiar with) also true. If those people had the tenacity and desire to learn those disciplines however I'm very strongly of the opinion that they could not only do so, but do so well. Doing the shit you're bad at just takes practice. That's why I sort of respond harshly to connections that imply that being able to do something means that you are predisposed to do something or naturally inclined to do something must be the case.
Socionics is not MBTI, it's not a personality theory that dictates career predispositions.
However, ignoring such conclusions that are false, saying that Ti = formal logic, isn't a terrible way to explain to someone what Ti is or how it works, the two things have many aspects in common. It's not a terrible premise in and of itself. Speaking logically, it's not a terribly unsound premise from which to draw conclusions as is. But saying so does sometimes produce the incorrect conclusion that the two are solely and exclusively equal.
I dislike false conclusions and sort of view it as an intellectual obligation to try to redefine and or facilitate the implementation of premises that more often don't produce false ways of thinking. Well not in general, I mean, I only feel obligated with specific people and specific ideas. You however get the idea, I'm sure. If someone has an opportunity to help others understand something in a more correct fashion, maybe it's not such a bad idea to take it. However again, the premise of logic = Ti is not entirely unsound in itself.
Essentially, yes, In principle and at first glance I agree with the socionics assertion that everyone has access to every function. Basing socionics solely on observations means that every function is equated to observable behavior, and seeing someone behave logically or emotionally makes it extremely easy to draw the conclusion that a person may be some logical or emotional type. Though I do think socionics is not just an observational theory, there are abstracts that need to be tended to and inferences that must be made that aren't always immediately obvious upon observation. What I mean by this is, if you're rushed for time, or don't know someone very well and are in a position where you are forced to draw a conclusion about someone socionicly from short bits of observable behavior, that's perfectly fine in principle. We, as people, just simply don't have the time, motivation, or willpower to be right all the time and in instances where premeditated thought is rushed.
I think that in instances where one can think before they speak though, much more worthwhile things to pay attention to are not the "whats" of behavior, though those are perfectly valid, but the "whys" of behavior. As in why are they functioning this way or why do they want to learn to function this way. Unfortunately that's not immediately observable and that's where socionics becomes a mixture of observation, interpretation, and application to an abstract theoretical framework. What things is this person as an individual paying attention to and why? The why is where socionics comes in, the what they are looking at and how they view the world is where observation and interpretation enter the picture.
In any case, thank you for that little symbolic treatise at the end of your post lol. It's been a while since I was heavily involved in formal logical reasoning however I very much enjoyed the time I spent learning it. I had a wonderful teacher who I very much both wanted to impress and wanted to relate to by learning to function and speak as he did. One of the best teachers I've ever had actually. Andrew Spears. While I am decidedly very very rusty and this point in my logical career I'll try to simplify and interpret my original post into symbolic logical terms. Bear with me, it really has been a while and sorry if I fuck it up lol.
I was responding to the idea that (Ti = a, Te = b) is false because it doesn't work in reverse. I think it's perfectly ok to say (Ti -> a, a -> b,c,d,e,ect.) (which it's worthwhile to not is really what my whole post was saying, sorry if i made it a bit harsher than that) Or that it's perfectly fine to say and think that (Ti -> a) however (a -//> Ti). So in conclusion I disagree with (Ti = a) because of the whole reverse thing. In my original post if I referenced Te it was simply as a means for discussing Ti and was not of importance to what I was saying or trying to say. Really I'm all about (Ti -> a, a -> b,c,d,e,ect.)
I think... Did any of that make sense? I'm really rusty. Fwiw when I was in logic I did end the class with 113%, however that was only because I really liked my prof. I studied an hour every day and three on Sundays. I get kinda obsessed with people like that. Anyway, maybe you can understand what I'm getting at to mop it up a bit and understand what's going on, if not I'll give it another go and do a bit more reading next time.
Sorry for typos and grammatical errors, this is a huge wall of text and I need to take a break right now, my brain hurts.
Reply With Quote
