# Can we objectively type anybody?



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Please don't vote in this thread! For the purposes of anonymity, any votes must be submitted to Turi, as public votes could serve to skewer other people's votes in a particular direction. That would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise.


ups i skipped the small print


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> ups i skipped the small print


So could you edit your vote out of your comment?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Soul Kitchen said:


> So could you edit your vote out of your comment?


sure, done


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

@Turi, How long until results?



Drecon said:


> Typing on the basis of videos is a bad idea. People often have a 'stage persona' that they show in videos.


Chopper was notorious for being a walking stage persona.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Sounds arrogant, but I consider myself a very objective typist. For the the simple reason that in good ol' Si/Te fashion, I focus on objectives facts and not ''what I want''. I don't a flying f*ck that a person/celebrity/fictional character I love is a completely different type as me and vice-versa. I feel the need to mention that because I see so much bullshit here of users typing people they like as themselves and typing people they hate as their polar opposite. Like _''I love this actress so much!! She's clearly INFx just like me! There's no other alternative/I can't stand this douchebag so he's clearly STJ.''_

But at the end of the day perceiving and judging are subjective and personal to all, even if they use the word ''objective'' for extroverted functions. So yeah, only a cyborg/typing machine can type 100% objectively, everyone will ultimately put their own spin on it, even if they think they don't.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> let hear what the crowd has to say


This is not a democracy.


----------



## shinedowness (Dec 11, 2017)

Stevester said:


> Sounds arrogant, but I consider myself a very objective typist.


Me, too. I do my best anyways.



Stevester said:


> For the the simple reason that in good ol' Si/Te fashion, I focus on objectives facts and not ''what I want''. I don't a flying f*ck that a person/celebrity/fictional character I love is a completely different type as me and vice-versa.


 Me too to a certain extent except I focus on what I want sometimes. What "feeds" me are video games, debating, adventure, effective standards to make quality over quantity matter, and other things.


Stevester said:


> I feel the need to mention that because I see so much bullshit here of users typing people they like as themselves and typing people they hate as their polar opposite. Like _''I love this actress so much!! She's clearly INFx just like me! There's no other alternative/I can't stand this douchebag so he's clearly STJ.''_


Haha, where on PersonalityCafe.com or where on a website has people doing that? I don't like Trump and identified him as SFP out from thinking he feeds off of his real environment in an impulsive way and without thinking of future consequences as much since he shows himself shameless whenever he got bankrupt 4 times, lies, is in the process of dismantling the US importing and exporting trade business (making it harder for foreign countries to get their resources to come to the US (this can make the US have a higher fascism towards foreign countries)), etc.



Stevester said:


> But at the end of the day perceiving and judging are subjective and personal to all, even if they use the word ''objective'' for extroverted functions. So yeah, only a cyborg/typing machine can type 100% objectively, everyone will ultimately put their own spin on it, even if they think they don't.


Agreed.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> This is not a democracy.


thank gud


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> thank gud


Tbh

I agree


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't think so, don't think this is that great of a system in the first place, I'm not sure if it's even real (as opposed to something like Enneagram that I can really see at work even though some people don't fit as neatly into the system)
Don't think it matters, typing process is the most important thing.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

#1, I would love to see a round 2 of this with another hard-to-type person with the same sorts of circumstances that "Chopper" has (little to no previous typings, limited interviews, etc...)

#2, I had more reasons for my analysis than what I gave you in PM, but I thought that I had already gotten so long winded that I didn't want to add more. I could though, if you want me to. 

#3, I'm very interested in the other in-depth analysis given.

#4, Wow, it's hard to imagine that 12 people would come to such different conclusions. I'm wondering if I fall with the group or am an outlier.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Should be fun to see the results. Time yet, @Turi? :tongue:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

'bout as good as it's going to get.

*Total tally:
*_ISTP _- 2
_ISFP _- 2
_ESFP _- 4
_ENFP _- 1
_ESTJ _- 1
_ESTP _- 4
_ISTJ _- 1

Total of *15 *votes. Not great. 
When there was 12 last time I posted, I want to note there was 1 single ESTP vote.
3 ESTP votes came in within the last 24 or so hours.

ESFP was the type that had 3 votes when I said it last time.

*If we break down the totals:*
_E/I_
I - 5.
E - 10.

_S/N_
S - 14.
N - 1.

_T/F_
T - 8.
F - 7.

_P/J_
P - 13.
J - 2.


It should be noted that the SP temperament has 12 of 15 votes for it - _consistent_.
ESxP preferences have 8 of 15 votes - imo this is _inconsistent_.

Not many responses are worth re-posting, with a number of them simply being the type suggestion with little to no elaboration.
I want to note that the only ones worth posting are for the ESxP preferences - this to me at least demonstrates when people have actually put in some effort, there _has _been consistency.
Some of these are.. better than others.

I'll keep these anonymous, unless the respondent wants, or is comfortable with, with their name being slapped on top 
- _let me know_, I should have asked earlier:


*ESFP*



> In the moment type, describing details well and dynamically. In touch with sensations for sure. Talking manner resembles ExFP types, as it's fast and focused on what people say and how they say it, when they are telling the stories.
> 
> Nothing else stood out as much.





> *Introduction*
> For my analysis of Chopper's type, I've mostly written about which type from _Psychological Types Chapter X_ I think fits Chopper best. Quotes from the videos you shared are cited as examples. I've make some observations about his auxiliary function where applicable, and also speculated on how his unconscious functions may have influenced him. For the sake of consistency across function frameworks, I haven't make any assertions as to the orientation of the auxiliary function. However, I have treated both the tertiary and inferior functions as opposite in orientation, which is official both within Jung's theory and in the MBTI model.
> 
> *Mark "Chopper" Read*
> ...





> Alright, I've got a bit of time now, so I'm in on the Chopper thing. Curious what will come of it.
> 
> I know I'm going about this in the wrong order but I always start by a hypothesis and try to prove myself wrong. If nothing comes up I try to find evidence for it.
> For that reason I'll start with the type I see as most likely from the videos: ESFP
> ...




*ESTP*


> I'm late to the party here, but I watched a bit of each of the clips and I'm interested in the results of this. I've never thought I was very good at typing others, so keep that in mind, too.
> 
> The first video I get a lot of Se out of. He is gesturing, aware of appearances, shows off his sportsmanship and has this sort of nonchalance about him which I associate with Se types. Also, while his eyes are alert and watchful, they have some of that Ni in them, too. So I'm very convinced that he's on the Se/Ni axis with Se coming before Ni. Under this video, I think he could be an ESTP or ISTP
> 
> ...





> I vote for ESTP
> 
> * He's definitely extroverted
> * He seems sensation oriented (gestures, marksmanship, etc)
> ...



*ISTP*


> I probably should...okay definitely should watch more, but I have to say I got a very, very strong ISTP vibe from the guy... (sorry I'm a feeler, it's probably off-putting I'm saying "vibe")... My dad is ISTP and he has a thing about hunting down rabbits, too, that struck me hard... I could even see his reasoning for it being inferior fe, like "I'm helping you by keeping the rabbit population down, that's my responsibility"... A criminal fi-te user might say something more like, "I can't stand rabbits, I want them out of my garden" with a straight-(ish) face (his face isn't straight, it's friendly like fe). When he fires the gun, I do not see te. I see a lot of posts these days about "forget tertiary, inferior functions" so I apologize if it's off-putting to bring up my inferior function, but if I were to fire a gun I know I would have a look on my face like "I will destroy you" and it would stay there... I do not see that with him at all. His detachment is chilling, it feels very ti-ish to me. More inner logic than outer if you will. I get the feeling his criminal behavior has more to do with the excitement of se (shooting guns is fun, maybe?) than the...ruthlessness? can't think of the word, of te. Plus just the fact he gravitates toward tools like a gun so naturally feels ISTP to me.




All other responses were basically this, or _less_:


> Had him typed as SLE. Se lead with Ti auxiliary.
> 
> Considered LSI (Ti-Se), yet his use of Fe reflects that of the SLE.




I'd love for the people who suggested ESTJ, ISTJ and ENFP to elaborate, due to how vastly different those types are from the slight majority voting for ESxP.

-

In my personal opinion, most of the votes should be for the _exact same type_ in order for this to have really been a success.
Even though there are 4 for ESFP and 4 for ESTP, and together that makes up over half of the responses, it's still 2 different types.

Assuming ESFP is correct, *11 **of 15* people got it _*wrong*_. 
Same deal for ESTP.

I do believe 12 of 15 suggesting xSxP preferences is consistent and a great result, though I'm worried some of it may be due to stereotypes which is why I'd love those ESTJ, ISTJ and ENFP arguments.




Thanks to all who responded, I will be doing another one soon, and aligned with what DOGSOUP suggested, I'll be outlining/defining the functions, so people can type in accordance to 'the thread' so to speak.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Those conclusions are unsurprising. Some of these function associations are off. Another experiment using your own definitions would be... amusing.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I agree with you that the stereotypes about criminals could have played a really large role. I tried to be as observant of my internal reaction as possible as I read through the different reasonings and I found myself doubting my initial typing when I saw the reasoning behind ESFP and ISTP (for anyone who wants to know, I typed him as ESTP). 

In the 8 type model where the types are divided into those who lead with the same function, it appears the group put him in 1 of the 8 more than others. But this is just saying the same thing you said in a different way.

While I didn't identify him as a J type, I could guess at why someone might. Criminals tend to fall into two categories: disorganized and organized. Organized killers tend to show a level of planning or at least some executive functioning after the crime of passion. In other words, they are "smart". I believe criminal profilers using the FBI standards would put him as an organized criminal because it appears he planned the crimes and had some control about what he did during the crimes.

It could be that this organization is what pushed the J typing over the P typing, but that's just conjecture.

I really can see him as an ESXP, going in either direction. I still prefer ESTP to ESFP, but I like the compelling argument that he's an ESFP and I can definitely see that conclusion, too. 

So, to extend the experiment a little further, if I were to read through other people's responses before making my own, I think I would have used the ESFP explanation to boost my confidence that he was Se dominant and see the ISTP reasoning as being something to boost the Ti next. I do not believe I'd change my answer, though. And, after all, I rarely read through the posts when questions like this are asked. It's more natural for me to just post whatever my response is - it's more direct and quick and then, if I'm that interested in it, to go back and read the rest of the posts.

EDIT TO ADD: @Turi - when you do the next one, could you try to find someone who is most likely sane? I think the criminology and the potential pathos that goes with that can distort the ability for others to perceive cognitive functions. It's up to you. I'll "play" regardless as I find it fascinating.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Who wants to guess the types of those whose analyses @Turi had shared?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Who wants to guess the types of those whose analyses @Turi had shared?


That is a very good idea, lol.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

brightflashes said:


> I agree with you that the stereotypes about criminals could have played a really large role.


Chopper loved those stereotypes. _From the Inside_ is one big stereotype.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Bastard said:


> Chopper loved those stereotypes. _From the Inside_ is one big stereotype.


See, I never met him nor do I know him personally. I thought about the ESFP typing a bit more and I decided that I couldn't feel strong in that type simply because I saw absolutely no Te. I know some models put the two bottom functions as completely subconscious functions, but I'm of the mind that the tertiary function is accessible. I saw evidence of Fe, but no evidence of Te. But then again, even with my response to Turi directly, I really don't consider myself "good" at typing others. I might be trained for criminal profiling, but I prefer tests and measures for discerning personality type.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Tbh, if it isn't based on external characteristics, then it's all up in the air. 

I put down SLE for him.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> I agree with you that the stereotypes about criminals could have played a really large role. I tried to be as observant of my internal reaction as possible as I read through the different reasonings and I found myself doubting my initial typing when I saw the reasoning behind ESFP and ISTP (for anyone who wants to know, I typed him as ESTP).
> 
> In the 8 type model where the types are divided into those who lead with the same function, it appears the group put him in 1 of the 8 more than others. But this is just saying the same thing you said in a different way.
> 
> ...


P types are just looser within the frameworks in which they operate. They don't necessarily lack foresight or executive function. Chopper's ability to plan and control what he did doesn't exclude him from being a P, although it does indicate a good level of impulse control for someone who most likely had ASPD.

I'm the one who wrote the ESFP argument you're referring to, if that's indeed the argument you had in mind.



> See, I never met him nor do I know him personally. I thought about the ESFP typing a bit more and I decided that I couldn't feel strong in that type simply because I saw absolutely no Te. I know some models put the two bottom functions as completely subconscious functions, but I'm of the mind that the tertiary function is accessible. I saw evidence of Fe, but no evidence of Te. But then again, even with my response to Turi directly, I really don't consider myself "good" at typing others. I might be trained for criminal profiling, but I prefer tests and measures for discerning personality type.


I'll admit the main limitation in my argument was taking Chopper too closely at his word. For all I know, all the F stuff I saw in him might all have been blown out of proportion to make him look more "heroic" than he really was, and Chopper could have just been a cold blooded ESTP with an engaging persona. This wouldn't be out of character for a sociopath.

Nevertheless, I still stand by my decision to type Chopper as an ESFP. I didn't see much T in him, and the F stuff seemed integrated enough into his general outlook where I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. The reason I didn't assert whether Chopper's auxiliary was Fe or Fi was because it lacked much autonomy of influence, being too tethered to his particular brand of dominant Se.

As for the tertiary function, I'm of the opinion that the tertiary function can play a transcendent role in the psyche, but it would still carry the taint of the inferior function. Chopper's Feeling function seemed too integrated to be predominantly subconscious, assuming Chopper really did mean the things he said about his own twisted sense of justice.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Who wants to guess the types of those whose analyses @Turi had shared?


Hrrrm, at least it seems like the INTJ used a formal introduction, conclusion and academic references; the EF talked about vibes and impressions and implications of words... the beta ST used Socionics for this analysis and displayed minimal verbosity, as is typical. 10/10 typology is real.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Soul Kitchen said:


> P types are just looser within the frameworks in which they operate. They don't necessarily lack foresight or executive function. Chopper's ability to plan and control what he did doesn't exclude him from being a P, although it does indicate a good level of impulse control for someone who most likely had ASPD.


See, _I_ know that, but I don't know what the mindset was of the people who proposed he is a J type and I figured that might be why - the extroverted judging might be an indicator of attempting to organize information outside of the self. 

I really love your analysis, by the way. It's so thorough. I was thinking it seemed like an INTP writing (based on the way my husband writes and a few other INTPs I've observed casually), so it's nice to have that confirmed. : )


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Oh looks like I am the lone N vote. I'm surprised. It seems like he was generally motivated by the ideas behind things more than some sort of "Se" motivations, which makes me think he would be better described as having Ne "information flow", and he's quite likely T by letters but @Turi asked to use a function approach, which is how I got ENFP. Basically "Ne-Fi" seemed to fit him better than anything else and @Soul Kitchen is on the same rough page as me with regards to reasoning for the Fi part.

Also I think ENxPs would be more likely to fit the concept of being an "organized killer" than ESxP.

And damn, I don't know how anyone could listen to this guy and possibly think "introvert". He is like 100% extraverted. If anyone needs to retire from typology, it's the people who voted for I types.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Ocean Helm , @DOGSOUP - I typed him as an ES*T*P. My analysis was the one that began that I was late to the party.

The in depth analyses of ESFP was provided by INTP @Soul Kitchen.

I don't know where the confusion is, but since two people have given the impression that I was the one who typed the long analysis, I just wanted to make certain the one who actually did do the long analysis got credit because I thought it was brilliant, myself.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Oh damn well this is what Turi would call "inferior Se". I was too concerned with reading the comments that I didn't pay much attention to the names behind them. Now I fixed it though. Soul Kitchen voted for ESFP by the way roud:


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> @Ocean Helm , @DOGSOUP - I typed him as an ES*T*P. My analysis was the one that began that I was late to the party.
> 
> The in depth analyses of ESFP was provided by INTP @Soul Kitchen.
> 
> I don't know where the confusion is, but since two people have given the impression that I was the one who typed the long analysis, I just wanted to make certain the one who actually did do the long analysis got credit because I thought it was brilliant, myself.


Okay I'll admit, you two ILIs were my strongest candidates. Only one other INTJ here cites his sources better.

Not sure how I feel about this tbh.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> Not sure how I feel about this tbh.


I cite the hell out of my sources in academic/professional writing, but I figure this is a casual conversation forum, so I usually don't tend to unless asked directly. For me, it's tedious and I don't know if it's a waste of time here or not (possibly my Te speaking?). I'm not trying to convince anyone basically, I just want to share or elaborate on something I find interesting when I interact here. I know there's a book out there on types and writing (I haven't read it yet), but I'd imagine, based on the INTPs I know, that the INTPs tend towards elaboration while the INTJs tend toward getting to the point quickly, perhaps leaving out the details. I base this on Ti vs Te and the writing samples I've seen here on the boards and IRL.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Sharing opinions can often be sort of pointless when you don't leave people at least a vague clue of how to get there. Not citing sources or elaborating seems to way more often by a sign of laziness than anything commonly associated with Te like efficiency.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

like in art, the less you reveal the more mystical it will seem


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> like in art, the less you reveal the more mystical it will seem


True, but I really only see Internet "Ni-Doms" seeing that as a main objective.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Sharing opinions can often be sort of pointless when you don't leave people at least a vague clue of how to get there. Not citing sources or elaborating seems to way more often by a sign of laziness than anything commonly associated with Te like efficiency.


I would actually think it takes a certain amount of Te appreciation to cite sources, both because you see the need to ground your thought process to something external, and also especially if you view it more efficient to do so in the first place.

Though ironically, the two people who use the most citations here self-type as INTJ and INFJ respectively. For the former it seems to be more about manipulating information to ensure people buy their argument as objective truth, for the latter it seems to be more about building their own understanding... within the provided theoretical framework (& just a hobby). 

But then again, it's pretty common here to cite out of context to "prove" a point, and people do that regardless of type. When it comes to that, I'd prefer them to have more of their own understanding, _based_ on the source material, but not taking it word for word. Despite it going against the aspirations of being more objective.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Going over my analysis, if I were an onlooker who didn't know who wrote it, I would've speculated it was the work of an Ni type.



Soul Kitchen said:


> The first quote, however, has a whiff of inferior Ni to it. There's something of a dark sense of destiny in there, as though Chopper were envisioning the inevitability of death, and using that vision to guide his reckless deeds forward in one direction. Hey, if we're all going to the grave, at least we shouldn't kid ourselves about it. However, due to the lack of any vision that goes further than that, we have ourselves an archaic Ni that does not provide any insight as to how Chopper's own life could be transformed into a vision quest, and nor does it spur him on to affect change in himself or his world.


Doesn't that sound an awful lot like a self-referential argument made by an Ni, one who constantly chases images with their own psyche, and who is driven to shape both their own life and their role in the world in accordance to their visions?



Soul Kitchen said:


> Although it may seem obvious to type a hardened criminal as an Se type, truth be told, stereotypes played scarcely little role in my evaluation of him as such. Instead, his life of crime was merely a reflection of his recklessness in the pursuit of life. Such was his recklessness that he seemed to think nothing of playing Russian Roulette for his own amusement.


One thing that really sticks out in the analysis is an utter lack of reliance upon sense inpressions. Most of the analyses used them to varying extents, such as being "in touch with his body", "his eyes are alert and watchful, they have some of that Ni in them the eyes", "seems sensation oriented (gestures, marksmanship, etc)", "ISTP vibe from the guy", or simply in comparing to people who allegedly share his type, but hardly any of that was present here. Instead, it was a big, long preoccupation with the nature of the subject, stripped away of their surface. Things Chopper said or did were engaged on a symbolic level, such as turning his casual Russian Roulettes into a symbol of his outlook towards life. In other words, perceiving a man with vertigo as pierced through the heart by an arrow.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

DOGSOUP said:


> Hrrrm, at least it seems like the INTJ used a formal introduction, conclusion and academic references; the EF talked about vibes and impressions and implications of words... the beta ST used Socionics for this analysis and displayed minimal verbosity, as is typical. 10/10 typology is real.


We're all walking stereotypes. :laughing:



Ocean Helm said:


> Not citing sources or elaborating seems to way more often by a sign of laziness than anything commonly associated with Te like efficiency.


Hit the nail on the head here. It's a caricature of "Te efficiency."


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Te isn't "efficiency".


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Te isn't "efficiency".


Hence _commonly associated_ and "Te efficiency" [sic].


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Hence _commonly associated_ and "Te efficiency" [sic].


I hereby dissociate adjectives from typology dialect.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Turi said:


> I hereby dissociate adjectives from typology dialect.


Congratulations. Learn what scare quotes are.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Bastard said:


> Congratulations. Learn what scare quotes are.


Ocean Helm didn't use "scare quotes".


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Turi said:


> Ocean Helm didn't use "scare quotes".


He didn't say Te was efficiency either.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> I hereby dissociate adjectives from typology dialect.


Aw, but where is the fun in that?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Bastard said:


> He didn't say Te was efficiency either.


No, he didn't - he said it was commonly associated with Te.
Which is unfortunately the case due to bullshit adjectives and horseshit stereotypes being bandied about everywhere.
I was just chiming in to say, Te =/= efficiency, because I mean, efficient at what?

If Te = efficiency, are all non-Te types not efficient (at whatever it is Te is efficient at, specifically)?
What about Fi types, inferior Te - is this inferior efficiency? Can they never, ever be efficient?

That kind of thing is something we should all rally against.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> Sharing opinions can often be sort of pointless when you don't leave people at least a vague clue of how to get there. Not citing sources or elaborating seems to way more often by a sign of laziness than anything commonly associated with Te like efficiency.


I suppose, though, just for the sake of argument, that it doesn't really matter if what I'm giving is an opinion. I personally don't think it's lazy, but then, it takes a deal of concentration for me to outline my ideas and thoughts on something. I still see it as redundant, especially if what I say is common knowledge. 

For example, if I were to quote a popular song, "Let it Be", I wouldn't be like "Let it Be", as written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon from their 12th studio album, recorded in 1969, published in 1970, produced by George Martin & Phil Spector, the album's second single ...


It's just way too much information if all I want to say is:

Hey type Enneagram 9s. Would you consider the lyrics to "Let it Be" (Beatles) to be the sort of song that describes type 9 attitudes? What are other type 9 songs?

- - - - - - - - - - 

I guess maybe I'd understand the argument that people who don't cite sources are "lazy" if I had more things to say on here where citing sources is necessary?


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Turi said:


> No, he didn't - he said it was commonly associated with Te.
> Which is unfortunately the case due to bullshit adjectives and horseshit stereotypes being bandied about everywhere.
> I was just chiming in to say, Te =/= efficiency, because I mean, efficient at what?
> 
> ...


This is interesting. I associate people who value efficiency with INTJs (I can't remember ever hearing an ENTJ, INFJ, or ENFJ talk about it as much as the INTJs do). I thought it might be a combination of Ni+Te, but I admit that I also associate efficiency with Te. What would you suggest be a better way of looking at it? Do you have a post that you can point me to so that you don't have to rewrite anything?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@brightflashes have you read the link in my sig?

Also:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Oh yeah - I like that guy because he's funny, but I'm not certain I buy into what he says. I did like what he said about Ni vs Ne, though. I'll watch this all the way through. I've read the link, but I haven't visited it in a few days and I didn't read much. I'll check it out more in depth. : )

Edit: Ah, I see what happened - I browsed away from the post by clicking on home or about or something and never looped back around to seeing the actual post. Thanks for the reference. I definitely get where you're coming from and I think that what you have outlined is reasonable and it's definitely easy to understand. 

The best way I can say it is that I'm a bit skeptical of this guy - not because of what Google searches turn up or what other things show up searching a forum or whatever, but because of how much I've read about typology from those who have built the theory from the beginning on. It's easier for me to trust information when it's coming directly from the source, though I have to admit that I find your mind brilliant when it comes to this whole system. You often give me things to think about that I wouldn't otherwise.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> Oh yeah - I like that guy because he's funny, but I'm not certain I buy into what he says. I did like what he said about Ni vs Ne, though. I'll watch this all the way through. I've read the link, but I haven't visited it in a few days and I didn't read much. I'll check it out more in depth. : )


You say you don't buy into what he says - why not?

I'm not "quizzing" you or anything - I'm genuinely curious as to whether he is shifting far enough away from Jungs work that it's putting some die-hard Jung-fans off - I know you're well-versed in Jungs work.

I'm also interested in knowing whether it's due to your own deductions or if you're being influenced by the majority/group here.

In my opinion he's pretty faithful to the source, and he's separating the BS adjectives people use to try and type others with - his video on INFJs in a business setting beautifully encapsulates the introverted iNtUiTiVe type (and inherently, the inferior Extraverted sensation of the type).

It's this more "true to source" perspective that seems to be what he's having success testing - the workings of the functions rather than the possible byproducts i.e stereotypes.

That video is equally as applicable to INTJ types. It's more "real" INxJ.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

ah, I went back and edited my initial post, so maybe my explanation is there, but to elaborate, I do think what he's doing is important. Getting rid of all the BS is extremely important, especially for those who want to play armchair psychologist without doing any personal research or attempting to gain understanding of what they're essentially copying and pasting.

The way I was taught to look at psychological theory was to look at it from the moment it was conceived through all its various incarnations. So, let's say I look at what Jung says, and then Keirsey, Myers and Briggs, and Dario Nardi. 

Just as an example, I pick up Nardi's neurological "maps" of certain cognitive functions. Yet maybe I see that he's using some of these BS words to describe it. Does that automatically mean that everything he has said in the book is BS? No, there's still the idea that each person studied took the Tests and Measures while, many argue are flawed, are the standard measure at the moment and according to that test and measure, here's what their brains look like. Does this correspond to each function? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not the sort that likes to draw absolutes or strong conclusions from one person's perspective alone. However, some people convey the system in ways that resonate with me more than others, like Beebe, for example. 

When I look at MBTI/Typology/Cognitive Functions/Ways of classifying personality, it's not so much about drawing conclusions about it or defining it. My mind naturally doesn't want to do that. 

I prefer to soak up as much information as possible about a theory so that then, I can sit back and relax and let all of the information mix and settle in my mind. To go into their different categories and cross-categories and only then I might glean something useful by comparing all of the information that I've at this point learned. 

I try to be somewhat systematic about it and be open minded, but there's something about this person that seems a bit close minded and show-offy to me. That sort of attitude happens to put me off. Maybe it's because of an experience I had when I was 2 or maybe it's because of something else - I don't know. I wish I had a more rational reason for you, but I do consider what he says; I just don't find as much value in it as I do with others. Perhaps he'll grow on me. I certainly haven't written him off.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I brought up "efficiency" with Te because that symbolizes the argument I would expect to be used. There is this idea that Te is about "getting the job done ASAP" doing whatever it takes, which is often abbreviated to efficiency. Thus you would expect someone who identifies with strong Te to:
a) be focused on completing tasks
b) not waste time "dawdling"

And so if they set out to illustrate a point, citing sources and elaborating would seem like they would be part of the game plan, because citing sources is an effective way of establishing credibility and providing additional reading material to clarify the point, and elaborating also clarifies and assists in understanding. Just saying something is, because that's what you think - no citations, no elaborations - usually accomplishes close to nothing, and the reason why people do that is usually because they don't want to put in the time and effort to actually "make their point". That is not efficiency, that is laziness, and I've noticed so many self-proclaimed "INTJ" people putting forward half-assed stuff, establishing zero external credibility or reasoning on why to take their position, rife with blatant logical and reasoning errors, and then when a "Ti" type comes along to point out their shitty "thinking" in general, as well as demonstrate why it's wrong in what is undeniable logic, they scamper away, tail between their legs, whining "pedantry!", implying that their dumb theories don't even need to be subjected to external logic. Of course, they are *INTJ* and that is a *total waste of their efficiently allocated time* which (of course) they just spent putting forth shitty ideas. *Where's the goddamn Te in that?*

And yeah @Turi my point never was that "efficiency = Te".


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

This thread has made it clear to me that objectively typing with functions is likely not possible at all. That's not to say there aren't any insightful things the functions can say about a person from a theoretical standpoint, but typing someone consistently with functions requires not only having consistent interpretations of them - which is what @Turi identified as a key issue here - but also consistent interpretations of individuals, too. No two people perceive any individual the same way, and I've noticed the subtle differences in how people have come to the conclusions they've reached about Mark "Chopper" Read.

While the MBTI model has a method of typing people through testing - thus providing concrete data both on individuals and on demographics - the functions seem to be inherently untestable, as they are reliant on conjecture and subjective interpretation in order to be usable.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This thread has made it clear to me that objectively typing with functions is likely not possible at all. That's not to say there aren't any insightful things the functions can say about a person from a theoretical standpoint, but typing someone consistently with functions requires not only having consistent interpretations of them - which is what @Turi identified as a key issue here - but also consistent interpretations of individuals, too. No two people perceive any individual the same way, and I've noticed the subtle differences in how people have come to the conclusions they've reached about Mark "Chopper" Read.
> 
> While the MBTI model has a method of typing people through testing - thus providing concrete data both on individuals and on demographics - the functions seem to be inherently untestable, as they are reliant on conjecture and subjective interpretation in order to be usable.


or it's impossible to type other people by seeing a couple of videos of them talking
I find it much easier to identify functions with people I actually know much better IRL, because I've seen the functions in "action" more than enough times to understand how their behavior links to them


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This thread has made it clear to me that objectively typing with functions is likely not possible at all. That's not to say there aren't any insightful things the functions can say about a person from a theoretical standpoint, but typing someone consistently with functions requires not only having consistent interpretations of them - which is what @Turi identified as a key issue here - but also consistent interpretations of individuals, too. No two people perceive any individual the same way, and I've noticed the subtle differences in how people have come to the conclusions they've reached about Mark "Chopper" Read.
> 
> While the MBTI model has a method of typing people through testing - thus providing concrete data both on individuals and on demographics - the functions seem to be inherently untestable, as they are reliant on conjecture and subjective interpretation in order to be usable.


This is where the 'objective' part is supposed to kick in - we _can't _be objective without the same crystal-clear definitions of the functions being shared by everyone who attempts this.
Without literally having a checklist to use, and that checklist being the same one we're all using, then subjectivity will creep in.

I was just trying to see if we were all remotely on the same page - 8/15 votes for ESxP isn't 'bad' but it's not 'good' either, it's not much better than simply flipping a coin.
If we break that down to specific types, then we're look at 4/15 (for both ESTP and ESFP) and that's _worse _than flipping a coin.


I believe if everyone is following the exact same criteria, the results will be much, much more consistent.
Imagine if everyone relied on the same, original source you did, for instance, would there be as much variation?
Probably not.

I wouldn't rule it out just yet, due to me not including definitions to adhere to (even if y'all disagree with them - after _consistency _ more than anything else).


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> This is where the 'objective' part is supposed to kick in - we _can't _be objective without the same crystal-clear definitions of the functions being shared by everyone who attempts this.
> Without literally having a checklist to use, and that checklist being the same one we're all using, then subjectivity will creep in.
> 
> I was just trying to see if we were all remotely on the same page - 8/15 votes for ESxP isn't 'bad' but it's not 'good' either, it's not much better than simply flipping a coin.
> ...


Perhaps, although I didn't actually rely so much on the original source when I wrote about Chopper's auxiliary Feeling function. I'll admit that maybe there might be more consistency were people using the exact same model in typing others, but even if people used the same model, would that stop them from interpreting that model subjectively? Unlikely.

This also begs the question of whether cognitive functions were even intended to be objective at all. Remember that Jung was a hardcore introverted thinking type, who valued subjective logic and speculation, and found objectivity limited a person's understanding of a theory or topic.

Jung didn't even consider extraverted thinking to be real logic. His view on this seems to be shared by @Ocean Helm, who criticised self-identifying Te types for lazily citing sources or copy-pasting instead of reasoning themselves, and then getting riled up when Ti types attack their shitty arguments.

I don't mean to imply that you're one of those Te types Jung or Ocean Helm described, by the way.



Red Panda said:


> or it's impossible to type other people by seeing a couple of videos of them talking
> I find it much easier to identify functions with people I actually know much better IRL, because I've seen the functions in "action" more than enough times to understand how their behavior links to them


But would other functionistas share your opinions on those people you knew, were they to know them as well as you do? Debatable. Besides, these are people in your own life, and these people may as well not exist to me if I can't sit down and analyse them.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> But would other functionistas share your opinions on those people you knew, were they to know them as well as you do? Debatable. Besides, these are people in your own life, and these people may as well not exist to me if I can't sit down and analyse them.


I think it's possible, but I'm not arguing for typing people based on isolated functions alone, anyway. 
You misunderstand my point, what I meant is that to observe all functions on a person it is best done when you know them well, and you can see how they navigate their life on a daily basis.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> I think it's possible, but I'm not arguing for typing people based on isolated functions alone, anyway.
> You misunderstand my point, what I meant is that to observe all functions on a person it is best done when you know them well, and you can see how they navigate their life on a daily basis.


That's a fair point, but the more intimate your background is with a person, the narrower the number of observations about a person's type would be, as such a level of intimacy would be harder to achieve. It would be more difficult to implement a test for that.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Perhaps, although I didn't actually rely so much on the original source when I wrote about Chopper's auxiliary Feeling function. I'll admit that maybe there might be more consistency were people using the exact same model in typing others, but even if people used the same model, would that stop them from interpreting that model subjectively? Unlikely.
> 
> This also begs the question of whether cognitive functions were even intended to be objective at all. Remember that Jung was a hardcore introverted thinking type, who valued subjective logic and speculation, and found objectivity limited a person's understanding of a theory or topic.
> 
> ...


Good points, I'd fall more into the 'Ti' camp here, lol - I took a similar position here a few days ago, suggesting Te types were unoriginal, lacking in creativity, heavily reliant on precedents and that Te was 'somewhat of a scavenger function'.

I for one just like messing around with cognitive functions and whatnot, enjoy typing others and theorizing about them etc - the idea of us all being on the same page with this is highly appealing to me.

By their very nature, Te and Fe types are going to be the ones who look outwards at what other people are thinking and reasoning, what other people are valuing, what other people like/dislike - it does make sense then, they're going to be the ones who prefer to cite others and perhaps even have difficulty formulating their own unique perspectives, and arguments to support them.

The way they're wired simply doesn't support this - synthesizing various points of view, perhaps, but that in itself isn't unique/fresh/new/original/creative, imo.

The most original ideas and perspectives are always going to come from within ones own mind (imo), so if you're naturally geared to look outside yourself for validation of your reasonings/values, well, the price you'll pay will be a deficit in personal creativity, imo.

Which fits beautifully with the idea of the function axis as Te-Fi and Fe-Ti.
Perhaps this is less of a problem for types that lead with a perceiving function, if the Grant stacks are to be accepted (and therefore idrlabs function 'axis') - then they'd have both judging functions sandwiched in between, maybe more able to flip between the two.


Dunno. Kinda theorizing.

I realize how offensive this post may be to some Te/Fe dominants and auxiliary types - _feel free to produce proof of your creativity and originality_ to rebut anything that offends you, here.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This also begs the question of whether cognitive functions were even intended to be objective at all. Remember that Jung was a hardcore introverted thinking type, who valued subjective logic and speculation, and found objectivity limited a person's understanding of a theory or topic.
> 
> Jung didn't even consider extraverted thinking to be real logic.


This actually bothers me about Jung. So he called that other scholar (Jordan??) out for his bias against extroverts, if I remember correctly, but it does become quite evident he doesn't particularly appreciate extroverted types either. Says they have some value in some obvious external context but it's pretty lame considering how he does not assign this value to them himself, really, although he seems to acknowledge it in relation with all the introverts. 

The part that I do enjoy is when he describes the subjectivity of the extroverts, because that is where he proves his insight, imo. Without that part you couldn't give the type description to someone and expect them to take it as a diagnosis. No one is going to read ET or EF descriptions and recognize themselves in it. No one. Even the most "obvious" Te dom, objective to the point of taking in facts and spitting out facts without ever chewing on them, isn't going to say "this is me", they are going to relate to the introspective introvert, otherwise they wouldn't even be into typology in the first place. Lol.

So is it fundamentally flawed if you want objectivity - yes. But like you said, that wasn't the point, and it does serve its purpose by being a tool mainly for the ITs to utilize when all else has failed. That much I have figured out.



Turi said:


> I realize how offensive this post may be to some Te/Fe dominants and auxiliary types - _feel free to produce proof of your creativity and originality_ to rebut anything that offends you, here.


Lol I promised myself I wouldn't play your games but you tempt me. But you actually want us to have Je consensus, so I find you somewhat more relatable than most people here. Sympathetic, if you will.

I did make a thread the other day about how typology is essentially ITs little power fantasy? Is that original enough for you? I presume it was precisely a product of synthesis. Furthermore, I do have an inkling it ties nicely with something I pretty much stole from Jung kinda how the inferior function is the cause of all alienation tied in with some evident sexual frustrations he also discussed veeery briefly, but when contrasted with what some feminist historians have to say I do recall having written a little essay's worth on the topic once. 

Additionally, if originality only comes within your own mind -- where did it actually originate? It was inherent? Then it is not truly yours, but you got generations of evolution's residue to thank. If you were inspired by something outside of yourself and ended up presenting a product of your creativity, you engaged in affectivity which counts as extroverted activity, congratulations.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> Good points, I'd fall more into the 'Ti' camp here, lol - I took a similar position here a few days ago, suggesting Te types were unoriginal, lacking in creativity, heavily reliant on precedents and that Te was 'somewhat of a scavenger function'.
> 
> I for one just like messing around with cognitive functions and whatnot, enjoy typing others and theorizing about them etc - the idea of us all being on the same page with this is highly appealing to me.
> 
> ...


As I've said a few times before, Te/Ti and other functions aren't going to be completely binary, but would instead be a spectrum of extraversion and introversion. Take me, for example. So I'm an introverted thinking type, be it in a dominant or auxiliary position, and almost everyone I run into on this forum goes "yep, Ti indeed". As a Ti type, I'm not naturally going to be content on group reasoning, so the fact everyone constantly types me as being Ti isn't going to be too satisfactory. If I'm wrong about something, the argument of one person is going to suffice if that argument were convincing enough, which is why it perked my interest when reckful suggested "no, you're an INF, and not an NTP". The fact he was an exception and had an original perspective to offer got my attention.

However, I do possess an extraverted factor to my thinking. I'm more inclined to respect the opinions of those who are experts on a topic than those who believe they know more than experts who've studied it for years - at least until proven otherwise. And I will also cite sources from a respectable authority to prove my point.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Jung didn't even consider extraverted thinking to be real logic. His view on this seems to be shared by @Ocean Helm, who criticised self-identifying Te types for lazily citing sources or copy-pasting instead of reasoning themselves, and then getting riled up when Ti types attack their shitty arguments.


I need to clarify here. I wasn't intending to draw any connection between the Internet INTJs that I was talking about, and Jung's Te type. I intended my point to be to the contrary - that these self-proclaimed "Ni-Te" people are using typology (some conception of "Te efficiency" along with "Ni" being too cool for logic) as an excuse to be intellectually lazy, which actually is in contrast to what extraverted thinking should stand for (according to Jung and many others). You can look at it as a form of hypocrisy - using "Te" as an excuse to avoid Te.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I need to clarify here. I wasn't intending to draw any connection between the Internet INTJs that I was talking about, and Jung's Te type. I intended my point to be to the contrary - that these self-proclaimed "Ni-Te" people are using typology (some conception of "Te efficiency" along with "Ni" being too cool for logic) as an excuse to be intellectually lazy, which actually is in contrast to what extraverted thinking should stand for (according to Jung and many others).


Te dom here y'all. Too lazy for citations. Too lazy to even read the sources bro, no time for that.
I read the title of the book and I'm done man got more important things to do, like organize and be efficient and effective and make sure external things are all logical and shit up in here.

In a sense, Ni _is _'too cool' for logic - at least, conscious logical reasoning (not to be confused with _Thinking_, imo) - the connections that intuition makes occur below our (collective 'our' btw, not Ni type-specific, we all have all functions obviously) level of awareness.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> In a sense, Ni _is _'too cool' for logic - at least, conscious logical reasoning - the connections that intuition makes occur below our (collective 'our' btw, not Ni type-specific, we all have all functions obviously) level of awareness.


If you are to treat Ni as a perception function, then yes it would make sense to say it doesn't deal with "logic" in the traditional sense. But this is different from Ni types, who are supposed to have at least 4 functions according to the popular models, be it Jung, Grant, Socionics, or Beebe. I am talking about people who identify with function stacks that start with "Ni-Te" or "Ni-Te" in ego block.

A good deal of the time, explaining myself is a painful process because I'm not consciously using a lot of linear logic, but rather than saying "I just know" I end up trying to come up with some kind of reasoning that I hope will help others to see things the same way that I do. I could just put INTJ in my profile and then follow the "I just know this is the case, logic is for Ti pedants" excuse for laziness, but instead I try to actually add something to the discussion and help people see things my way. I guess it's just very frustrating when I run into people who use type to avoid this basic courtesy which allows discussions to be productive and enlightening in general.

What I described would be what I'd expect out of these "INTJs" because after all they are "Te users" and (usually according to their own theory) should want to accomplish external things, but it seems they just use their function theory as an excuse to keep their (supposedly) brilliant ideas locked up inside their head.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> I need to clarify here. I wasn't intending to draw any connection between the Internet INTJs that I was talking about, and Jung's Te type. I intended my point to be to the contrary - that these self-proclaimed "Ni-Te" people are using typology (some conception of "Te efficiency" along with "Ni" being too cool for logic) as an excuse to be intellectually lazy, which actually is in contrast to what extraverted thinking should stand for (according to Jung and many others). You can look at it as a form of hypocrisy - using "Te" as an excuse to avoid Te.


I see your point. For all their talk about objectivity and facts, many of these internet INTJs - save for ones such as reckful - sure aren't walking the talk, and many of them likely aren't Jungian Te types. Never mind that it's inconsistent for an IT type to have extraverted thinking. But does that stop them from being INTJs if they're irrational IN types who trust the conclusions reached by their subconscious intuition? Not necessarily.

I still stand by my point that Jung did not consider extraverted thinking to be real logic, as he described it as too reliant on peer review and general consensus to be able to formulate any real understanding for itself. However, assuming there's actually some validity to functions, should we take Jung's word for it when he was clearly approaching the whole thing from his own Limbic INT bias? Should we take Jung's word as some immutable law?


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Should we take Jung's word as some immutable law?


Should we return to steam locomotives? :tongue:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Turi

I usually agree with you, but I've been thinking about what you've said here about Te and what you wrote about Te from that link and I've come to either the conclusion that:
1, I actually don't use Te
2, I really don't know what Te is at all
3, I do use Te and don't experience it at all the way you describe.

I believe the truth is the 3rd one, though. 

I experience Te as being directive of what happens outside myself. For example, I want to help other people think better. This might show up with me wanting to help people through cognitive therapy (something I used to want to do, but no longer do anymore). Or, it might show up in what @hornpipe2 identifies as sentences that say, "Why don't you just ..." or "Wouldn't it be easier if ..." 

These questions are directed usually at someone doing something which isn't as effective as I think it could be. I would like to see them be more capable, personally.

The way this is directed toward facts is also like this. I generally believe personally that there are objective truths which are obvious to everyone. However, I have noticed that not everyone agrees that these are obvious. For example, I know that humans have genes. It's, basically, common knowledge. I don't have to say "humans have genes" and cite it because it's something that most people know - in that collective understand educated people have. However, I know someone who says he doesn't "believe in genes". I have no clue why. He knows his eyes are similar to his grandfather's, he recognizes that he doesn't have dark skin because both of his parents have light skin, and etc..., but he just doesn't believe it's because of genes. This is something that I can't understand. He is a Ti dom and, for whatever reason, he has decided that a part of his internal framework includes some sort of model where genes don't make sense according to the rest of the information he has accumulated.

I like to organize, effect change, help others see things more clearly, organize work-space flow for optimal efficiency. I'm so moved by these sorts of things that I actually am very touched by those flash mobs because of everyone working together to make this choreographed thing. I think man, if we could all put our minds together with the amount of focus that a flash mob does, what could be accomplish? 

I want to solve problems. I want to enact ideas I have in the physical world. I am very interested in testing out my theories. I also am deeply curious about what other people think. I like to collect different perspectives and I find the way that other people reason to be fascinating.

This is how I experience what I believe is my Te and, from what I know about myself, I'm very particular when it comes to wasting time or inefficiency. I admit to being probably much more impatient than the average person. I also am aware that these outside truths can change based on additional tests, measures, information, etc... so I shy away from using absolutist wording.

I'm interested in your explaining to me the fault in my understanding of Te. And, if you are able, to correct me if perhaps what I think is Te is really Ni. And, like you mentioned earlier, I'm not trying to grill you or anything, but I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. It's so rare that we disagree that I'm very intrigued by there being any sort of difference between us.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@brightflashes - I'm not sure we really disagree, you attribute a heap of adjectives and what not to Te, that I personally see as potential byproducts of Te, and not as the workings of Te itself i.e 'efficiency', 'capable', 'effective', 'effect change' - this kind of stuff imo has nothing to do with typology (I realize nobody agrees with me here).

But your general 'worldview', as outlined here:



> I generally believe personally that there are objective truths which are obvious to everyone. However, I have noticed that not everyone agrees that these are obvious. For example, I know that humans have genes. It's, basically, common knowledge. I don't have to say "humans have genes" and cite it because it's something that most people know - in that collective understand educated people have.


Is definitely Te. Objective truths. Precedents, standards, that's Te.
It's looking outwards at 'group' reasoning - by 'group', I don't mean a literal gathering of people of whom you ask 'what do you think about XXXXX?', rather I mean exactly what is mentioned above, precedents, standards, objective truths - common sense, in accordance with the outside world.

Not internal 'common sense' ala the dude who thinks genes aren't a thing, but 'real world' common sense.

It's looking at that 'collective' reasoning, that is Te.
_Acting _on it is another matter entirely, imo, it's simply _looking _at the wider spectrum of reasoning that makes one a Te type.

My own interpretation of Te is almost 'natural laws of order' of sorts - I'm of the belief that something like deciding not to try and grow cherries in the desert, would be Te - it makes no external sense (reason), it breaks 'the rules' (reason), it 'doesn't work' (reason).

Same deal with driving on the wrong side of the road - makes no sense (reason), you'll get caught/fined etc (reason), it's dangerous (reason), breaks the rules (reason) - these are of course man-made rules, but they're Te rules nonetheless.
Notice how they don't actually require 'people' directly.

It's about group/external reasons, and this includes 'common sense'.
Fe might be deciding not to start up a ska band in your region, because nobody likes ska (Fe value).
Te might be deciding not to start up a ska band in your region, because you won't get any gigs (Te reason) - _why though_? Because nobody likes ska (Fe value and also a Te reason).

All connected.

I do believe your perspective/worldview is aligned with mine with regards to Te - I just don't like adjectives etc as I find them more like _*possible *byproducts_ of functions etc.
So if you've got those adjectives in your head and they're linked to your understanding of Te, then it will look like we differ, but as far as everything else goes I think we view it pretty similarly.


----------

