# How does ILE's Te Demonstrative work?



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

Te when blocked with Si manifests differently when blocked with Ni. I have seen the Te demonstrative usage in few SLEs several times, but I haven't met any ILE demonstrating the Te usage especially in the social context. I wonder how it manifests in them and what makes their Te different than an SLE's Te. I did read several ILE profile descriptions that highlight the Te Demonstrative usage in an ILE (like how they find quick solutions to daily problems), but I didn't find any "real" person sharing his/her personal experience with Te (and how others perceive their Te usage and whether people find its usage helpful or not and in what cases they find themselves specialized). I need real-life examples only (preferably from ILEs themselves), no theoretical bullshit or reference to external resources.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

> Since Te perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a Te type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A Te type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So Te types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.


Example1: When we play board games that are dull I come up with certain rules that make it more interesting and get frustrated, if people cant follow up.
Example2: When we play football 1v1v1 I give rules that people again don't follow and Pe doms try to negotiate with me. I get fucking mad and stop playing.

I don't agree with socionics, but have your examples.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

jkp said:


> Example1: When we play board games that are dull I come up with certain rules that make it more interesting and get frustrated, if people cant follow up.
> Example2: When we play football 1v1v1 I give rules that people again don't follow and Pe doms try to negotiate with me. I get fucking mad and stop playing.
> 
> I don't agree with socionics, but have your examples.


But rules are Ti, not Te though. Demonstrative Te is great at providing a factual basis for one's logical opinions.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

For me, Te demonstrative is just more or less a check - in with reality. I can use my Ti to just think up ideas and then just use Te to check in. I can provide some examples:

- conspiracy theories: I have a professor who talks a lot abrout conspiracy theories and it's all very interesting and I listen while he gives me his reasoning. Most of the time, I can agree with his ideas but I have to verify with facts to believe it. So, I'll do my own research and try to see if the facts he presented were accurate. I'll take that as an indicator that I can seriously consider what he said. Contrast this with a Te PoLR type like IEIs. I often find it easy to click with this type. They often tell me their theories but they lack the ability to check in with reality. These types would believe anything if it satisfies their Ti. And true, internal logical consistency is the essence of Ti but ILEs will not dream up things that are not based in reality at all. We do fact check every once in a while and this grounds us. 

- we're also good at pulling up facts to support our argument. We hardly ever make claims unless we can back it up. If we can't, then, we'll just say 'we don't know. It's just an idea'

- we want logical consistency in the external world as well. 

- however, we don't give much value to Te. If someone says, 'this principle is not applicable most of the time.' I'm going to say, 'yes, but will it work this time? Look at all the evidence and see my plans. I think we can use it.' We see external facts and evidence and we're bound by it but we'll ignore them in favor of our own reasoning - but not enough to be completely unrealistic. 

- as far as rules go, I'm generally rule abiding, but I find it difficult to follow a rule unless I'm convinced of the need for that rule to exist. If it makes no sense, I'm going to break it if I need to.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Entropic said:


> But rules are Ti, not Te though. Demonstrative Te is great at providing a factual basis for one's logical opinions.


Rules can be from I or E. But I wanted to answer in socionics terms defined by the quote I gave. I agree with your demonstrative Te.

With your demonstrative in mind, it would just be how I talk to people about what facts I recently learned.

Since Te is a judgment function, I rarely judge by it, unless I am in an argument with someone about something, Te is more simple for people to understand than Ti consistency.

Otherwise for debate. Te is the epitome of rules, I equate authority with Te. Since the rules are external and not my own. Te doms follow external rules, just like Fe doms follow norms.


----------



## Regnum (Jul 13, 2016)

My understanding is that both the demonstrative and ignoring functions are unvalued, but the difference is that you can just tune out the ignoring whenever it conflicts with the base, whereas the demonstrative cannot be tuned out, and demands accommodation by your creative function. An example would be when an ILE revises his theory because a new fact came in that contradicted it.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Entropic said:


> But rules are Ti, not Te though. Demonstrative Te is great at providing a factual basis for one's logical opinions.


So basically ILE don't know what they're talking about. That's not a surprise, to be honest. :tongue:

Seriously though, Te-demonstrative is trying to be empirical and factual but through the eyes of Ti. When an ExTp tries to state a case, like say in a research paper, they will throw in many facts and figures. Some which make sense and are relevant and some of which only serve to make the paper seem factual and not veering off into unproven speculation. ExTp tend to have a distaste for facts which is why the non-Te valuing merry quadras tend to prefer distorted but happier or sanitized version of history rather than the factual events.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

jkp said:


> Rules can be from I or E. But I wanted to answer in socionics terms defined by the quote I gave. I agree with your demonstrative Te.
> 
> With your demonstrative in mind, it would just be how I talk to people about what facts I recently learned.
> 
> ...


I agree. Socionics is external rules as well. External rules not my own. Jung defined Te doms as people who lay down "world laws". A truth handed down by an authority that cannot be disputed and must be followed. That is Te, not Ti. Ti types want to find out WHY the rules are the way they are.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Smh, those poor ENTP, living under the rule of world-law. LoL

Can't say you didn't do it to yourselves though.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

jkp said:


> Example1: When we play board games that are dull I come up with certain rules that make it more interesting and get frustrated, if people cant follow up.
> Example2: When we play football 1v1v1 I give rules that people again don't follow and Pe doms try to negotiate with me. I get fucking mad and stop playing.
> 
> I don't agree with socionics, but have your examples.


^^ that sounds like demonstrative Te...










 why would anyone respect made up arbitrary rules tho?.... I don't get this stuff. Only objective laws matter and they enforce themselves anyway. Made up stuff is just in the way and needlessly complicates things.

*pisses on arbitrary rules XD I do what I want as long as its not idiotic.



FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree. Socionics is external rules as well. External rules not my own. Jung defined Te doms as people who lay down "world laws". A truth handed down by an authority that cannot be disputed and must be followed. That is Te, not Ti. Ti types want to find out WHY the rules are the way they are.


Natural law, science irrefutable proven concrete inescapable objective laws a-priori and a-posteriori are the only guiding factor. Everything else is just garbage in the way. Reality is structured, reason can explain everything...eventually.










))


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

LibertyPrime said:


> ^^ that sounds like demonstrative Te...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL

My ADHD ENFP friend has an inferior ISTJ in his brain, a "spiritual tumor" given to him by his OCD mother. Its why I come into conflict with law abiding fear conservation he manifests, although it is seen as oppositional defiant disorder in certain cases. Pe ADHD doms are so weird sometimes with their inferior Pi.


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

Blue Ribbon said:


> For me, Te demonstrative is just more or less a check - in with reality. I can use my Ti to just think up ideas and then just use Te to check in. I can provide some examples:
> 
> - conspiracy theories: I have a professor who talks a lot abrout conspiracy theories and it's all very interesting and I listen while he gives me his reasoning. Most of the time, I can agree with his ideas but I have to verify with facts to believe it. So, I'll do my own research and try to see if the facts he presented were accurate. I'll take that as an indicator that I can seriously consider what he said. Contrast this with a Te PoLR type like IEIs. I often find it easy to click with this type. They often tell me their theories but they lack the ability to check in with reality. These types would believe anything if it satisfies their Ti. And true, internal logical consistency is the essence of Ti but ILEs will not dream up things that are not based in reality at all. We do fact check every once in a while and this grounds us.
> 
> ...


I do exactly what you have written; I do my own research (mostly through articles / research papers) to back up my claim or when I feel that conspiracy theories that people make doesn't make sense to me at all. I always thought that was due to Te PoLR. My experience with SLE suggest that they go outside for the fact checking, so if someone claims that certain products have high prices these days compared to other products, then they would visit several market/shops to confirm it and then make the pragmatic decision which product needs to bought. So... talking about research, can you give me an example how you based up your claims or Ti ideas? Do you go to the internet or academic study for fact checking OR you actually go outside to see it through your own eyes what people claim? Which kinds of fact you feel compelled to check?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

jkp said:


> LOL
> 
> My ADHD ENFP friend has an inferior ISTJ in his brain, a "spiritual tumor" given to him by his OCD mother. Its why I come into conflict with law abiding fear conservation he manifests, although it is seen as oppositional defiant disorder in certain cases. Pe ADHD doms are so weird sometimes with their inferior Pi.


ISTJ as in MBTI or what? (in socionics that would be what LSI or SLI?)

What does Si or Ni have to do with laws or rules?

._. I dun get it... thou shalt explain. I just like making fun of rules (for the lulz). The example you gave was good imo.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

seriousguy said:


> I do exactly what you have written; I do my own research (mostly through articles / research papers) to back up my claim or when I feel that conspiracy theories that people make doesn't make sense to me at all. I always thought that was due to Te PoLR. My experience with SLE suggest that they go outside for the fact checking, so if someone claims that certain products have high prices these days compared to other products, then they would visit several market/shops to confirm it and then make the pragmatic decision which product needs to bought. So... talking about research, can you give me an example how you based up your claims or Ti ideas? Do you go to the internet or academic study for fact checking OR you actually go outside to see it through your own eyes what people claim? Which kinds of fact you feel compelled to check?


Yes, what you've mentioned is something I'd do, but in a more theoretical way. If someone makes a statement like, 'All Xs are Ys' I can go and find that one exception where an X isn't a Y and use that to win an argument. Many other types don't seem to do this - even the Te doms and auxs. An example of me using Ti? Well, I'm using it now. I use Ti to join together my Ne observations. Ti is a judging function. I can use Ti to pick and choose what data I should select from all the things my Ne has collected and see how it fits into the narrative I'm building. If I find something that doesn't fit well with my theory, I'll have to fact check. Let's say I'm doing a research on snakes. I observe them in the wild and note down my observations. I observed that all snakes lay eggs. But once, I found a snake gives birth to live offspring. That goes against everything I've observed until now. I'm not going to believe my eyes. I'd need to fact check this and see if there are indeed snakes that don't lay eggs. Then I'd be obsessed about wondering why it is like that. Sometimes, the ideas aren't concrete and it's impossible to find facts. Like in the case of conspiracy theories. If I can't use my Te demonstrative to check for hard facts, my Ti is going to keep building on theory - 'could this indeed be true?' And this is where, I think, ILEs obsession with conspiracy theories comes from. A Ti demonstrative type like an ILI would most likely react to conspiracy theories by saying, 'do you have any proof that this is true?'

My understanding of the PoLR function is that it's expression is not understood by the user. Like how in my case, I have Fi PoLR. How this affects me is that I find it difficult to anticipate my own feelings in any given situation. Emotional reactions are kind of a surprise to me. I can plan something cruel and rationalize the righteousness of that action, but when I execute it, I would become overwhelmed by my own feelings of empathy. In some cases, I have needed some kind of wake up call to realize that I loved someone close to me. For most other types, I don't think they have this problem. I think that's the relationship you'd be having with Te. No disrespect intended, but in case of SEIs and IEIs, I've often felt like reality crashes on them like a load of bricks. I don't have much experience with IEIs but I've seen this in SEIs. They'd predict things to go smoothly only to be surprised to find things standing in their way and not really understanding why. I've seen one SEI (a girl) put up quite an emotional display after she planned a fun trip and it got cancelled. She just couldn't understand why. Everything was fine in her perspective. 

Hopefully this clears the question. I can't think of any more examples. But, every type is capable of using all functions. Fact checking is the nature of Te. But Te demonstratives are Ti favoring and only use Te to support Ti in small doses.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

jkp said:


> Rules can be from I or E. But I wanted to answer in socionics terms defined by the quote I gave. I agree with your demonstrative Te.
> 
> With your demonstrative in mind, it would just be how I talk to people about what facts I recently learned.
> 
> ...


Exactly how is Te about rules? Te deals with productivity, not rules. Can you give an example of a Te rule?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Exactly how is Te about rules? Te deals with productivity, not rules. Can you give an example of a Te rule?


To be productive involves a lot of rules. It requires organization. Rules. Telling people what to do. Organizing them and other things.

What are you doing when you are memorizing the rules of Socionics? You are taking rules from out an outside source and abiding by them. By their authority. Which is how Jung described Te.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> To be productive involves a lot of rules. It requires organization. Rules. Telling people what to do. Organizing them and other things.
> 
> What are you doing when you are memorizing the rules of Socionics? You are taking rules from out an outside source and abiding by them. By their authority. Which is how Jung described Te.


I wasn't asking you, so no, I wasn't looking for your input. You proved nothing about how Te is about rules because what you describe here is Ti blocked with Se, not Te.

Jung's definition of Te that you describe here is also better understood as normative or 2D Ti in socionics. Which makes sense, because I think there is plenty of argument to support Jung being an IEI with Te PoLR and 2D Ti HA.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I wasn't asking you, so no, I wasn't looking for your input. You proved nothing about how Te is about rules because what you describe here is Ti blocked with Se, not Te.
> 
> Jung's definition of Te that you describe here is also better understood as normative or 2D Ti in socionics. Which makes sense, because I think there is plenty of argument to support Jung being an IEI with Te PoLR and 2D Ti HA.


So being productive does not require rules and organization? You asked how Te is about rules. How productivity is about rules. I answered. 

That is your interpretation. I don't see an argument for it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> So being productive does not require rules and organization? You asked how Te is about rules. I answered.
> 
> That is your interpretation. I don't see an argument for it.


Yes, you can be productive without rules and organization. The nature of production is simply to produce; that doesn't require any particular rule in itself. Also, productivity can involve a sole individual as opposed to a group of people at which point "organization" is unnecessary because there are no "other people" to tell them what to do. I am writing this forum post right now while simultaneously playing a video game; these are all forms of productivity and are not done under some organization to be accomplished. Rules can aid the efficiency of production but are definitely not necessary. Sometimes the most efficient way to produce is to hop over the rules e.g. if I need to hammer a nail and I have no hammer, I can use any other blunt object to accomplish the same result even if the instructions explicate the need for a hammer. Same result, ignoring rules.

And of course you don't see it because you speak from your own cognitive bias and you have difficulty considering differing viewpoints and opposing contexts than the one you think is the right one. You think rules are necessary because you cannot envision a world without rules, but for people that value Te but not Ti, rules are not necessarily in order to be productive.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Yes, you can be productive without rules and organization. The nature of production is simply to produce; that doesn't require any particular rule in itself. Also, productivity can involve a sole individual as opposed to a group of people at which point "organization" is unnecessary because there are no "other people" to tell them what to do. I am writing this forum post right now while simultaneously playing a video game; these are all forms of productivity and are not done under some organization to be accomplished. Rules can aid the efficiency of production but are definitely not necessary. Sometimes the most efficient way to produce is to hop over the rules e.g. if I need to hammer a nail and I have no hammer, I can use any other blunt object to accomplish the same result even if the instructions explicate the need for a hammer. Same result, ignoring rules.
> 
> And of course you don't see it because you speak from your own cognitive bias and you have difficulty considering differing viewpoints and opposing contexts than the one you think is the right one. You think rules are necessary because you cannot envision a world without rules, but for people that value Te but not Ti, rules are not necessarily in order to be productive.


Are you not speaking from your own cognitive bias as well?

I can certainly picture a world without rules and have essentially lived my life by skirting them. Socionics. All rules. Why I don't get too deep into it. Like computer programming. Too many rules.

But I agree that I more relate to Jung. What rules are in his book? None. There is barely even structure. That is the type of stuff I prefer to Socionics. He is just telling stories and quoting people and saying how it is all related. Then later, others organized it for him.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

To_august said:


> No, you can make valid argument with undefined concepts just fine.
> 
> Validity doesn't require concepts to be defined. As I said, validity is an internal property of an argument itself, property of the relationship existing between premises of an argument and its conclusion, it has nothing to do with the nature of premises or the conclusion themselves.


Example? I want to see this.

*Defining my position:* I assume you are illogical or lack knowledge.

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.

[HR][/HR]

*Simple definitions of Ti & Te*

*Ti *- internal logical consistency in the subject (logical consistency of internal ideas) Example: math.
*Te* - external logical consistency of the objects (how external things work) Example: optics.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

LibertyPrime said:


> Example? I want to see this.
> 
> *Defining my position:* I assume you are illogical or lack knowledge.
> 
> Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.


All vanpor are clampor
Lanpor is a vanpor
Therefore, lanpor is a clampor

^That's valid, but then again, unsound.

Yeah, thoughts without content are probably empty, but it is beside the point of the notion of validity.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

To_august said:


> All vanpor are clampor
> Lanpor is a vanpor
> Therefore, lanpor is a clampor
> 
> ...


That is not the same assertion made by Entropic. His use of concepts implied something else.

*A concept *is an abstract idea representing the fundamental characteristics of what it represents. Concepts arise as abstractions or generalisations from experience or the result of a transformation of existing ideas.

It just proves my point. Entropic's assertion is a fallacy even from a Ti perspective. He should have used your example to illustrate internal logical consistency.

vanpor, clampor & lanpor are not concepts. These words are defined only by their relationship to eachother. They are placeholders.

^^ a Ti dom would have corrected your lack of precision in language, like I'm correcting you and Entropic now :/. If you read Kant long enough you'll see what I mean. *For Ti doms precision in language is paramount.*


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

LibertyPrime said:


> That is not the same assertion made by Entropic. His use of concepts implied something else.
> 
> *A concept *is an abstract idea representing the fundamental characteristics of what it represents. Concepts arise as abstractions or generalisations from experience or the result of a transformation of existing ideas.
> 
> It just proves my point. Entropic's assertion is a fallacy even from a Ti perspective. He should have used your example to illustrate internal logical consistency.


Well, he wanted to illustrate how formal logic can lead to factually incorrect conclusions. My example is the same with the same logical structure. You just don't know what vanpor, clampor and lampor mean to be able to judge whether any of the premises I provided are actually true. What if "All vanpor are clampor" is false and is the same crap statement as "All birds can fly"? You just can't tell because you're not familiar with those terms. Valid judgements may or may not be factually correct, that's not the purpose of validity. They are conditional.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blue Ribbon said:


> Following the rules can be a Ti thing as well. If it makes sense to follow a rule, I'd follow it. Sometimes, if following a rule gets me results, I don't even question it. I've seen Te users breaking rules, too - so I don't think rules are about Te. But, as a Ti user, if I feel like a rule that limits my freedom is unnecessary, I'll break it and I'd be content to keep breaking it even if there are consequences - so I don't think Ti has anything to do with rules either.
> 
> When I say principles, I think of them differently from rules. Principles are a guiding set of rules, for me, personally. It's an internal set of guidelines. I don't call them rules because they're not strict. You can have strict rules, but not strict principles. If I can rationalize my actions, I'll have no problems in doing them. Ti is a very flexible function because it is not bound by objective facts. Ti works in the mind of the person. External rules imposed by an authority are definitely not Ti. Hopefully that clears my point


When do you think it is fine to break rules? I also think that the people that approach rules the most strictly are beta STs. And I think rules imposed by authority would be 2D Ti, because they lack nuance but apply correctly for almost any given situation but fail to consider the specifics for the situation. 

@LibertyPrime 
If I add "some birds" the argument is no longer valid because the conclusion does not follow its premise. 

Some cats like water
My cat likes to bathe
My cat therefore likes water

The problem with this construction is that it's based on external evidence that supports the argument; the point was to show that Ti can construct internally sound arguments where the conclusion supports its premise but fails to consider the factual situation and therefore ends up being factually incorrect. It doesn't make the reasoning itself less sound, though, because it is. 

Another problem with the above argument is that we need to define what a cat is or someone will say, "well, how do you know your cat is a cat?". That's just needless complication to show what I wanted to demonstrate in this situation, which is that Ti can construct perfectly consistent arguments but are unsound when you consider the facts of a situation.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

LibertyPrime said:


> You can not make judgments without concepts, even if those concepts are not defined via real world observation. For example Unicorns or Eldar are not based on real world observation. Ti implies a preference for internal systemic cohesion, thus you need to adhere to the concepts as defined even if they are imaginary.
> 
> Entropic's argument would be a fallacy even if "ostrich" was merely the imaginary concept of a flightless bird and not a externally observable Te fact.
> 
> Ti ensures logical consistency regardless of external facts. For the argument to be valid, the imaginary concept of "ostrich" would have to exclude the idea that the bird is not flight capable.


But for something to constitute the definition of an object such as an ostrich, there must be a perception of an ostrich and the concept bird to begin with.
You are checking if definitions and associations are consistent with Ti, but that does not mean that Ti is that itself. Ti would be a rule set with no objective measurement in their eyes, just the correctness of the internal formula.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

But to get back to the thread topic, I remember reading on this cuz I was considering it my type. Is that ENTP basically respect and value Te to a degree but want to prove they can do it in a more unique/creative way than Te can. They are trying to usurp Te in a sense. Say, "See, I can get there too with my own route."

Maybe Einstein as an example. That's his Ti going against the Big Bang and quantum mechanics. Cuz it isnt pretty. There are no dice rolls. There has to be a deeper underlying order.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Entropic said:


> When do you think it is fine to break rules? I also think that the people that approach rules the most strictly are beta STs. And I think rules imposed by authority would be 2D Ti, because they lack nuance but apply correctly for almost any given situation but fail to consider the specifics for the situation.


I actually gave this a lot of thought. There are rules that I take no notice of and just follow them because they seem kind of universal. I can't think of any examples but following these are kind of second nature. Then there are rules that should be followed, like traffic rules. Then there are the more nuanced ones. If I can quote another user,



LibertyPrime said:


> *Murder is wrong in principle period.
> 
> Murder - The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
> 
> ...


I think here too there are nuanced issues. There was a case here (in India) about a teenage girl raped and murdered and her father shot and killed the rapist. The court found him 'not guilty.' Here, the father knew that murder was wrong, the courts knew it and still he was acquitted. This is what I meant when I said that murder is wrong in principle. Murder is wrong as a rule is something I'd associate with an Fi type. There's no Ti applied to it. (Here's me using demonstrative Te to prove my point.)

Coming back to the rules - Yes, beta xSTx types are very narrow in their approach of Ti. I can see multiple perspectives when it comes to my own principles but they seem to have difficulty in doing that (in my experience). In fact, I actually managed to have a discussion about rules with an ESTp. Her opinion was that rules are necessary and that she actually appreciates there being certain rules that she can follow. I also got the impression that ambiguity is something she doesn't like. Here's a main difference I found - she is someone who can't imagine ever breaking her own principles whereas I can adapt to a situation. If I feel like I'll benefit more from breaking my own rules rather than following it, then I'll definitely do so even if the situation logically doesn't require me to. Beta xSTx types can't seem to do so. I suppose this has to do with Ne creative. Se, I find, limits Ti in certain ways (so does Ne) but that's a post for a different day.



> If I add "some birds" the argument is no longer valid because the conclusion does not follow its premise.
> 
> Some cats like water
> My cat likes to bathe
> ...


I think I mentioned this in a previous post, about how ILEs use Te. We can't create unsound arguments because our Te kicks in and asks for facts. I also mentioned conspiracy theories where it's not possible to check facts and that there is a lot of speculation involved. In this case, Ti can build theory on theory without any real world evidence. I guess that IxFJ types are more prone to this with their Te PoLR. I don't have much experience with IEIs but I've seen SEIs believing in things without any kind of factual evidence to support it. I'm not saying that ILEs can't do this, but we'd still be skeptical of an idea like that - Te demonstrative.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Entropic said:


> If I add "some birds" the argument is no longer valid because the conclusion does not follow its premise.
> 
> Some cats like water
> My cat likes to bathe
> ...


I agree. I merely had a problem with he example given.

"Cat" already implies a commonly understood definition, so we don't need to define it separately. The issue was that concepts were in use which obscured imo what you were trying to get across. @To_august had a clearer example with the extraction of concepts and addition of placeholders.



Blue Ribbon said:


> I think here too there are nuanced issues. There was a case here (in India) about a teenage girl raped and murdered and her father shot and killed the rapist. The court found him 'not guilty.' Here, the father knew that murder was wrong, the courts knew it and still he was acquitted. This is what I meant when I said that murder is wrong in principle. Murder is wrong as a rule is something I'd associate with an Fi type. There's no Ti applied to it. (Here's me using demonstrative Te to prove my point.)


Fi is subjective ethics and has to do with subject - object relationship. I would not casually state that it would have anything to do with deontological ethics. Other then that good example.

If you implied that feelers would be better at ethics then non feelers, then I'd have to disagree. Preference for processing subject-object and object-object relationships and possible heightened emotional sensitivity does not automatically lead to sound ethical judgments, just to value judgments, which could be and often are wrong.



To_august said:


> Well, he wanted to illustrate how formal logic can lead to factually incorrect conclusions. My example is the same with the same logical structure. You just don't know what vanpor, clampor and lampor mean to be able to judge whether any of the premises I provided are actually true. What if "All vanpor are clampor" is false and is the same crap statement as "All birds can fly"? You just can't tell because you're not familiar with those terms. Valid judgements may or may not be factually correct, that's not the purpose of validity. They are conditional.


Yeah, as I said I merely had a problem with the example. I agree with you and Entropic on Ti.


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But to get back to the thread topic, I remember reading on this cuz I was considering it my type. Is that ENTP basically respect and value Te to a degree but want to prove they can do it in a more unique/creative way than Te can. They are trying to usurp Te in a sense. Say, "See, I can get there too with my own route."
> 
> Maybe Einstein as an example. That's his Ti going against the Big Bang and quantum mechanics. Cuz it isnt pretty. There are no dice rolls. There has to be a deeper underlying order.


Do you think that's how ENTP mocks the Te ego? "I know how to get there, but I will use my own rules and methods that will surpass the majority's opinion". For example, in Socionics, types tend to "mock" the usage of a Demonstrative function in other people, but like it in a way that suits their Base function. I speculate (it's a pure speculation, I don't know how it feels in experience) that SLE mocks the people who talk about the efficiency in a long-term (specifically LIE's Te), because their Ni is weak, but they like the pragmatism aspect of Te that suits their Base function.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

seriousguy said:


> Do you think that's how ENTP mocks the Te ego? "I know how to get there, but I will use my own rules and methods that will surpass the majority's opinion". For example, in Socionics, types tend to "mock" the usage of a Demonstrative function in other people, but like it in a way that suits their Base function. I speculate (it's a pure speculation, I don't know how it feels in experience) that SLE mocks the people who talk about the efficiency in a long-term (specifically LIE's Te), because their Ni is weak, but they like the pragmatism aspect of Te that suits their Base function.


Yes, that is pretty much exactly how I view it. They are a thorn in te's s side.

I think Freeman Dyson may be one. 

Friends and colleagues describe Dyson as shy and self-effacing, with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him. His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."

I relate to that. I am trying to uproot ideas and institutions. To undermine them. When consensus grows like ice I try to crack it.


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

I wonder what the type of David Allen might be who has created a famous productivity system GTD. The whole rationale behind the system seems to come from NeTi (or TiNe) perspective (it's likely that his type is either ILE or LII because I have seen him talking about how his system is good for "nerds"), basically how we get so many ideas / possibilities, but we fail to follow through them, because new ideas keep distracting us from the goal, so why not organize everything into a system and then follow the system to achieve productivity? I speculate this is how ILE does the productive job at work? (and so use Te in this manner... basically by creating Ti models for specific situations and giving Te information outside) So, an LIE, when being asked about the Te methods to achieve some goal, they would understand everything through their NeTi perspective, and then perhaps speak the Te language (which is easier to understand for the outer world) for a while to provide the best route, the difference is that their methods will be ever changing (because they shift back to Ti after a while) unlike the Te type who might be consistent in the method / approach.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

seriousguy said:


> Te when blocked with Si manifests differently when blocked with Ni. I have seen the Te demonstrative usage in few SLEs several times, but I haven't met any ILE demonstrating the Te usage especially in the social context. I wonder how it manifests in them ...


Something like this. It's a quote by an ILE that feels Te demonstrative: 
"I don't like to work. I only like working when I'm working."​
And this: 
"Whenever I think of the high salaries we are paid as film actors, I think it is for the travel, the time away, and any trouble you get into through being well known. It's not for the acting, that's for sure."​
-which basically says that you're paid and rewarded for your inconveniences and discomforts, not for the work that you've done.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm not sure the demonstrative function manifests itself. Its uncosncious, and uninteresting for the person to use. It is my current understanding that a person can actually never consciously express their demonstrative function. Or I guess they _can _​however it seems this never actually happens.

I think the person uses their demonstrative mainly for selfish ends, for example I use my Ne for seeing new possibilities but I never point them out to others, however others do tend to follow my lead in this area regardless.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

I think you're wrong about this. I use my Te plenty. I think people use their demonstrative to support their creative and to keep it in check. I'd guess that the ENxj types use Ne to make sure they don't miss any possibilities. They have this tendancy to over prepare (I've observed) especially since they have Si PoLR.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blue Ribbon said:


> I think you're wrong about this. I use my Te plenty. I think people use their demonstrative to support their creative and to keep it in check. I'd guess that the ENxj types use Ne to make sure they don't miss any possibilities. They have this tendancy to over prepare (I've observed) especially since they have Si PoLR.


You use it, but do you use it for others? No, not really. You use it for yourself but you do not "share" or expects others to join in on it like you do your valued and ego functions. 

I mean, I personally get kind of annoyed when I experience that I need to Ti correct other people around me for the sake of correcting them or they expect me to Ti correct them like with Fe egos. What happens is that I can be a bit like, "well, this is kind of obvious and pointless so why must I do it for you ALL THE TIME, when I just want to move on with what we're doing so I experience some kind of progress?" 

I can do it, but I find it very draining and uncreative because I don't experience it as meaningful to socialize like that. Hell, I can experience annoyance even when I run into Ti egos and the conversation ends up being about pure Ti stuff because again, I don't experience the conversation to go forward so we're being productive. I can produce Ti help if someone asks or prompts me because it, as you say, helps to support an agenda of my creative Te, but Ti for its own sake isn't something I enjoy doing and I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way about Te. 

You see this in xEEs and their demonstrative Fe where they Fe a lot by themselves but they never expect others to reciprocate the Fe in kind. They're not, compared to Fe bases, setting an Fe agenda for you to follow. Instead what happens is that they create an environment for xLIs to exist comfortably within without feeling pressured on their PoLR.

And I think the demonstrative function works the same way in everyone; you create an environment with it that feels supportive to your dual and mirage because you create this kind of mattress effect so if your dual/mirage slips up in this area you can always bounce them right back on track because they don't have to think about this since it's a source of insecurity for them. I've been thinking a lot about how I can appreciate that myself, because it means I a) don't have to use Fe myself and b) I can focus on the things I actually find more enjoyable and care about which is building personal relationships over being constantly concerned about the atmosphere. 

I think this is also how the demonstrative kind of helps to mobilize the hidden agenda of the dual/mirage, but I need to think more about the validity of that.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Entropic said:


> You use it, but do you use it for others? No, not really. You use it for yourself but you do not "share" or expects others to join in on it like you do your valued and ego functions.
> 
> I mean, I personally get kind of annoyed when I experience that I need to Ti correct other people around me for the sake of correcting them or they expect me to Ti correct them like with Fe egos. What happens is that I can be a bit like, "well, this is kind of obvious and pointless so why must I do it for you ALL THE TIME, when I just want to move on with what we're doing so I experience some kind of progress?"
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree with you on most of this. I don't enjoy Te but I am good at using it when I need to. For example, I can look totally unfocused and lazy but if I have a task that needs to be done, I can organize myself to do it. I'm also good at remembering random details and using it to support my arguments. I'm also capable of organizing other people as well, though that might not come easy for me. However, I don't think the expression of Te is unconscious. I can summon it if I need to. If I have to get something done, I can do it in a very Te way. I can also correct another person using my Te during a debate. 

I see. How interesting. I suppose I can say the same thing about Te ego types. I often feel they limit the scope of discussion. I've actually thought of SLIs as the worst type at debating. 

'The mattress effect' as you put it is very interesting. But can't it also sometimes be poisonous to your dual as well? With the xEI types, (this is my experience entirely, so I'm not sure if others can relate to it), they first give off this impression of a really non- judgemental person but every once in a while, their Fi shows up. In my experience, they also can use this Fi against me and since I'm vulnerable, I'm often left without knowing how to react. They're prone to idealism (this being especially true for IEIs) in the same way that ILEs are prone to know-it-all-ism. I think this is related to the demonstrative than ego functions. I'm interested in knowing what you think of this.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

jkp said:


> Example1: When we play board games that are dull I come up with certain rules that make it more interesting and get frustrated, if people cant follow up.
> Example2: When we play football 1v1v1 I give rules that people again don't follow and Pe doms try to negotiate with me. I get fucking mad and stop playing.
> 
> I don't agree with socionics, but have your examples.


I would _never_ add rules. I would just quit the game in favor of some other activity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blue Ribbon said:


> Yes, I agree with you on most of this. I don't enjoy Te but I am good at using it when I need to. For example, I can look totally unfocused and lazy but if I have a task that needs to be done, I can organize myself to do it. I'm also good at remembering random details and using it to support my arguments. I'm also capable of organizing other people as well, though that might not come easy for me. However, I don't think the expression of Te is unconscious. I can summon it if I need to. If I have to get something done, I can do it in a very Te way. I can also correct another person using my Te during a debate.
> 
> I see. How interesting. I suppose I can say the same thing about Te ego types. I often feel they limit the scope of discussion. I've actually thought of SLIs as the worst type at debating.
> 
> 'The mattress effect' as you put it is very interesting. But can't it also sometimes be poisonous to your dual as well? With the xEI types, (this is my experience entirely, so I'm not sure if others can relate to it), they first give off this impression of a really non- judgemental person but every once in a while, their Fi shows up. In my experience, they also can use this Fi against me and since I'm vulnerable, I'm often left without knowing how to react. They're prone to idealism (this being especially true for IEIs) in the same way that ILEs are prone to know-it-all-ism. I think this is related to the demonstrative than ego functions. I'm interested in knowing what you think of this.


Yeah, in times of criticism or fighting the dual or mirage can definitely overpower you in this area. I can sometimes find xEEs emotionally manipulative with how they use Fe against me, like they just take control of how and who has the right to expression just to make you shut up with your commentary so you end up being the bad looking person even if it's actually valid. Can't speak for the opposite experience though.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Entropic said:


> Yeah, in times of criticism or fighting the dual or mirage can definitely overpower you in this area. I can sometimes find xEEs emotionally manipulative with how they use Fe against me, like they just take control of how and who has the right to expression just to make you shut up with your commentary so you end up being the bad looking person even if it's actually valid. Can't speak for the opposite experience though.


I'm kind of a dream crusher for my ISFJ friend. She comes up with plans and I just point out why they won't work. I suppose she finds that annoying.


----------

