# Extroverted functions trump introverted?



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

(Man, I keep on doing that thing where I go back and revise what I say a thousand times until it's practically unrecognizable to what it was before).


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Not really no. Ti is always ready to change his view while Te was right and if new information accrue he/she was right before and now can be right again. Si is a perceiving function and can not really be "right". Same with Fi. Yes peoples type are interesting, what are you getting at? What perspective are you coming from?


So because Ti is more readily adjusting his view and don't claim certainty, it never makes them right... or is that not what you're implying? Wouldn't the Te also be adjusting his view by accepting the new knowledge? Obviously if he accepts the knowledge which contradicts his "certainty" before, this would show an objective flaw in his certainty, correct? 

Again, _this is just my opinion_, but I would think it's worse to be certain and then be proven wrong than to never be certain in the first place. 

I'm getting at what I just said in the previous post. What "perspective"? I'm not representing anyones perspective but my own. This is a matter of opinion, there's nothing factual about which cognitive functions we think are better than others.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

O_o said:


> So because Ti is more readily adjusting his view and don't claim certainty, it never makes them right... or is that not what you're implying? Wouldn't the Te also be adjusting his view by accepting the new knowledge? Obviously if he accepts the knowledge which contradicts his "certainty" before, this would show an objective flaw in his certainty, correct?
> 
> I'm getting at what I just said in the previous post. What "perspective"? I'm not representing anyones perspective but my own. This is a matter of opinion, there's nothing factual about which cognitive functions we think are better than others.


Te always know whats correct in this moment. Ti is this slow processing inre picture of whats out there. No Ti is not correct, its subjective and might feed correct information to your extroverted function from time to time. But Te is always right. Maybe not about feeling judgements but always correct about thinking in this moment with the information it have. Its objective and true. 

You intp?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Te always know whats correct in this moment. Ti is this slow processing inre picture of whats out there. No Ti is not correct, its subjective and might feed correct information to your extroverted function from time to time. But Te is always right. Maybe not about feelings but always correct about thinking in this moment with the information it have. Its objective and true. Te as 4th function is even more true then Ti as first function with delivering judgements.


Te is not always right, where are you getting this from?

No one is always right. 

Are you assuming that truth and being "right" is subjective? One may believe to be right and then truth shows that they later weren't, their lack of this knowledge before wouldn't make them right at the time. It means his knowledge was flawed. Truth is objective, it's "how the world really works". 

Te users in history weren't "correct" for believing that the sun revolved around their earth. And them lacking knowledge at that point wouldn't make them "correct" either, only to their own subjective minds.

Te simply picks up the knowledge which is considered valid at the time. But who's to say what people know to be valid at the time really is in the objective sense? Science is always changing for this reason.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

O_o said:


> Te is not always right, where are you getting this from?
> 
> No one is always right.
> 
> ...


Yeye, make it a point that there is no truth, just language and stuffs. Still you don't even try to understand my point. And btw was I right about you intp?


----------



## EMWUZX (Oct 2, 2014)

> Te always know whats correct in this moment.


I wish...

I constantly have to externalize my ideas and siphon them. I usually start with 2 or 3 tiered ideas and knock them down one by one until I find the one that I believe to be the most probable. Am I always right? No. I'm _often_ right simply because I use a process of elimination as to what works and what doesn't. 

If a person talks to me during my process of elimination you can best bet that person will be blasted with a myriad of potential possibilities until I work it out by talking with them. Even then I'll probably walk away with just as many possibilities because I now have to process their potential answers.

My Ti is higher than my Ni though, but my Te is 1.5 times higher than my Ti.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Yeye, make it a point that there is no truth, just language and stuffs. Still you don't even try to understand my point. And btw was I right about you intp?


No, I get your point. You were trying to emphasis on the point of Te being objective while Ti users were subjective, correct? Therefore, since the Te users are always right. 

But they're not. Because there is truth (whether people are aware of it or not) is the way things really are. To assume Te have this truth simply due to it being an objective function is inaccurate. 

I'm not an INTP (we could be going about any function right now, Ti isn't some sort of "warm spot" for me)


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

O_o said:


> No, I get your point. You were trying to emphasis on the point of Te being objective while Ti users were subjective, correct? Therefore, since the Te users are always right.
> 
> But they're not. Because there is truth (whether people are aware of it or not) is the way things really are. To assume Te have this truth simply due to it being an objective function is inaccurate.
> 
> I'm not an INTP (we could be going about any function right now, Ti isn't some sort of "warm spot" for me)


Nah, it wasn't about Ti. I just got that vibe from you. 

But ye, Te communicate from T. Pure and objective. Then there is this philosophy question about an actually objective reality and relativity and shit. My 2 cents are that if there is this objective reality, ask a extroverted function about it. Ne for intuition and Se for sensing ect.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

EMWUZX said:


> I wish...
> 
> I constantly have to externalize my ideas and siphon them. I usually start with 2 or 3 tiered ideas and knock them down one by one until I find the one that I believe to be the most probable. Am I always right? No. I'm _often_ right simply because I use a process of elimination as to what works and what doesn't.
> 
> ...


That might be your Te killing off intuition til a conclusion? Where and how do you get that stats? "1.5 times higher".


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Nah, it wasn't about Ti. I just got that vibe from you.
> 
> But ye, Te communicate from T. Pure and objective. Then there is this philosophy question about an actually objective reality and relativity and shit. My 2 cents are that if there is this objective reality, ask a extroverted function about it. Ne for intuition and Se for sensing ect.


Again, if you don't believe that there is an objective truth and way of things actually being outside the human perspective in any given time, then that's all you. I can sympathize with that as well due to experience with people who've argued against it in the past. 

you can certainly ask them, but there is nothing claiming that what they say is actual truth since it results from their own human perspective (something they can't step outside of) (if, like you said, you believed that there was an objective truth).

But yeah, that's stepping into a whole new debate unrelated to all this.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Objective, objective, objective!

What is the objective? Depending on the objective, one function will dominate over the rest. From what I'm reading, you're assuming that because one function grabs more attention from the outside, that it becomes the better function. That's called a bias, and makes the whole point of the thread pointless. Obviously extraverted functions are seen more so therefore will be more noticeable and is the best at doing that, you know being extraverted. 

The thing is that introverted functions trump extraverted functions in the realm of introversion. Te could never, ever, accomplish the feats of Ti because it doesn't process like Ti, they're attitudes are directed and focused on two completely different aspects.

Also, lmao, at Te users always being correct, what a foolish assumption. History has proven the absolute opposite of such a statement.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

O_o said:


> Again, if you don't believe that there is an objective truth and way of things actually being outside the human perspective in any given time, then that's all you. I can sympathize with that as well due to experience with people who've argued against it in the past.
> 
> you can certainly ask them, but there is nothing claiming that what they say is actual truth since it results from their own human perspective (something they can't step outside of) (if, like you said, you believed that there was an objective truth).
> 
> But yeah, that's stepping into a whole new debate unrelated to all this.


Thing is, its most probably are a objective reality but you can't prove it. Maybe we are like ants? Dumb as fuck, don't know shit and whats objective truth is what we are saying is it is based of what we can understand and perceive. However its not relevant to this discussion I think?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

They fight, and work together. I know Ni and Fe best. My own perspective only. Ni is the most detached function. It is distance. It pushes me away from the world. Puts a huge space between it and me. But Fe wants me to connect with others, and is pulling me towards the environment. Ni keeps pushing me back. Ni is stronger. But they are wrestling, and Fe does win sometimes I think. It has to. lol. Every function must win sometimes.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Thing is, its most probably are a objective reality but you can't prove it. Maybe we are like ants? Dumb as fuck, don't know shit and whats objective truth is what we are saying is objective truth based of what we can understand. However its not relevant to this discussion I think?


You're right, it's not relevant. 
(but you did just go against what you've previously stated. I'm not sure if you contradicted yourself or changed your opinion)


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Objective, objective, objective!
> 
> What is the objective? Depending on the objective, one function will dominate over the rest. From what I'm reading, you're assuming that because one function grabs more attention from the outside, that it becomes the better function. That's called a bias, and makes the whole point of the thread pointless. Obviously extraverted functions are seen more so therefore will be more noticeable and is the best at doing that, you know being extraverted.
> 
> ...


Relativity, Te users are always right. But not when taking time into the ekvation. But if you really think about it, science and physics does not take time into consideration either. Its a rather abstract fenomen for change made up by humans to understand reality easier.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Relativity, Te users are always right. But not when taking time into the ekvation. But if you really think about it, science and physics does not take time into consideration either. Its a rather abstract fenomen for change made up by humans to understand reality easier.


what's your native language, I'm curious? You are using v's for u's and that makes me think eastern europe or something of the sort.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Relativity, Te users are always right. But not when taking time into the ekvation. But if you really think about it, science and physics does not take time into consideration either. Its a rather abstract fenomen for change made up by humans to understand reality easier.


Science and physics have been wrong, Te borrows facts from the public doesn't find facts on its own, which Ti does. Reality is "what is", if any type were always correct then we would know all that "there is" when the question presented itself, which we dont. Te users and Ti users have been wrong and been right but their process is completely different and focus on different aspects where one triumphs the other.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Relativity, Te users are always right. But not when taking time into the ekvation. But if you really think about it, science and physics does not take time into consideration either. Its a rather abstract fenomen for change made up by humans to understand reality easier.


I would stop stepping on this land mine if I were you.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> They fight, and work together. I know Ni and Fe best. My own perspective only. Ni is the most detached function. It is distance. It pushes me away from the world. Puts a huge space between it and me. But Fe wants me to connect with others, and is pulling me towards the environment. Ni keeps pushing me back. Ni is stronger. But they are wrestling, and Fe does win sometimes I think. It has to. lol. Every function must win sometimes.


Ye, Ni is how INFJ mainly view the world. Gather information to be judge and stored with Fe and Ti. But only thing Ni does is giving this void. Its soooo passive and useless. You can make an awesome metaphor but what does that really do? With your Fe you can deliver this metaphor and change people. But its with your Fe not Ni. And this metaphor is probably not even correct just something that was needed for the moment. Our Se are more of use then Ni. Introverted give substance but are sooo dependable of those extroverted functions. That can almost survive without the introverted counterpart. But its in our introverted function our ego is I think. Where we get hurt and stuffs.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Science and physics have been wrong, Te borrows facts from the public doesn't find facts on its own, which Ti does. Reality is "what is", if any type were always correct then we would know all that "there is" when the question presented itself, which we dont. Te users and Ti users have been wrong and been right but their process is completely different and focus on different aspects where one triumphs the other.


So you are saying humanity must first image something before it become a fact? I can see how Te is almost like language. But a world with just Te people would not find facts on its own? Te just is able to use all methods of judging so that it fits the rest of the system its currently is working in while Ti have this one specific subjective method of judging. Kinda narrow and blind.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling

So to summarize...
Te = Jack of all trades, master of none. Constructs.

Ti = Master of one. Deconstructs.

?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Kavik said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> So to summarize...
> Te = Jack of all trades, master of none. Constructs.
> ...


I think this many vs one can apply to introverted and extroverted function in general. Extroverted function treats everything with the same weight while introverted functions discriminate.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

uncertain said:


> I think this many vs one can apply to introverted and extroverted function in general. Extroverted function treats everything with the same weight while introverted functions discriminate.


The reverse is also true.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Dominant 
Auxiliary 
Tertiary 
Inferior
That's the order of "power" in a personality type. Introverted functions are not weaker than extroverted ones. They aren't necessarily invisible either. Do INTPs look just like ENTPs? No we are different despite having the same extroverted functions.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kavik said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> So to summarize...
> Te = Jack of all trades, master of none. Constructs.
> ...


No. Introversion is water. Extroversion is the bottle. Actually it doesn't matter which one is which. There can only be truth when they are true to each other. Water and water are true to each other. Mix them, and they are true. I can drink that. Mix water, with water with lemon, that ain't water. I don't want that.

This was Jung's message as well. Understanding. True to both sides. When you are true to them all, you can use them all truly. Because there is something inside them all worth using.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

Interesting topic, I'll roll through each introverted v.s. extroverted function and see which one is more prevalent at being preferred/ more important in personal life as well as through the course of history. (Theoretically)

First - Ni VS Ne

For this one, I think it's no contest. Ni is able to foresee implications and grasp abstract concepts like nothing else, it allows one to see the world in a unique and perceptive perspective unlike anything else, and its a great function to have. Ni users in the course of history would have had invaluable advice for how future building should go; they may have also been some of the first people to value spirituality and have philosophical insight into mankind and the universe. I am Ni dominant, so I'm biased here. Ne does help people think on their feet and chase down new ideas and possibilities, but I wouldn't put that above the benefits Ni has given me in life, and in a larger sense, has done for humanity. 

Second - Si VS Se

This one is tough. Si can be very helpful for people when making decisions, as they can remember how they felt during a previous occasion and take in details well in order to make very good logical and practical everyday decisions. On the flip side, though, I feel like from what I've experienced, Si users tend to over value tradition and black and white scenarios to the point where it makes them sort of close minded and stubborn to abstract or abnormal concepts. This is a big let down for me. Se on the other hand mainly relates with being good at taking things in through the senses, being aware of your physical environment, and carry your body in a more fluid or sensuous manner. It also seems to allow people to be a little more open to things and ideas, because Se users will seek new experiences and new ways to excite themselves, which demands more open mindedness.

This is a tough one to call at the end of the day. Si has benefited history and people just as much as Se has. Without Se users, we may not have had ambitious conquistadors out discovering the new world. Without Si users, some civilizations may have collapsed due to no clear grasp on knowledge of the past or tradition or what has "worked" before to face a new problem. These are generalizations, of course. I think at the end of the day, in terms of overall usefulness, Si just barely edges out Se. I prefer Se personally, but I feel like most practical advances out there have come from the use of Si, not to mention Si is a great tool for descriptive authors.

Third - Fe VS Fi

This is yet another tough one. Fe allows us to connect with and empathize with other people naturally; it allows us to respond to the energy of people around us in an according manner. (Or at the very least, aggregate the energy around us so we have an accurate picture of others from which we can respond to in a way most conducive to success for us or others) On the negative aspect of things, Fe users can be overly insecure about what others think and seek to say only things that would be considered normal and congenial. They also might say kind things simply because it is cordial to do so and is expected of them, not because they genuinely mean it.

Fi users value their own moral code above societal norms, which makes them very sincere people. The pure and real passionate energy they can bring to life or a project is inspiring; but they must truly have their heart into something if they are going to do so.
On the negative end of things, Fi users can become overly self absorbed, or, if their inner moral code is lacking, they can do many hurtful things with little remorse.

I think in conclusion its important to note that Fi users dare to go against the norm and speak their minds, which is very important in the course of history and in ones own life. On the flip side, Fe users have a natural ability to connect with others and to see their points of view easily. I think in the course of history Fe has been a more useful tool overall for society, especially since most charismatic leaders utilized it to band together people towards a common cause. Fi seems underrated to me though, at the least. But overall, I would have to give it to Fe here, I think it gets more done, keeps people together more easily, and is the more useful functions to have.

Fourth - Te VS Ti

These functions are the ones I'm least informed on. I believe Ti users are the kinds of people that segment information in their head in a way that makes them pause during speech frequently; they are the kind of people that use logic to analyze or have things be picked apart precisely to make sense. Te users like to systematize and organize and make plans happen. At the end of the day, maybe Ti users will have a more personal interest in knowledge and learning, whereas Te users will have a practical need for knowledge in order to make things happen. Based on what I know, it seems like Te trumps Ti big time. The only advantage Ti might have would be in having a highly articulate vocabulary and be able to precisely define things, so these types may have been instrumental in designing language and improving communication. But, Te users have most likely spearheaded many great plans in history and have been able to make things simpler and more efficient for people, which is more invaluable.


So, in conclusion, my personal picks for the most useful overall types (In terms of ones personal life as well as theoretically in the course of history) are - Ni, Si, Fe, and Te. So, that's a draw. I don't really think extroverted functions overall trump the introverted ones; they all have their place and we all need people who use every function in our society to continue evolution and growth. I think the most valuable function overall in the course of history would have to be either Fe or Te, so at the end of the day we do need the extroverted functions to make decisive action. But we don't need them more so than the introverted functions; they are all very valuable.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> I have Ni and I don't mind Ne at all. I want to marry Ne. But best if minimal Si. I see your point here. But still, its the extroverted function that is the glory and the introverted function merely give the flavor of the extroverted expression.


I just think all you INTJ's are butt hurt about Te being inferior to Ti so you thought you would make a thread about it to boost your ego.

Just trust me, from a Ti doms perspective.

"Out of site out of mind" and "One size fits all" is what comes to mind when I think of Te. 

You may think you know the truth, yet you are really missing a hole lot of the equation. 
You may think that it docent matter, but thats the thing, your unaware of all the real truths that are happening in front of you.

The easiest and quickest way ins't always the best in the long term.

Quite frankly it's messy and annoying to work with.

Te - Construction 
Ti - Deconstruction

What one do you think is better at deciphering the truth?

Te (like most extroverted functions) deals in a very surface level way.
It's much to concrete for my liking, since life is not concrete.
It's very hard for Te to deconstruct, yet Ti can easily construct.
Te tries to grab onto ideas too much.

Altho I must admit INTJs use your Te in a great way. 
But it's like banging your head against a wall if you try to explain any sort of passive system to them.
Like nature...


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> No. Introversion is water. Extroversion is the bottle. Actually it doesn't matter which one is which. There can only be truth when they are true to each other. Water and water are true to each other. Mix them, and they are true. I can drink that. Mix water, with water with lemon, that ain't water. I don't want that.
> 
> This was Jung's message as well. Understanding. True to both sides. When you are true to them all, you can use them all truly. Because there is something inside them all worth using.


No to my interpretation to your analogy or no to my conclusion on the two functions? I wasn't implying using only extroversion or introversion. I already stated extroverted and introverted functions are needed to have a properly functioning human being.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Dominant
> Auxiliary
> Tertiary
> Inferior
> That's the order of "power" in a personality type. Introverted functions are not weaker than extroverted ones. They aren't necessarily invisible either. Do INTPs look just like ENTPs? No we are different despite having the same extroverted functions.


I don't think that's what they were asking. I think they were looking more for "are extroverted functions more useful than introverted ones?" Te > Ti, Se > Si, etc. I might be wrong though.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Eckis said:


> I don't think that's what they were asking. I think they were looking more for "are extroverted functions more useful than introverted ones?" Te > Ti, Se > Si, etc. I might be wrong though.


Well I just reread OP. Not sure what it's supposed to mean a about Te doing math faster or something. Personally of course I would find my own dominant function to be the most useful for myself.
Given Ti, the point in life is to get to the bottom of things and come up with logical explanations. To me to some degree doing something Te which may involve constructing systems such as businesses or other things seem like less of a priority or even pointless.
But even if it refers to "what's useful in real life", that doesn't mean the introverted functions played little role in it. They all work together, maybe it was an Fi user who decided that the moral code established in a society was wrong, hence they laid out an argument to change things. Fi would have been pretty useful, I would think.
To go further into it, if you're introvert, chances are your introverted dominant function will not be trumped at all by the others. Take ENTJs and INTJs for example. ENTJs are notorious for their planning and bold action. You might not think about it enough and assume INTJs must be the same. But in reality INTJs are doing their little Ni stuff most of the time leaving less room for the Te stuff.
Also if the OP is being extremely general then still have to admit that introverted functions serve their purpose. To say everything that ever happened was done by the hand of an extroverted function hence those functions are more stronger is different from saying an extroverted function may be used as a transmission of introverted information. 
In reality, the introverted function is probably more important to that specific introvert more than anyone else which might be what the OP could have been getting at but with the talk of faster math and stuff I honestly don't know.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kavik said:


> No to my interpretation to your analogy or no to my conclusion on the two functions? I wasn't implying using only extroversion or introversion. I already stated extroverted and introverted functions are needed to have a properly functioning human being.


Yes, they are both water. They don't look like it though, so we treat them differently. That's the mistake. 

I also just realized the devil in the details, is true. This shit is getting too detailed. Larger message is lost. 

Where do most Christians go wrong? In detail. Gays are bad. Blood transfusions. Any hateful or stupid thing. Details. The message of Jesus is lost in those details. Totally buried. The smallest detail can divide the world. That is why I stay up here. I barely look down there. The world is controlled by detail. I want to see the order under the appearance, as Einstein would say. 

Details tried to fool Lee. Fool Kant. Fool Job. Here we go:

I was telling somebody my interpretation of Job, though I have never read it, or the Bible. Don't the know the details, but here is the story:

I believe in front of every great truth, is a brilliant falsehood. Which is so tempting, and seems so right.

God is good. We don't define good. But God is good. So God creates a good man in Job. He puts Job through all this mess. Why? Cause at the end Job is still with God. He is good. He obeyed God. He proved he is good. But he was given freedom. That was the test. It was made to look so bad. The brilliant falsehood. But Job stayed with God. He trusted God, or good. So God can look at his creation, and say, "He is good." Not free, but good. Freedom is the brilliant falsehood. It is only through rejection of freedom, or control, do people be with God. 

So, God creates Job, everything is fine there. Nobody can complain. It is only when Job steps out into freedom, is there trouble. Only when he gets away from God. Because freedom is being away from God. But we think it is good. And that is the test. So, they are on land, and there is a dock. The dock is freedom. It extends from the land. God and Job standing on the land. Job goes out on the dock. It's bad there. When he returns to land, everything is fine. The dock is an illusion. That was the test. If he could see through it.

Details tried to fool Lee, he didn't bite. So a Christian says the details are wrong. I don't care about details. Details are fluff, trying to throw you off. 

So, Christians are controlled by details. Or the devil, basically. And so are we all. Why do details exist? Because when we look in them, freedom is begging us to snatch it up. It's like Kant. He never moves. Details are there to make Kant move. Same with Tolstoy. 

Some guy points a gun at your head, and tells you to kill somebody, or they say they will kill a village. Kant won't do that obviously. Or else he is not his moral agent, but somebody else's. He has no morals then. Kant is basically inert. He never moves. The world does, but he never does. So, the world tries to move us to make ethical decisions, which are not our own. The world is a machine, Kant is not. 

It's like Tolstoy. Tolstoy IS peace. You can't make him into war. It's like trying to turn a frog into a stick. It's a frog. You aren't changing it. It also is similar to the Job story. Follow God. One idea, stay true to it, no matter what happens. It will lead you the right way. Even though it seems wrong in so many situations. I find it poetic. 


Kant is actually guilt free. He doesn't give a fuck. Some guy says to him, "Shoot that guy, or I will blow up this building and kill 1,000 people." Kant says no. The guy blows it up, and kills 1,000 people. People get mad. lol. Kant is supposed to feel guilty. "What did I do?" He says. I am my own. I simply am. He's just like this rock that sits there. Never moves. You can't blame a rock for not moving.

And this ties into Spinoza that only God is free. And that only a free man finds God. When he lets go, and accepts his place. 

So, Christians are controlled by details. Or the devil, basically. And so are we all. Why do details exist? Because when we look in them, freedom is begging us to snatch it up. It's like Kant. He never moves. Details are there to make Kant move. That guy with the gun is a detail. The idea prevails. 

Because only systems have detail. Truth does not. Truth is actually removing all the detail.

Kant, Job, and Lee were not fooled.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling

That's a long winded way to say we're getting bogged down with intricacies here. The only danger in details is choosing _some_ details to the exclusion of others. You can't really understand something until you've broken it into _all_ of its detailed parts then reassembled it back into the whole.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kavik said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> That's a long winded way to say we're getting bogged down with intricacies here. The only danger in details is choosing _some_ details to the exclusion of others. You can't really understand something until you've broken it into _all_ of its detailed parts then reassembled it back into the whole.


It fits into the larger idea, that there is truth in every bottle, but no single bottle is truth. Obviously things like scientific details are relevant, but that doesn't make science prevail on all things. You have to find the right part of the bottle. Details try to fool you into staying there.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It fits into the larger idea, that there is truth in every bottle, but no single bottle is truth. Obviously things like scientific details are relevant, but that doesn't make science prevail on all things. You have to find the right part of the bottle. Details try to fool you into staying there.


Ti? If the world is the bottle, the water never really touch, the water just forming itselfs to the bottle. The form of the water is the bottle in some sense. If you put a stone in the bottle Ti will change form. Te will just add this new information while Ti change itself.

Ti is thick. Te is quick.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Without introverted functions, how would we move beyond that which is externally given? 

For instance, Fe aligns with objective values. It doesn't go beyond them, only It has flexibility and room to manoeuvre within the confines of those boundaries, but it doesn't ever push those boundaries. Fi moves beyond externally given values. Both Fe and Fi working together (or opposing each other) create the balance in terms of values, which is evident in our society today. Without Fe there would be no general consensus, without Fi the general consensus would be stuck and unable to change or evolve.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Without introverted functions, how would we move beyond that which is externally given?
> 
> For instance, Fe aligns with objective values. It doesn't go beyond them, only It has flexibility and room to manoeuvre within the confines of those boundaries, but it doesn't ever push those boundaries. Fi moves beyond externally given values. Both Fe and Fi working together (or opposing each other) create the balance in terms of values, which is evident in our society today. Without Fe there would be no general consensus, without Fi the general consensus would be stuck and unable to change or evolve.


The introverted functions are just the trouble makers. If some Fi push those boundaries, getting loads of crap for some overstepping and then some Fe comes along and just copy all your progress and making use of it. Earning money and get recognition. Introverted functions almost never get credit. Just a extroverted function who see this stuff and flawlessly use it for its own.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

uncertain said:


> But isn't that you actually express your Ni through your Fe or that your Ni is affecting your Fe when you use Fe? Isn't Ni responsible for a big part of your personality, for how you think, what you say, and how you say things? Do you think you still get the same credit without that Ni in you? It is not a single function, but you the person who gets the credit, which is the result of your four functions working together and your actual experience, thoughts, ideas, etc etc.


It affects the way I think but not how I accomplish things. Its just some inre fantasy story I have. Fe and Se are my bridges with reality and is what works. What gives me food, fun and stuffs you need. Thats how I interact with other persons and build relations. All the stuffs that give a result. Something that counts.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Kavik said:


> I don't see how OP thinks introverted functions are irrelivant compared to extroverted functions when it comes to living. How could a person function properly without introverted functions? If someone ripped away my introverted functions so I was left with Se and Fe, I would go insane and be unable able to process information. I could take life in with Se, but without Ni to process it and Ti to understand it, I would be discombobulated within my mental landscape and I would be destroyed by emotional confusion.
> 
> How could someone potentially process information without introverted functions and then stay sane?


Its when the introverted functions get stuck, don't change and adjust for the reality you get crazy. Its never the extroverted functions fault.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Narrow and blind? I would say that it is narrow and blind to assume that one function trumps another just by being, but here is a quote from Jung on Te:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure, its a tandem. But for the individual the extroverted function is what get shit done. How other judge you and how you proceed in this world.


----------



## LittleOrange (Feb 11, 2012)

I generally feel like extroverted functions are more "superficial"...


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Sure, its a tandem. But for the individual the extroverted function is what get shit done. How other judge you and how you proceed in this world.


Which isn't the point of the introverted functions and what makes the whole thread pointless and revolved around your bias. Introverted functions are introverted, they're not suppose to be seen on the outside and if you ever do see them, it's because the extraverted function is utilizing them. You obviously have some fetish for recognition, your whole argument is because something gets recognition that it's the best thing out. Life is a lot more than recognition.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Which isn't the point of the introverted functions and what makes the whole thread pointless and revolved around your bias. Introverted functions are introverted, they're not suppose to be seen on the outside and if you ever do see them, it's because the extraverted function is utilizing them. You obviously have some fetish for recognition, your whole argument is because something gets recognition that it's the best thing out. Life is a lot more than recognition.


What I am saying is that the extroverted functions are your most important functions for stuffs that matters objectively. The introverted functions are your ego, your story, your fantasy of how stuffs actually is. Its snugly but don't serve you any propose. 

Or are you going to make the argument that recognition, attention, proceeding in the world, gain stuffs (food-knowlage-money) is as important as lets say watching a movie/viewing a story. The introverted functions are passive and your ego. It doesnt serve you, help you, make you accomplish your dreams ect.

Maybe they create your dreams but they don't help you.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> What I am saying is that the extroverted functions are your most important functions for stuffs that matters objectively. The introverted functions are your ego, your story, your fantasy of how stuffs actually is. Its snugly but don't serve you any propose.
> 
> Or are you going to make the argument that recognition, attention, proceeding in the world, gain stuffs (food-knowlage-money) is as important as lets say watching a movie/viewing a story. The introverted functions are passive and your ego. It doesnt serve you, help you, make you accomplish your dreams ect.
> 
> Maybe they create your dreams but they don't help you.


I would say that everybody has a different thought on what's important to them. Not everyone chases money, and recognition. Telling a person who puts more of an emphasis on their introverted functiom that extroverted functions are better just will not get you any where because to them, the extroverted function is inferior to the introverted function. As I said you're bias to recognition and it's something you obviously crave for, but what's important to you, the individual, isn't what's important to everyone else.

Also a few things. Ne is my extroverted function and it's what my dreams are based on, it shows me what I want and crave but it's my Ti that helps me achieve all that Ne wants in an efficient a way. Ti searches for precision, so whatever possibilities Ne brings to the table, Ti chooses the one that precisely achieves any goals I have in mind. Without Ti I would be chasing every possibility that ever came up but my lifetime is limited and Ti understands that only the most precise possibilities should be paid attention to for accomplishment of goals. Both of my functions work together to achieve all of my goals in the most precise, efficient order. Both functiond help with all plans, introverted and extroverted.

It's also because of Ti that I know all the information I know, which is categorized in a very logical structure. To say Ti doesn't help me is a huge understatement. Ne uses this information but the information is solely the product of Ti.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> I would say that everybody has a different thought on what's important to them. Not everyone chases money, and recognition. Telling a person who puts more of an emphasis on their introverted functiom that extroverted functions are better just will not get you any where because to them, the extroverted function is inferior to the introverted function. As I said you're bias to recognition and it's something you obviously crave for, but what's important to you, the individual, isn't what's important to everyone else.
> 
> Also a few things. Ne is my extroverted function and it's what my dreams are based on, it shows me what I want and crave but it's my Ti that helps me achieve all that Ne wants in an efficient a way. Ti searches for precision, so whatever possibilities Ne brings to the table, Ti chooses the one that precisely achieves any goals I have in mind. Without Ti I would be chasing every possibility that ever came up but my lifetime is limited and Ti understands that only the most precise possibilities should be paid attention to for accomplishment of goals. Both of my functions work together to achieve all of my goals in the most precise, efficient order. Both functiond help with all plans, introverted and extroverted.
> 
> It's also because of Ti that I know all the information I know, which is categorized in a very logical structure. To say Ti doesn't help me is a huge understatement. Ne uses this information but the information is solely the product of Ti.


Everybody chases money and recognition to some extent. Thats survival stuffs. 

Your Ti does give your Ne flavor. Help you pick perhaps. But its just an internal process without expression. It doesnt really do much, I say its more of an motivation then something that is actually happening. Id say its more of something that is snugly and perhaps most unique thing about you but doesnt compete with Te when it comes to thinking. Its far inefficient.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Everybody chases money and recognition to some extent. Thats survival stuffs.
> 
> Your Ti does give your Ne flavor. Help you pick perhaps. But its just an internal process without expression. It doesnt really do much, I say its more of an motivation then something that is actually happening. Id say its more of something that is snugly and perhaps most unique thing about you but doesnt compete with Te when it comes to thinking. Its far inefficient.


Functions aren't motivations, they're processes. Introverted functions working with extraverted functions is a binary process, not motivation. Processes are things that are continuously hapoening, meaning Ti is actually processing m, you know "doing stuff". As I already shown you Te doesn't find its own facts but must borrow facts from external sources. Therefore if society needs an answer that hasn't been found yet, then Te is highly inefficient while Ti would be extremely efficient for this situation. Ti is actually thinking internally, Te borrows it's thoughts and organizes the outside the way the borrowed information says to organize it, Ti organizes information internally in a strict logical format. My Ti doesn't give Ne flavor, it gives my Ne the information it needs to accomplish possibilities, that's a lot more than flavor.

You live in a fantasy world if you think everybody chases money and recognition. They're are many people who could care less for money or recognition. In society you need money to survive and so by default people have to have money but there are those who crave it and then there are those who don't crave it.

Also math is a Ti subject, and to say math is inefficient is a joke.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Functions aren't motivations, they're processes. Introverted functions working with extraverted functions is a binary process, not motivation. Processes are things that are continuously hapoening, meaning Ti is actually processing m, you know "doing stuff". As I already shown you Te doesn't find its own facts but must borrow facts from external sources. Therefore if society needs an answer that hasn't been found yet, then Te is highly inefficient while Ti would be extremely efficient for this situation. Ti is actually thinking internally, Te borrows it's thoughts and organizes the outside the way the borrowed information says to organize it, Ti organizes information internally in a strict logical format. My Ti doesn't give Ne flavor, it gives my Ne the information it needs to accomplish possibilities, that's a lot more than flavor.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world if you think everybody chases money and recognition. They're are many people who could care less for money or recognition. In society you need money to survive and so by default people have to have money but there are those who crave it and then there are those who don't crave it.
> 
> Also math is a Ti subject, and to say math is inefficient is a joke.


Math is pushed by Ti, but used most efficiently used by Te when theory is established. New math is almost not useful at all. Just push to the limit for fun? Maybe it will have a usage in the future. 

I see your point. I am trying to make an other. Introverted functions play a role when things get abstrakt (like thinking in many steps "behind the curtain". But on a primitive level the introverted functions are ponderous. Many times it what people take you for and what is needed of the situation.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Math is pushed by Ti, but used most efficiently used by Te when theory is established. New math is almost not useful at all. Just push to the limit for fun? Maybe it will have a usage in the future.
> 
> I see your point. I am trying to make an other. Introverted functions play a role when things get abstrakt (like thinking in many steps "behind the curtain". But on a primitive level the introverted functions are ponderous. Many times it what people take you for.


I need you to clarify, you're stating that after theory is established then Te uses it. I can't deny that, but the fact is the theoritical approach that has found pretty much all the facts we know is the process of Ti. Te needs to Ti for these new facts or else it is limited to the external sources of its day, which Ti does not suffer from.

Whether math is useful now, or the future, it doesn't take away from the fact that math itself (including all new maths) are useful and the foundation to all future technology to come. Where Te can take information and organize the external world according to the infirmation, it's Ti that finds the new information internally and without Ti, there isn't an efficient Te.

Pondering is what has brought us the foundations of philosophy, science, math, and all technological advances. I'm pretty sure pondering is an important, if not the most important aspect, to the survival of our species. Introversion should be respected for such.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> The introverted functions are just the trouble makers. If some Fi push whose boundaries, getting loads of crap for some overstepping and then some Fe comes along and just copy all your progress and making use of it. Earning money and get recognition. Introverted functions almost never get credit. Just a extroverted function who see this stuff and flawlessly use it for its own.


Extroverted functions can't give credit to introverted judgements/perceptions because they align themselves to extroverted ones.
That would kinda defeat the purpose of extraversion.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> I need you to clarify, you're stating that after theory is established then Te uses it. I can't deny that, but the fact is the theoritical approach that has found pretty much all the facts we know is the process of Ti. Te needs to Ti for these new facts or else it is limited to the external sources of its day, which Ti does not suffer from.
> 
> Whether math is useful now, or the future, it doesn't take away from the fact that math itself (including all new maths) are useful and the foundation to all future technology to come. Where Te can take information and organize the external world according to the infirmation, it's Ti that finds the new information internally and without Ti, there isn't an efficient Te.
> 
> Pondering is what has brought us the foundations of philosophy, science, math, and all technological advances. I'm pretty sure pondering is an important, if not the most important aspect, to the survival of our species. Introversion should be respected for such.


Actually intuition might play a bigger part then thinking in how math works. Thinking just store that information. Ni can do math too, its just extremely less effective then Ne for example. Same with Ti and Te, Fi and fe, Si and Se. 

For me I almost not "noticing" my extroverted functions because they work flawlessly and without maintaining. I have/am putting all my energy into the introverted functions because they are fucked and slow and stubborn and ineffective in comparison to extroverted ones.

The introverted functions almost leave a void for the extroverted functions to explore.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Neverontime said:


> Extroverted functions can't give credit to introverted judgements/perceptions because they align themselves to extroverted ones.
> That would kinda defeat the purpose of extraversion.


Thing is that this extroversion "world" can survive without the introverted one. I do believe the introverted side of things can be a good contribution but not necessary really.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Thing is that this extroversion "world" can survive without the introverted one. I do believe the introverted side of things can be a good contribution but not necessary really.


That's similar to saying we could live without instincts. 
Possible I guess, but we wouldn't last long. 

If you really want to go into it, extraversion and introversion exist because of the other. We can't have either one, got to be both.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Actually intuition might play a bigger part then thinking in how math works. Thinking just store that information. Ni can do math too, its just extremely less effective then Ne for example. Same with Ti and Te, Fi and fe, Si and Se.
> 
> For me I almost not "noticing" my extroverted functions because they work flawlessly and without maintaining. I have/am putting all my energy into the introverted functions because they are fucked and slow and stubborn and ineffective in comparison to extroverted ones.
> 
> The introverted functions almost leave a void for the extroverted functions to explore.


Thinking doesn't *just* store information, especially Ti. Ti first stores the information, then makes sure the information is consistent with all other information. After finding the consistency it continues to break down the information to understand it's logical structure, whick is processing what makes the information a consistent logical source. If it finds an inconsistency it searches for the source of the inconsistency, the source of the inconsistency is what makes the information not match all previous information stored and broken down. Once the source of the inconsistency is found, the new knowledge is either determined as false, or the previous stored information is determined as false, where one of the two need a change so that consistency is prevalent once again. It's because of this that math is a Ti oriented subject. 

Intuition is a perception function, you don't perceive math because math takes understanding principles and definitions, both are hallmarks of the thinking function. Intuition can help further understand math by seeing the relation between concepts, but it's thinking that is the source of math.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> What I am saying is that the extroverted functions are your most important functions for stuffs that matters objectively. The introverted functions are your ego, your story, your fantasy of how stuffs actually is. Its snugly but don't serve you any propose.
> 
> Or are you going to make the argument that recognition, attention, proceeding in the world, gain stuffs (food-knowlage-money) is as important as lets say watching a movie/viewing a story. The introverted functions are passive and your ego. It doesnt serve you, help you, make you accomplish your dreams ect.
> 
> Maybe they create your dreams but they don't help you.


Introverted functions are sanity, sense of self, reasoning and what some people view the world through. The same can be said about extroverted functions. They hold equal value, Introverted functions are not inferior. What you are arguing is asinine.

You can't live healthily without both extroverted and introverted functions.


----------



## lawof23 (Jul 25, 2014)

Cap'n,

"_The introverted functions are your ego_"

You've said this a couple of times, I think. I'm open to correction, but as far as I understood the relevant model I thought it suggested that your "top 4" functions are ego-syntonic (which is a less straightforward but probably slightly cleaner way of saying "are" your ego). So, for INFJ all 4 of Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se would be [experienced as] ego-syntonic. Similarly, the "bottom 4" functions would be [experienced as] ego-dystonic, ie: not "me". Again, for INFJ that would Ne, Fi, Te, and Si.

Does Fe and Se forming part of your ego make sense? Does Ne and Te being "ego-dystonic" make any sense? I think that's how it's supposed to work.

"_make shit happened_"

Back your o/p, I think there's a problem with conflating extroverted cognitive functions with 'making shit happen'. Cognitive functions are cognitive: they refer to the processing and systematisation of 'data' amenable to perception and processing by the 4 'brain verbs' Think, Feel, Sense, and iNtuit. Xi and Xe refer to the source of data - Ni processes internal data with the iNtuition function, Ne processes external data with the iNtuition function; same down the line.

So let's take Se, for instance. Se doesn't 'make shit happen': it processes external data with the Sensing function (or it 'senses externally' if you want, I guess). In terms of how an individual moves from process of information (cognition) to action in the world varies thereafter from model to model, though in the main even the simplest of models would have to take account of internal (eg: "volition"/intention to move, internal muscle control) and external (eg: the impact of gravity or other physical laws 'external' to the body, the social impact of putting on pants before walking out the front door) processes.

Cognitive functions which end in an "e" still only operate in the "cognitive zone", same as the ones which end in "i". Surely?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

(I just keep checking back occasionally to make sure you haven't brought up anything about "Te always be right" again.)


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Thinking doesn't *just* store information, especially Ti. Ti first stores the information, then makes sure the information is consistent with all other information. After finding the consistency it continues to break down the information to understand it's logical structure, whick is processing what makes the information a consistent logical source. If it finds an inconsistency it searches for the source of the inconsistency, the source of the inconsistency is what makes the information not match all previous information stored and broken down. Once the source of the inconsistency is found, the new knowledge is either determined as false, or the previous stored information is determined as false, where one of the two need a change so that consistency is prevalent once again. It's because of this that math is a Ti oriented subject.
> 
> Intuition is a perception function, you don't perceive math because math takes understanding principles and definitions, both are hallmarks of the thinking function. Intuition can help further understand math by seeing the relation between concepts, but it's thinking that is the source of math.


Both my teachers in calculus (I think thats the english term) have been Te users. I have also watch a Richard Feynman (entp) seminar online and the difference is that Te users state facts and Ti user state one fact and then back it up, and back it up, and back it up. Are you sure its not your Ti that get stuck and then your Ne keeps explore that one thing where Ti got stuck. So the thing get bigger and not that Ti narrow it down. Ti just make you stuck and Ne explore it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Both my teachers in calculus (I think thats the english term) have been Te users. I have also watch a Richard Feynman (entp) seminar online and the difference is that Te users state facts and Ti user state one fact and then back it up, and back it up, and back it up. Are you sure its not your Ti that get stuck and then your Ne keeps explore that one thing where Ti got stuck. So the thing get bigger and not that Ti narrow it down. Ti just make you stuck and Ne explore it.


If I was an INTP you would be correct, but ENTP'S don't work that way. Ne comes first then Ti backs up. INTPs dig deeper until they get stuck in which Ne comes in to help them out of the hole. Two different processes.

Ti never makes me stuck, it helps explain how to obtain the possibilities of Ne. If I was solving a problem, I first think of all the possibilities then I use Ti to find the most efficient possibility, the best possibility. The most efficient possibility is the possibility that has the highest probability of achieving the goal in the least amount of time, the calculation is from Ti, but my Ti needs Ne to think of all the possibilities so it can decipher them.

There's a reason why there are orders of functions, the INTPS and ENTP share the same functions, but our process are completely different because of the order of these functions. Another way of looking at it is that Ne expands while Ti digs deeper.

If you want to understand the process of Ti in a vacuum then refer to the post you just quoted me in.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> If I was an INTP you would be correct, but ENTP'S don't work that way. Ne comes first then Ti backs up. INTPs dig deeper until they get stuck in which Ne comes in to help them out of the hole. Two different processes.
> 
> Ti never makes me stuck, it helps explain how to obtain the possibilities of Ne. If I was solving a problem, I first think of all the possibilities then I use Ti to find the most efficient possibility, the best possibility. The most efficient possibility is the possibility that has the highest probability of achieving the goal in the least amount of time, the calculation is from Ti, but my Ti needs Ne to think of all the possibilities so it can decipher them.
> 
> ...


Have you seen the difference between istp and intp doing mathematical kind of problems? Intp are doing it in that "logical" way, visual and paint pictures. Istp are kinda cold and hard finding the place where the formula are and just kinda copy paste it in the mind. And then the next action is maybe a math thing. Thinking is not something that do something. Thinking is putting the world in pieces. only that. Te for all kind of perspectives and areas. Ti from only your perspective and what you know. Very narrow and naive in a way almost childish. Its the Ne that stands for the logic or Se for the action steps. Math is 1+1=2. Ti define what 1 is. Perhaps one apple. But its the intuition that make the "+" and "=".


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Have you seen the difference between istp and intp doing mathematical kind of problems? Intp are doing it in that "logical" way, visual and paint pictures. Intp are kinda cold and hard finding the place where the formula are and just kinda copy paste it in the mind. And then the next action is maybe a math thing. Thinking is not something that do something. Thinking is putting the world in pieces. only that. Te for all kind of perspectives and areas. Ti from only your perspective and what you know. Very narrow and naive in a way almost childish. Its the Ne that stands for the logic or Se for the action steps. Math is 1+1=2. Ti define what 1 is. Perhaps one apple. But its the intuition that make the "+" and "=".


Intuition doesn't make definitions and categories. + and - are defined properties of math, definition is a product of thinking. All cognitive functions are processes, that means that all cogit I've functions "do something". Te has nothing to do with perspective, perspective is solely a product of perception which means that perspective belongs to Sensations and intuitions. 

Ti breaks down what you know to find what you don't know, it refines all the knowledge to see how ist consistency. Ti is far from narrow and naive, it takes knowledge and digs deeper into the knowledge to find facts that other functions are incapable of finding. Ti wants to understand why 1 apple is exactly 1 apple, it wants to know why 1 is exactly, it wants to know what exactly is a number. Ti gets down to the essence of knowledge.

You need to read Jung and start to understand the difference between perceptions and judgements. You're getting them confused in your posts and it's ruining your insight onto cognitive functions.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Intuition doesn't make definitions and categories. + and - are defined properties of math, definition is a product of thinking. All cognitive functions are processes, that means that all cogit I've functions "do something". Te has nothing to do with perspective, perspective is solely a product of perception which means that perspective belongs to Sensations and intuitions.
> 
> Ti breaks down what you know to find what you don't know, it refines all the knowledge to see how ist consistency. Ti is far from narrow and naive, it takes knowledge and digs deeper into the knowledge to find facts that other functions are incapable of finding.
> 
> You need to read Jung and start to understand the difference between perceptions and judgements. You're getting them confused in your posts and it's ruining your insight onto cognitive functions.


I edit one "intp" to "istp". Put it in the wrong place. 

The intuition part of math is not whats on the paper and what category that thing has. Its about first separate something from the world for example finding the apples from all the other stuffs. By this point its the thinking part that doing stuffs. Those round red things with these properties is apples. Then its intuitions time, putting together amounts (one, the, ten ect) with those red stuffs apples. Doing weird stuffs in the mind like what happened if two where removed and stuffs like that. Thinking separate and intuition find those logical connections. (What is logic really?)


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> I edit one "intp" to "istp". Put it in the wrong place.
> 
> The intuition part of math is not whats on the paper and what category that thing has. Its about first separate something from the world for example finding the apples from all the other stuffs. By this point its the thinking part that doing stuffs. Those round red things with these properties is apples. Then its intuitions time, putting together amounts (one, the, ten ect) with those red stuffs apples. Doing weird stuffs in the mind like what happened if two where removed and stuffs like that. Thinking separate and intuition find those logical connections. (What is logic really?)


Logic is solely a product of thinking not intuition. Separating one thing from another is thinking, categorizing things is thinking. Intuition sees possibilities, it either expands possibilities or contracts possibilities. Thinking what would happen if I took 2 from 2 is a product of thinking mixed with intuition. Intuition can help see the possibilities and the relation between objects, but the categorization, definition, and locating the unseen facts that make the whole structure logical and consistent is thinking.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Logic is solely a product of thinking not intuition. Separating one thing from another is thinking, categorizing things is thinking. Intuition sees possibilities, it either expands possibilities or contracts possibilities. Thinking what would happen if I took 2 from 2 is a product of thinking mixed with intuition. Intuition can help see the possibilities and the relation between objects, but the categorization, definition, and locating the unseen facts that make the whole structure logical and consistent is thinking.


Thinking is file'ng stuffs away. Remembering stuffs. Separating stuffs. Te can do it without a structure. Ti doing it like a three. Its stuck on one point and then your perceiving extroverted function find those new ways. And your Ti saves it if it confirm that first thing and give it backup.
Its the Se and Ne who find those logic connections. Ti save the results. Te save even more results because its not bound to a cause.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

OP, you talk like there is no world within, like subjective reality doesn't even exist... or at least shouldn't. Like introverted functions can only be useful for the subject himself therefor are useless in general...... should I say - Ohhh, so *FE* of you?...

My introverted functions have often played a much bigger role in my life and through my exroverted ones I can communicate the discoveries within.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Thing is that this extroversion "world" can survive without the introverted one. I do believe the introverted side of things can be a good contribution but not necessary really.


That is absolute bullocks and I am diggin my own hole to fall in probably by getting angry but like really....

When Ti is the one that come sup with the innovation (as discussed before in the example of Math), and Te is the one putting it to use - without Ti, what would you even put to use then?

Though I don't know if my own understanding of Ti is such.

Anywho.... imagine car production - there's the factory where it is produced and then there are the streets where it is used, seen, interconnected with other cars in the traffic. Was there no factory, no cars would be produced...

Not to say that extraverted functions never ever work on their own, but what a blunt and random world would that be then...


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

SplitTheAtom said:


> That is absolute bullocks and I am diggin my own hole to fall in probably by getting angry but like really....
> 
> When Ti is the one that come sup with the innovation (as discussed before in the example of Math), and Te is the one putting it to use - without Ti, what would you even put to use then?
> 
> ...


The factory is Se and Ne. All the places is Te. Limiting to only the places the car can be is Ti. The better and more advanced factory, the bigger and preciser Ti.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

I don't know about you but all I use Se for is to draw in external information. It doesn't do squat else for me.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Thinking is file'ng stuffs away. Remembering stuffs. Separating stuffs. Te can do it without a structure. Ti doing it like a three. Its stuck on one point and then your perceiving extroverted function find those new ways. And your Ti saves it if it confirm that first thing and give it backup.
> Its the Se and Ne who find those logic connections. Ti save the results. Te save even more results because its not bound to a cause.


Te doesn't store, it's an extraverted functiom, it extraverts meaning that it takes facts and organizes it outside, the facts that it takes are external facts. Ti creates the results, Te uses the results. Two different processes. Te doesn't think internally, it thinks externally meaning taking facts and organizing the outside world according what the facts state. Introverted thinking is filing stuff away and digging deeper into the knowledge to find the unseen facts, extraverted thinking is taking external facts (not from the self) and utilizing externally.

Ne and Se have nothing to do with logic, thinking has everything to do with logic.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> The factory is Se and Ne. All the places is Te. Limiting to only the places the car can be is Ti. The better and more advanced factory, the bigger and preciser Ti.


Not at all what I mean. By factory I mean the background work not visible to the external world. The dude sitting for days, weeks, months engineering it. And no, I don't mean that all engineers must be mainly introvert function user's. I mean their work when compared to the big picture has a similar role as introvert functions. 

Do you actually think we don't need introvert functions TO function at our best in the society or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Te doesn't store, it's an extraverted functiom, it extraverts meaning that it takes facts and organizes it outside, the facts that it takes are external facts. Ti creates the results, Te uses the results. Two different processes. Te doesn't think internally, it thinks externally meaning taking facts and organizing the outside world according what the facts state. Introverted thinking is filing stuff away and digging deeper into the knowledge to find the unseen facts, extraverted thinking is taking external facts (not from the self) and utilizing externally.
> 
> Ne and Se have nothing to do with logic, thinking has everything to do with logic.


+

Only seeing connections does not make up a logical system. Evaluating whether the connection is relevant does


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Te doesn't store, it's an extraverted functiom, it extraverts meaning that it takes facts and organizes it outside, the facts that it takes are external facts. Ti creates the results, Te uses the results. Two different processes. Te doesn't think internally, it thinks externally meaning taking facts and organizing the outside world according what the facts state. Introverted thinking is filing stuff away and digging deeper into the knowledge to find the unseen facts, extraverted thinking is taking external facts (not from the self) and utilizing externally.
> 
> Ne and Se have nothing to do with logic, thinking has everything to do with logic.


Sure, I think intp are more "logical" then entp. So there is some truth to what you are saying. Its the classification system that is logical, one point leads to an other with set preferences. Intp might have a more logic based system then lets say entp but all those pieces that is in the system are found with Ne. 

Te doesnt have this system, they make everything fit unless some other fact is saying otherwise. Te is about how valid information is. Ti about how relevant?

Te can handle all situations, Ti can handle some. But a very few situations maybe even better then Te. Its buyist. It have a cause.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Sure, I think intp are more "logical" then entp. So there is some truth to what you are saying. Its the classification system that is logical, one point leads to an other with set preferences. Intp might have a more logic based system then lets say entp but all those pieces that is in the system are found with Ne.
> 
> Te doesnt have this system, they make everything fit unless some other fact is saying otherwise. Te is about how valid information is. Ti about how relevant?
> 
> Te can handle all situations, Ti can handle some. But a very few situations maybe even better then Te. Its buyist. It have a cause.


Now we're finally getting somewhere, I agree with most of this but I don't agree with the terms relevant and valid because they can go both ways. For instance how you used relevant and valid isn't necessarily wrong but it can just as well be used to define the other functions, Ti wants to see how valid the information is by seeing how consistent it is in its own system and relation to the rest of their internal system, while Te wants to make sure the information is relevant to the task at hand.

Also it depends on the knowledge of the Ti and Te user on whether who can handle more situations but to be precise let's say Te users can deal with all situations with what external facts they have at hand to use, while Ti users can deal with situations in a extremely precise way when it has to do with the knowledge they internally know but how they deal with the situation would be through Se/Ne. Ti users are your knowledge hounds, while Te users are your knowledge utilizers.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Now we're finally getting somewhere, I agree with most of this but I don't agree with the terms relevant and valid because they can go both ways. For instance how you used relevant and valid isn't necessarily wrong but it can just as well be used to define the other functions, Ti wants to see how valid the information is by seeing how consistent it is in its own system and relation to the rest of their internal system, while Te wants to make sure the information is relevant to the task at hand.
> 
> Also it depends on the knowledge of the Ti and Te user on whether who can handle more situations but to be precise let's say Te users can deal with all situations with what external facts they have at hand to use, while Ti users can deal with situations in a extremely precise way when it has to do with the knowledge they internally know but how they deal with the situation would be through Se/Ne. Ti users are your knowledge hounds, while Te users are your knowledge utilizers.


But I do still say when "Ti" are better then "Te" in those situations is because Ti get stuck for long period of time and that give Ne time to find those new stuffs. Introverted functions doesnt add anything. They freeze. Extroverted functions add stuffs.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> But I do still say when "Ti" are better then "Te" in those situations is because Ti get stuck for long period of time and that give Ne time to find those new stuffs. Introverted functions doesnt add anything. They freeze. Extroverted functions add stuffs.


Ti finds unforseen facts, meaning Ti adds to Ne facts that were previously unforseen. Only in INTPs does Ne help Ti out of a stump, doesn't work that way for ENTPs. Ne can generate possibilities but it's Ti that gives Ne the facts it needs to accomplish the possibilities. Introverted functions adds the substance, extraverted functions utilize it. 

Like I said, since Ti finds unforseen facts then that means it adds to the situation the facts that will accomplish the possibility.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Ti finds unforseen facts, meaning Ti adds to Ne facts that were previously unforseen. Only in INTPs does Ne help Ti out of a stump, doesn't work that way for ENTPs. Ne can generate possibilities but it's Ti that gives Ne the facts it needs to accomplish the possibilities. Introverted functions adds the substance, extraverted functions utilize it.
> 
> Like I said, since Ti finds unforseen facts then that means it adds to the situation the facts that will accomplish the possibility.


Then it would make that process random. Entp have more connections or dots overall but intp freezes longer. Entp all over the place, intp focus. Steps from one fact to an other are closer for intp because they are more of an old PC that freezes after every action. Entp are like an oily something that would "need" to freeze more often.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Then it would make that process random. Entp have more connections or dots overall but intp freezes longer. Entp all over the place, intp focus. Steps from one fact to an other are closer for intp because they are more of an old PC that freezes after every action. Entp are like an oily something that would "need" to freeze more often.


I guess, I mean it's not necessarily wrong. I personally wouldn't consider the type that has brought so many facts to surface an old PC though . INTPS are human calculators with an ability to expand if the calculation is missing a key factor. ENTP's are your visionaries with the ability to accomplish their visions in the most efficient manner based on the probability of each possibility.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

* *




So introverted functions are frozen pictures, ideas, systems and values. Kinda the backbone in a all changing world. Extroverted functions are the life, the changes, the now, the objectivity. It does not hold on and are ever changing. 

So if the picture is frozen it leave room for ideas of how it work and those connections in the picture. If the ideas for how it all connects are frozen then it leave room for the picture. 
If the set of values are frozen it leave room for systems. If system thinking is frozen it leave room for values. 

Kinda works, doesnt it?




edit: Im digging a hole now. This thing, this kind of thinking. This is introverted intuition talking and introverted thinking. Its rubbish.


----------

