# What is it with "INTJs" and their crusade against "semantics"?



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

This is a trend I've noticed a lot in personality forums and the like: a bunch of self-proclaimed "INTJs", usually those who are heavily into "Jungian Cognitive Functions", who love using "semantics" as a dirty word when "Ti-doms" (especially INTPs) take concrete language into the abstract realm. Then these same people will love to talk about how their existence is like the epitome of abstraction. To me, it usually reeks of a fear that their ideas look fine in the concrete realm, but don't add up in the abstract realm. This is not what I'd expect out of Jung's Introverted Intuitive type (nor his Introverted Thinking type for that matter). Thoughts?


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

What type of behavior were you expecting in particular?


----------



## Ververge (Apr 30, 2018)

What does it mean to take concrete language into the abstract realm? Do you have an example or hypothetical?

Also, I might be stating the obvious, but since it seems like you're talking about a specific person/group, have you considered just asking them what they're on about?


----------



## Lady of Clockwork (Dec 14, 2017)

Can you provide some concrete uses of concrete language in this concrete realm?


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Why is INTJs in quotation marks and what does "epitome of abstraction" mean?


----------



## Ververge (Apr 30, 2018)

Lady of Clockwork said:


> Can you provide some concrete uses of concrete language in this concrete realm?


[See previous post] :laughin:


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

You display a strong energy of intelligence inferiority complex and jealousy towards INTJs. You take your own personal issues and generalize them into some sort of Ti-dom. vs INTJ issue (aww God how wrong this is from a cognitive function pov but w/e). Funny, I don't have any issues with INTPs in real life and have never had issues with that type. Quite the contrary.

You also fail at cognitive functions, as the predominant part of the intuition and thinking for a typical INTJ is introverted, meaning that both INT types use Ti and Ni. P/J measures conscientiousness, not functional stack. So it's not like INTJs are "affraid" whether an idea would work logically or not - it works perfectly well logically, but it's subjective logic (i.e., Ti) meaning that it doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as logical by the outside world.

I have friends and family of various different types. I don't know anyone who likes people who are overly concerned with semantics. Or people who want to take others statements and try to prove them wrong. Such people, are antisocial and awkward. It's childish behavior that works on internet forums but not in the outside world. Good luck being successful at life behaving like that...


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

I'm not an INTJ, but Ti pedantism can sometimes annoy me too. When debating with Ti-doms, they will often critique my words rather than the ideas behind my words. I see semantics as irrelevant and a waste of time so I don't aim for precision in my speech, I just use words as placeholders for ideas. This might help explain why Te users dislike arguing about semantics.
Or, idk, maybe the INTJs don't want to admit that their arguments are messy and won't hold up under close logical scrutiny, that's also an option.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

our crusade against semantics and our love for it?
h:
your title and thread contradict's itself
can you be more abstract please


----------



## Exy (Apr 26, 2018)

What language is this?


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Exy said:


> What language is this?


INTP when spicy


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

vinniebob said:


> our crusade against semantics and our love for it?
> h:
> your title and thread contradict's itself
> can you be more abstract please


There's no contradiction. @Ocean Helm claims that INTJs love _using semantics as a dirty word_, which is why they (allegedly) go to war against it.

The problem with saying "let's call a spade a spade" is words take on different implications in each individual's psyche. Take the word "freedom", for instance. Ask enough people what it means to be free, and they will inevitably hold differing views.

The idea behind arguing semantics is to reach a compromise on what a word means so that both parties can be on the same page, thus allowing for more constructive discussion - instead of one party hitting the other over the head with a rake when arguing about what to call a spade.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Because many INTJs aren't truly skeptical. They're just part of the religion of "skepticism". They use many of the same arguments and then when you poke holes in those arguments they don't know how to respond and react like a certain user that may or may not still be on this forum. But to be fair INTPs can be needlessly complex. I've had debates where I've agreed with INTPs but we didn't know it cause they need things to be said in a very specific way.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

BlueRaspberry said:


> I'm not an INTJ, but Ti pedantism can sometimes annoy me too. When debating with Ti-doms, they will often critique my words rather than the ideas behind my words. I see semantics as irrelevant and a waste of time so I don't aim for precision in my speech, I just use words as placeholders for ideas.


"Semantics" means meaning. If you want to communicate something, the meaning of your words is crucial. It is not irrelevant. If people don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, they will not know what your ideas are and they will not be able to critique them. Surely you do not expect people to someone directly access what's inside your mind regardless of the words you use to express it? If you genuinely don't care about the meaning of the words you are using, what's your motivation for using words at all in those situations?


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

BlueRaspberry said:


> INTJs don't want to admit that their arguments are messy


h:


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Exy said:


> What language is this?


Japanese


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

This thread made me laugh.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

This is the most nonsensical thread I have read in this forum. It reeks of bias against INTJs and cognitive functions. I don't really understand the purpose of it.

I didn't know INTPs were driven by emotions this much. Though considering the thread creator types himself based on dichotomies, chances are his type isn't even INTP, to begin with.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

And here I thought we were the most ruthless enforcers of pedantic semantics. To illustrate this, here's an Enforcer from Quake 2.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I've had debates where I've agreed with INTPs but we didn't know it cause they need things to be said in a very specific way.


I've had debates like that with people of all types. That is why semantics is what I would consider a "necessary evil". Dealing with it is a nuisance and wastes time that could be spent focusing on the ideas themselves, but you also have to work through semantic issues and arrive at the point where the parties understand each other's premises or else your discussion is just two people talking at each other about different things.

For this reason, I make an effort to be careful about semantics. It annoys me to have to do it and I will never handle it as deftly as an INTP does, but in the long run it's worth it because it saves me time responding to posts that misunderstood my argument because it was vaguely formulated.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Judson Joist said:


> And here I thought we were the most ruthless enforcers of pedantic semantics. To illustrate this, here's an Enforcer from Quake 2.


It's true, being insufferable pedants is one of those pesky INTJ stereotypes. When you sit down and think about it, the picture painted by the INTJ stereotype is basically a bizarre mashup of INTP and ENTJ traits, with little regard for how plausibly they actually go together. I wouldn't care to get to know that person.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Reila said:


> This is the most nonsensical thread I have read in this forum. It reeks of bias against INTJs and cognitive functions. I don't really understand the purpose of it.


Bias? Lol. @Ocean Helm is more so pointing a finger towards presumably people like you. Look beneath his words. He's calling out self-proclaimed INTJs, which differs greatly from having a bias against actual INTJs.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

PiT said:


> the INTJ stereotype is basically a bizarre mashup of INTP and ENTJ traits


Basically *Hal Emmerich* meets *Handsome Jack*. As far as "*Amalgamated*" archetypes go, that's "not bad, not bad," as *Mordecai* would say.

Note: INTP = introverted left brain, extroverted right brain. ENTJ = extroverted left brain, introverted right brain. Both use a TNSF pattern which forms a "Z" shape if scrawled across a psychometric neurograph. That is, if we picture the brain as having four quadrants (left/right and front/back). In comparison, we INTJs use an NTFS pattern which forms an "S" shape. INFJs use an NFTS pattern which forms an "N" shape (scrawled from right to left). INTPs and ENTJs both use the front left quadrant of their brain first, followed by the front right. INTJs do the opposite.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The concrete realm is difficult to sleep in.


----------



## From Skynet With Love (May 5, 2018)

Meaning is important, but it's also important not to get "stuck" on vocabulary when discoursing. An INTJ who complains about semantics is complaining about the meaning, often in my experience, this is because the meaning relates to a concept or experience the INTJ does not want to acknowledge. Most likely because it calls into question and challenges the rigidity that undeveloped INTJ's hide their emotions behind. An undeveloped INTJ's frustration is often expressed in a way that marginalizes or writes off the other's argument. It's understandable that the OP would find this frustrating, especially if they identify personally with their argument. That being said, with irony, I find the OP's language confusing and lacking clear meaning. Although since that meaning seems to be ultimately an emotional experience not much was lost in translation.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> There's no contradiction. @Ocean Helm claims that INTJs love _using semantics as a dirty word_, which is why they (allegedly) go to war against it.


Whoops. I meant to say "they (allegedly) go war against it, which is why @Ocean Helm claims "INTJs" love using semantics as a dirty word".

Cause and effect went around the wrong way. I also missed the quotation marks around "INTJs".


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

I can't help but imagine them shouting semantics when they stub their toes against the table leg.


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

Nookie Monster said:


> "Semantics" means meaning. If you want to communicate something, the meaning of your words is crucial. It is not irrelevant. If people don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, they will not know what your ideas are and they will not be able to critique them. Surely you do not expect people to someone directly access what's inside your mind regardless of the words you use to express it? If you genuinely don't care about the meaning of the words you are using, what's your motivation for using words at all in those situations?


I do care about the meaning of the words I use, but people aren't robots and can't always express themselves with linguistic precision. Where the Ti/Te clash comes from is that Ti-doms think in terms of abstract systems (eg. math, language, political theory) but will forget that those systems aren't "real"; but whereas Ti distills reality, Te approximates it. Words are just placeholders for ideas, so anything that you can express through language is going to be an approximation of the concept rather than the actual thing; kind of how a photograph is never going to perfectly resemble what you see in real life because of the necessary distortion of color, proportion, etc, from the camera.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

BlueRaspberry said:


> I do care about the meaning of the words I use, but people aren't robots and can't always express themselves with linguistic precision. Words are just placeholders for ideas, so anything that you can express through language is going to be an approximation of the concept; kind of how a photograph is never going to perfectly resemble what you see in real life because of the necessary distortion of color, proportion, etc, from the camera.


That's precisely why semantics are relevant: the proper word or phrase increases linguistic precision. You've made my point.


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

Nookie Monster said:


> That's precisely why semantics are relevant: the proper word or phrase increases linguistic precision. You've made my point.


My point is that linguistic precision is unrealistic and shouldn't necessarily be the goal in a debate. Focusing on precision distracts you from focusing on the ideas. You can still understand the idea behind what someone is saying even if they don't phrase it in the most precise way, can't you?


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

BlueRaspberry said:


> My point is that linguistic precision is unrealistic and shouldn't necessarily be the goal in a debate.


It's not unrealistic; people express themselves precisely all the time. And I didn't interpret this topic as being specific to debates.

It seems we have different ideas about linguistic precision. I'm thinking of it in terms of using the most relevant, specific, and efficient wording one needs to get the idea across, and you seem to be thinking of it in terms of some sort of absolute perfection. As you said, words merely approximate ideas, so there is no such perfection.



> Focusing on precision distracts you from focusing on the ideas. You can still understand the idea behind what someone is saying even if they don't phrase it in the most precise way, can't you?


I doubt there is a "most precise way" in most cases. There is "more precise" and "less precise," and whether anyone can understand what is being said depends on where on that spectrum the wording falls (along with personal factors such as education level and the amount of experience shared by the speaker/writer and audience).


----------



## isn't anything (Apr 6, 2017)

this is "officially" the dumbest "thread" on this "website"


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

This thread was created five days ago and there still aren't any concrete examples of what OP is complaining about.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I skimmed through the thread just now and there's too much to respond to, so I thought it'd be better to just give information that may help understand where i'm coming from. By the way, I don't intend to call anyone out by name but just to sort of describe a trend which I've observed in hopes that maybe more people will notice it now that I brought it up.

I'm going to post Daryl Sharp's definitions from _The Jung Lexicon_ which is available online here (link). 
*Abstraction*

* *




A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of *differentiation*. (Compare *empathy*.)


> Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]


Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).


> I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]


To the extent that its purpose is to break the object's hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of _participation mystique_.



*Concretism*

* *




A way of thinking or feeling that is *archaic* and undifferentiated, based entirely on perception through sensation. (Compare *abstraction*.)
Concretism as a way of mental functioning is closely related to the more general concept of participation mystique. Concrete thinking and feeling are attuned to and bound by physiological stimuli and material facts. Such an orientation is valuable in the recognition of outer reality, but deficient in how it is interpreted.


> Concretism results in a projection of . . . inner factors into the objective data and produces an almost superstitious veneration of mere facts.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 699.]





> [Concrete thinking] has no detached independence but clings to material phenomena. It rises at most to the level of analogy. Primitive feeling is equally bound to material phenomena. Both of them depend on sensation and are only slight differentiated from it. Concret-ism, therefore, is an archaism. The magical influence of the fetish is not experienced as a subjective state of feeling, but sensed as a magical effect. That is concretistic feeling. The primitive does not experience the idea of the divinity as a subjective content; for him the sacred tree is the abode of the god, or even the god himself. That is concretistic thinking. In civilized man, concretistic thinking consists in the inability to conceive of anything except immediately obvious facts transmitted by the senses, or in the inability to discriminate between subjective feeling and the sensed object.[Ibid., par. 697.]





*Participation mystique*

* *




A term derived from anthropology and the study of primitive psychology, denoting a mystical connection, or identity, between subject and object. (See also *archaic*, *identification* and *projection*.)


> [Participation mystique] consists in the fact that the subject cannot clearly distinguish himself from the object but is bound to it by a direct relationship which amounts to partial identity. . . . Among civilized peoples it usually occurs between persons, seldom between a person and a thing. In the first case it is a transference relationship . . . . In the second case there is a similar influence on the part of the thing, or else an identification with a thing or the idea of a thing.[Definitions," CW 6, par. 781.]





> [Identity] is a characteristic of the primitive mentality and the real foundation of participation mystique, which is nothing but a relic of the original non-differentiation of subject and object, and hence of the primordial unconscious state. It is also a characteristic of the mental state of early infancy, and, finally, of the unconscious of the civilized adult.[Ibid., par. 741.]





Jung also said this in _Psychological Types_, Chapter X:


> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.





> For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.


Words carry a lot of concrete baggage. Jungian introverts with conscious intuition and especially thinking should attempt to dig beyond that. After all they can use both their primary or auxiliary intuition to go the source of the perceptual response, and combine that with introverted thinking which both digs for and forms abstract ideas.

Those who wish to keep things in the concrete realm by focusing on the surface and the _participation mystique_ emitted by objects such as words while ignoring their underlying meaning (semantics) may be INTJ by letters, but this preference is both related to Jungian *extraversion* and *sensation*.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

I'm a Ti-dom, and I honestly find it's sort of the reverse. Underdeveloped Ti-doms tend to get distracted by semantic arguments. Te-doms tend to come at it from this _here are the facts, I am right you are wrong_ mentality whereas Ti-doms like to dive into what _sense_ things make.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

PiT said:


> I've had debates like that with people of all types. That is why semantics is what I would consider a "necessary evil". Dealing with it is a nuisance and wastes time that could be spent focusing on the ideas themselves, but you also have to work through semantic issues and arrive at the point where the parties understand each other's premises or else your discussion is just two people talking at each other about different things.
> 
> For this reason, I make an effort to be careful about semantics. It annoys me to have to do it and I will never handle it as deftly as an INTP does, but in the long run it's worth it because it saves me time responding to posts that misunderstood my argument because it was vaguely formulated.


I think it annoys most people, but yes, effective communication of abstract ideas usually requires a focus on semantics.


TB_Wisdom said:


> You display a strong energy of intelligence inferiority complex and jealousy towards INTJs. You take your own personal issues and generalize them into some sort of Ti-dom. vs INTJ issue (aww God how wrong this is from a cognitive function pov but w/e). Funny, I don't have any issues with INTPs in real life and have never had issues with that type. Quite the contrary.
> 
> You also fail at cognitive functions, as the predominant part of the intuition and thinking for a typical INTJ is introverted, meaning that both INT types use Ti and Ni. P/J measures conscientiousness, not functional stack. So it's not like INTJs are "affraid" whether an idea would work logically or not - it works perfectly well logically, but it's subjective logic (i.e., Ti) meaning that it doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as logical by the outside world.
> 
> I have friends and family of various different types. I don't know anyone who likes people who are overly concerned with semantics. Or people who want to take others statements and try to prove them wrong. Such people, are antisocial and awkward. It's childish behavior that works on internet forums but not in the outside world. Good luck being successful at life behaving like that...


I'll let you believe this, if it makes you feel good about yourself! However, it seems like you are using your superior intellect to read things that I didn't say.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

@*BlueRaspberry* I wanna eat y0re avatar!
:tongue:


Conscience Killer said:


> Te-doms tend to come at it from this *here are the facts, I am right you are wrong* mentality


They should realize that, if we're truly valuing facts, that right and wrong are self-evident. It's not the "who," it's the "what." No one gets to be the dictator of reality if truth and fact are self-evident. So the phrase should be, "Here are the facts, *this* is right," not "*I* am right."


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Judson Joist said:


> @*BlueRaspberry* I wanna eat y0re avatar!
> :tongue:
> 
> They should realize that, if we're truly valuing facts, that right and wrong are self-evident. It's not the "who," it's the "what." No one gets to be the dictator of reality if truth and fact are self-evident. So the phrase should be, "Here are the facts, *this* is right," not "*I* am right."


 You should realize that, hilariously enough, this was a semantic contention. Yes, this is _what_ individual INTJs believe, but to everyone else on the planet, how I described it is how you appear, because almost no one considers a single person to be an objective bringer of truth.


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I'll let you believe this, if it makes you feel good about yourself! However, it seems like you are using your superior intellect to read things that I didn't say.


I'm a spiritual man. I'm not looking for any of that. Just trying to point out that your belief becomes your reality. If you make it an INTJ-INTP issue, it will become one. If you take it like "hmm, maybe I should not get stuck on words", you can develop yourself.

A good quote by Carl Jung: _"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."
_


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> This is a trend I've noticed a lot in personality forums and the like: a bunch of self-proclaimed "INTJs", usually those who are heavily into "Jungian Cognitive Functions", who love using "semantics" as a dirty word when "Ti-doms" (especially INTPs) take concrete language into the abstract realm. Then these same people will love to talk about how their existence is like the epitome of abstraction. To me, it usually reeks of a fear that their ideas look fine in the concrete realm, but don't add up in the abstract realm. This is not what I'd expect out of Jung's Introverted Intuitive type (nor his Introverted Thinking type for that matter). Thoughts?


The MBTI types are about preferences. It doesn't mean they're any good at it.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

TB_Wisdom:42000594 said:


> Ocean Helm said:
> 
> 
> > I'll let you believe this, if it makes you feel good about yourself! However, it seems like you are using your superior intellect to read things that I didn't say.
> ...


And this is why I cant take this community seriously


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> I skimmed through the thread just now and there's too much to respond to, so I thought it'd be better to just give information that may help understand where i'm coming from.


There's too much for _you_ to respond to, yet you give _us_ a whole essay to read? People asked you for *examples*.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

I think the quotation marks around "INTJ" might've gotten lost in translation.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

Crusade against (((semantics)))
...
...
...
...
...
Okay. I'll go to bed now. :mellow:


----------



## BlueRaspberry (Dec 19, 2017)

Judson Joist said:


> @*BlueRaspberry* I wanna eat y0re avatar!
> :tongue:


It's pretty sweet, isn't it


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Conscience Killer said:


> Te-doms tend to come at it from this _here are the facts, I am right you are wrong_ mentality whereas Ti-doms like to dive into what _sense_ things make.


I believe you're talking about one of the various ways people can perceive a Te-dom as opposed to how they actually operate. It's not necessarily that the Ti-doms tend to dive too far into what sense things make, but moreover there's a constant need to define things and bring up people as an objective criteria for what is understood as opposed to how a Te-dom would focus more on focusing on the "main idea" so to speak, over looking through every piece of the structure. "This is right" is the objective manner when one uses facts. Terms like "interesting" often hold no place in analysis for me, because it conveys no real truth, and wastes time. Though it is an intriguing idea to unify oneself with facts. As if to abstract themselves as a living concept.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

LeSangDeCentAns said:


> Crusade against (((semantics)))
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...


Was that supposed to mean something? lmao


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Xcopy said:


> I believe you're talking about one of the various ways people can perceive a Te-dom as opposed to how they actually operate. It's not necessarily that the Ti-doms tend to dive too far into what sense things make, but moreover there's a constant need to define things and bring up people as an objective criteria for what is understood as opposed to how a Te-dom would focus more on focusing on the "main idea" so to speak, over looking through every piece of the structure. "This is right" is the objective manner when one uses facts. Terms like "interesting" often hold no place in analysis for me, because it conveys no real truth, and wastes time. Though it is an intriguing idea to unify oneself with facts. As if to abstract themselves as a living concept.


 You're right. I also consider Te-dom as a *Summary / blurb* type of person.


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Was that supposed to mean something? lmao


It is meaningless which is what it means.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Nookie Monster said:


> That's precisely why semantics are relevant: the proper word or phrase increases linguistic precision. You've made my point.


I'm pretty sure when someone complained about Ti pedantism they were talking about the scenario where the Ti person understands their underlying meaning just fine, but chooses to focus on the wording choices anyway - ignoring the meaning - changing the topic away from the underlying meaning. That can be frustrating. Then again, I might be looking at it with Ni brain that says the underlying meaning is usually clear anyway, even with imperfect wording choices. The concept of imperfect wording choices leading to full misunderstanding of what they were trying to say - is actually not something that I experience often.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

I am guessing what oceanhelm was up to was not written very clearly in his lengthy words, at least for the INTJ who are responding, but funnily the way this thread develop somehow paint the issue by itself.

I am guessing, again, this thread show precisely how INTP differentiate from INTJ. Problem is we haven't clearly define -through convention which is necessary or else it will be new semantic problem- what term is suitable for it. Yet.

But then again, i am just guessing. I could be wrong, no problem at all.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

LeSangDeCentAns said:


> Crusade against (((semantics)))
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...


Hola smegma. How come you change your beautiful nickname, are you doing some kind of crusade on your own too?

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

BlueRaspberry said:


> It's pretty sweet, isn't it


Kinda sweet. Kinda tart.
roud:


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

RGB said:


> This thread made me laugh.


this thread gave me gas, a vaginal yeast infection and menstrual crampsh:


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Xcopy said:


> I believe you're talking about one of the various ways people can perceive a Te-dom as opposed to how they actually operate. It's not necessarily that the Ti-doms tend to dive too far into what sense things make, but moreover there's a constant need to define things and bring up people as an objective criteria for what is understood as opposed to how a Te-dom would focus more on focusing on the "main idea" so to speak, over looking through every piece of the structure. "This is right" is the objective manner when one uses facts. Terms like "interesting" often hold no place in analysis for me, because it conveys no real truth, and wastes time. Though it is an intriguing idea to unify oneself with facts. As if to abstract themselves as a living concept.


 That is what I'm talking about. Te-doms _believe_ that, but very few people perceive them like that, because most people don't trust human beings as singular sources. Te-doms tend to be concerned with facts. Ti-doms tend to be concerned with sense. So it definitely makes sense that Te-doms prefer concrete data and research, whereas Ti-doms prefer to reason it out themselves. Both have their drawbacks and benefits. I really appreciate nice, well-developed Te because my auxiliary Se lets me cut through the bullshit. I have a harder time with INTPs because Ti and Ne combined is like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ get to the point already. Patience is a virtue. :laughing:


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

BlueRaspberry said:


> I'm not an INTJ, but Ti pedantism can sometimes annoy me too. When debating with Ti-doms, they will often critique my words rather than the ideas behind my words. ''I see semantics as irrelevant and a waste of time'' so I don't aim for precision in my speech, I just use words as placeholders for ideas.
> 
> 
> and this my perceiving amigo is where we differ
> ...


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Because many INTJs aren't truly skeptical. They're just part of the religion of "skepticism". They use many of the same arguments and then when you poke holes in those arguments they don't know how to respond and react like a certain user that may or may not still be on this forum. But to be fair INTPs can be needlessly complex. I've had debates where I've agreed with INTPs but we didn't know it cause they need things to be said in a very specific way.


Frequently i won't respond is not because i don't have any, but simply i'm having a hard time to precisely convey the idea to *the specific person* i am addressing to OR if it is clear to me that whatever i said won't matter at all. Bolded because yeah, i consciously measure my counterpart all the time.

Reason to this is during my development years i used to assume that people know what i consider as so obvious in my delivery but experience told me, oh no not really. And it torture me like hell because i always aim for finesse, strike one, one bullet one kill. I don't really enjoy having to repeat myself.

Others may have different opinion though.



Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

vinniebob said:


> and this my perceiving amigo is where we differ
> INTJ needs precision in language
> to us semantics is everything
> w/o semantics language has no meaning to us


And yet, you somehow led with:



vinniebob said:


> our crusade against semantics and our love for it?
> h:
> *your title and thread contradict's itself*
> can you be more abstract please


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Conscience Killer said:


> That is what I'm talking about. Te-doms _believe_ that, but very few people perceive them like that, because most people don't trust human beings as singular sources. Te-doms tend to be concerned with facts. Ti-doms tend to be concerned with sense. So it definitely makes sense that Te-doms prefer concrete data and research, whereas Ti-doms prefer to reason it out themselves. Both have their drawbacks and benefits.* I really appreciate nice, well-developed Te because my auxiliary Se lets me cut through the bullshit.* I have a harder time with INTPs because Ti and Ne combined is like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ get to the point already. Patience is a virtue. :laughing:


Hmm.. I wonder if that is why I tend to get along better with ISTP's than INTP's?


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Was that supposed to mean something? lmao



*INTJ evil laugh*

Mwahahahahahaha.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@PiT @Aluminum Frost it's hard to explain it fully but I've thought about this more recently and on average:

J's external organization > J's internal organization > P's internal organization > P's external organization

This is fully the trend I'd expect to see, with the external organization on both poles being obvious because that is what divides people between J and P in the first place.

Of course if you'd like to put full faith in function magic and think it's actually:
J's external organization > P's internal organization > J's internal organization > P's external organization

Well that's fine but arriving at it from:
a) J's external organization > J's internal organization
b) P's internal orginization > P's internal organization

requires a leap of faith when it comes to internal organization (which is similar to what I did but expecting similar things to correlate is usually the right guess). And a and b are going to be basically true by definition which can be approximated for understanding as literal J traits being the most J things and literal P traits being the most P things. Yeah there are technicalities that complicate things but I'm too lazy to go into all of this, and just writing out what I did already was difficult due to my unproductively high entropy mind understanding things in very non-linear tangled form.

And keep in mind my comparisons are just averages, and in individual cases I would expect them to be the exact opposite. For instance I am probably even more disorganized internally than I am externally, but I think this would put me in the minority. Not a severe minority but just something under 50% of all P types.

Last Minute Edit: I'm an absolute failure in "verbal-linguistic intelligence" in the multiple intelligence model too, maybe that leads to me feeling more internally disorganized than I actually am, because the whole process of translating my thoughts into words is one that naturally gives me trouble.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @PiT @Aluminum Frost it's hard to explain it fully but I've thought about this more recently and on average:
> 
> J's external organization > J's internal organization > P's internal organization > P's external organization
> 
> ...


Interesting post, and I would never have guessed that you considered yourself that internally disorganized. Perhaps your average J-type is in fact more internally organized, but also has less confidence in internal organization since we prefer external organization and rely on that for important decisions. The result of this is that Judgers act _as if we were_ less internally organized than Perceivers, even if it isn't the case.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> This is a trend I've noticed a lot in personality forums and the like: a bunch of self-proclaimed "INTJs", usually those who are heavily into "Jungian Cognitive Functions", who love using "semantics" as a dirty word when "Ti-doms" (especially INTPs) take concrete language into the abstract realm. Then these same people will love to talk about how their existence is like the epitome of abstraction. To me, it usually reeks of a fear that their ideas look fine in the concrete realm, but don't add up in the abstract realm. *This is not what I'd expect out of Jung's Introverted Intuitive type (nor his Introverted Thinking type for that matter)*. Thoughts?


Who cares what your expectations are they do not define what types are capable of.

Since I got that out of the way. Yea semantics especially to Te users can seem to distract or dillute the point someone is trying to make. Semantics simply can be counter-productive sometimes.

Example: "I dropped by your house and returned your video game."

Someone goes into semantics mode and argues "You did not _drop_ by my house, you came and stayed for an hour then finally returned my video game."

But whether the person "dropped by" or "visited" is besides the point, the point is that the person returned the video game to you, who cares how this "visit" is defined, the result is your item has been returned. Semantics is trying to get a clear idea of the wrong thing, and sometimes missing the result.

All this accuracy and focus on areas that are irrelevant is the why some Te users crusade against semantics.


Semantics-
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"


Concerned with the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text, and not concerned with the overall point being made by the word, phrase, sentence, or text. Sometimes Ti is so literal in it's interpretation it does not get the overall point being made.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> You should realize that, hilariously enough, this was a semantic contention. Yes, this is _what_ individual INTJs believe, but to everyone else on the planet, how I described it is how you appear, because almost no one considers a single person to be an objective bringer of truth.


This is often the issue between Ti and Te. Ti thinks Te is claiming to be the single objective bringer of truth and Te is simply just point out truths that cannot be denied, not the bringer of truth, but the ...pointer outer....of truth? Ti seems to think there isn't some truth that exists between all of us that can be seen and pointed out, that everyone has this collection of facts but no one has all the facts. This can get annoying when facts are right in your face.

The sky is blue! I'm not detemining that the sky is blue, it's a FACT that the sky is blue. That is objective truth.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @PiT @Aluminum Frost it's hard to explain it fully but I've thought about this more recently and on average:
> 
> J's external organization > J's internal organization > P's internal organization > P's external organization
> 
> ...


I don't follow functions stacks. If something makes sense than that's what I judge it off of. It's not "faith in function stacks" you just use that card whenever something conflicts with your way of seeing things.

As for psychology at least, no, I wouldn't necessarily think that similar things correlate. In some ways yes, in others no. J and P are always measured by behavior, not though process. So no, the internal and external manifestation of them aren't equal in measuring whether somebody is more P or J. Outward and inward P or J seems like it would be problematic and the person would have trouble functioning properly. Same with someone that would be Si>Ni>Fi>Ti>E. If you're already inwardly organized than what use is it to be outwardly so? Also introverts and extroverts aren't the same inwardly as they are outwardly. Introverts are much more "talkative" inside their heads. It doesn't at all match how they are outwardly. Vice-versa for extroverts.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Lord Pixel said:


> This is often the issue between Ti and Te. Ti thinks Te is claiming to be the single objective bringer of truth and Te is simply just point out truths that cannot be denied, not the bringer of truth, but the ...pointer outer....of truth? Ti seems to think there isn't some truth that exists between all of us that can be seen and pointed out, that everyone has this collection of facts but no one has all the facts. This can get annoying when facts are right in your face.
> 
> The sky is blue! I'm not detemining that the sky is blue, it's a FACT that the sky is blue. That is objective truth.


 Yeah, I understand that this is _what Te-users believe_. It's just a little silly to assume that Te-users _only state facts_ when it is impossible for any human to know the _objective truth_ of everything (or even _most_ things). I take anyone who goes out of their way to make sure we all know that _oh, I'm just an objective/logical/fact person_ with a grain of salt. Often that is code for _I'm incapable of perspective taking and I'm correct at all times._ Ti and Te isn't about _subjectivity vs objectivity_, anyway. Ti is perfectly capable of being objective. It is, after all, primarily concerned with _logic_.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

It depends. Sometimes semantics can be constructive and others, it's just a logical fallacy intentionally tossed in to deflect from having to respond, sit on the fence, or admit that one has lost the argument because it's easier to pick apart words than it is to argue against the context as a whole.

I don't think it's a type thing.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Lord Pixel said:


> Example: "I dropped by your house and returned your video game."
> 
> Someone goes into semantics mode and argues "You did not _drop_ by my house, you came and stayed for an hour then finally returned my video game."
> 
> But whether the person "dropped by" or "visited" is besides the point, the point is that the person returned the video game to you, who cares how this "visit" is defined, the result is your item has been returned. Semantics is trying to get a clear idea of the wrong thing, and sometimes missing the result.


This example is funny for unintentionally showcasing the problem in perfection. (Or you have achieved mastery in subversion. In which case I bow before your skill.)

So, the dismissal of what "is besides the point" -- when that is exactly the point, if the above is the reply? Who cares: I, if I want to tell you with this (and I would) that instead of just dropping off that game, you invited yourself for an hour before I was _finally_ able to compliment you out.


In a more general sense, far more often than people being obnoxious about irrelevant details, it's actually genuine disagreements about what details _are_ relevant. So instead of dismissing things with "that's besides the point", it would probably be helpful to stop at that exact moment and _ask_ why the other person considers this aspect relevant. The ratio of people I encounter that do the former vs. the latter is not too inspiring. (Not that I'm free of sin, but at least I'm trying.)

For instance: If I responded with that the sky isn't literally blue, in the same way that water isn't blue, and only appears that way, is this me understanding what you are trying to say and focusing on some irrelevant technicality -- or am I trying to tell you something, simply using your example? Who knows, right?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> This is a trend I've noticed a lot in personality forums and the like: a bunch of self-proclaimed "INTJs", usually those who are heavily into "Jungian Cognitive Functions", who love using "semantics" as a dirty word when "Ti-doms" (especially INTPs) take concrete language into the abstract realm. Then these same people will love to talk about how their existence is like the epitome of abstraction. To me, it usually reeks of a fear that their ideas look fine in the concrete realm, but don't add up in the abstract realm. This is not what I'd expect out of Jung's Introverted Intuitive type (nor his Introverted Thinking type for that matter). Thoughts?


The J is an order bound type. It needs the concrete. It needs structure. Demands that each supposition, each inference, stand on something else that must then stand on something else. This is reducto ad absurdem. Reductionism begets nihilism. 

You see, THEIR existence, empiricism, is their structure. They cling to this like children clinging to the side of the pool. It is safe, and hence the action of fear, of order. But safety itself is delusion, memento mori. And then there is the other side, the abstraction(s) you speak of.

That side contains the delay of fear. That side contains the stark demand of courage. To push back against the unknown even, when the unknown could contain anything, and does contain then many 'greater' things, knowing that you are a part and 'deserve' your space, your physical space, and your emotional space, your 'right' to exist. Fear meets anger.

This is why you FORCE the child to let go of the side of the pool and act, to swim. FORCE (anger) is required in some cases. Time is of the essence and anger demands you act NOW.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

PiT said:


> ...Perhaps your average J-type is in fact more internally organized, but also has less confidence in internal organization since we prefer external organization and rely on that for important decisions. The result of this is that Judgers act _as if we were_ less internally organized than Perceivers, even if it isn't the case.


Like you I also prefer to write things down. I expect it's part I don't trust my memory and part I'm built to organize things externally so making things external to organize them seems natural (my plans are created with pen & paper). My ENTP friend by comparison seems to have what I call 'a logic tree' inside his head where all information is neatly & systematically connected. From my perspective, he seems more internally organized than me. 

As far as the INTJ = semantics-police idea goes: for me, context & intentions count. If I'm talking with someone who routinely roadblocks with word fruit salad and topic changes, even though the topic is such that it's meant to be brought to a point, then yeah, the moment they shift a conversation away from it's topic to semantics (or any other secondary topic), I have zero patience. They are playing games. I hate chaos & time-wasters. I have known people like this (not just INTJs, an ENFP was the worst I've met). It is frustrating, as they deliberately wish to make it.

If instead I'm spending a relaxing evening talking to a trusted friend I respect, I'm happy to let the conversation wind where it naturally goes. I especially enjoy talking conceptually and connecting dots rather than coming to a single point in this relaxed setting.

In the context of a topic that should be brought to a conclusion and the person who has shifted to what could be construed as 'semantics' is genuine -- is trying to create a deeper understanding relevant to both the topic and the direction they are going in it, then I appreciate them and remain patient while they make their point. I am always open to being taught something true/valuable & going deeper. I only go into talk-traffic police mode when there is a problem.

I certainly don't see my (INTJ) existence as "the epitome of abstraction". It's very much conceptual ideas brought into concrete reality, with the latter taking up far more of my time. Which is a shame bc that's not the fun part, but such is life as a TJ. Any INTJ living life in abstraction is probably unhealthy. It's the unhealthy ones that say stuff like "I'm always right" as an argument (!) and have little tolerance for other's pov. There is a wide variation in INTJs.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

PiT said:


> Interesting post, and I would never have guessed that you considered yourself that internally disorganized. Perhaps your average J-type is in fact more internally organized, but also has less confidence in internal organization since we prefer external organization and rely on that for important decisions. The result of this is that Judgers act _as if we were_ less internally organized than Perceivers, even if it isn't the case.


I don't get why believers in The Functions make their own dichotomy about "external organization" vs "internal organization" as if they are usually in competition with each other. I generally just see them working side by side, where an internally organized person projects external organization into the outside world. MBTI obviously treats it as "external organization" vs "not external organization" in its test and then tacks on The Functions afterwards for what reason I don't know.

J highly correlates with (Big 5) Conscientiousness, and Conscientiousness facets highly correlate with each other. Thus it seems reasonable to guess that J's are more "Deliberate" and P's are more "Bold". This has to do with "being disposed to think through possibilities carefully before acting." This also infers that an internal organization is likely to take place with J types before acting, as do some of J/P questions on the MBTI test.

For what it's worth, the MBTI website describes introverted thinking as "seeks internal consistency and logic of ideas. Trusts his or her internal framework, which may be difficult to explain to others." This is something I relate to very well because my internal analytic framework isn't something that can't easily be exported into language, as it's more visual and abstract connection based, which also facilitates consistency-checking. I've seen INTPs described as the people who just sort of arrive at math answers without having to write it down and then struggle to write down their steps and this is totally me. I guess in a sense it can be considered an organization but not in the sense that can be conveyed well to others or projected externally. However the process itself seems more like a traversal through mind space than anything systematic, which is why the externally systematic demands seem constraining. I'd imagine someone more externally systematic would be more likely to follow a much more straightforward "organized" process internally as well... And that just goes against my exploratory nature, which even when I'm trying to arrive at answers I am seeing where things take me and not shutting off possibilities (this seems both consistent with MBTI aux-Ne and Jungian primary Ni).


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Perceiving is the first key step toward enlightment... :wink:

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Yeah, I understand that this is _what Te-users believe_. It's just a little silly to assume that Te-users _only state facts_ when it is impossible for any human to know the _objective truth_ of everything (or even _most_ things). I take anyone who goes out of their way to make sure we all know that _oh, I'm just an objective/logical/fact person_ with a grain of salt. Often that is code for _I'm incapable of perspective taking and I'm correct at all times._ Ti and Te isn't about _subjectivity vs objectivity_, anyway. Ti is perfectly capable of being objective. It is, after all, primarily concerned with _logic_.


I just don't see how stating something like "The sky is blue." means this person holds all objective knowledge or whatever. The sky being blue is what is pointed out and this fact is removed from the person who points it out, so it has nothing to do with the bringer of this knowledge and everything to do with this fact being irrefutable.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> This example is funny for unintentionally showcasing the problem in perfection. (Or you have achieved mastery in subversion. In which case I bow before your skill.)
> 
> So, the dismissal of what "is besides the point" -- when that is exactly the point, if the above is the reply? Who cares: I, if I want to tell you with this (and I would) that instead of just dropping off that game, you invited yourself for an hour before I was _finally_ able to compliment you out.


Yea that makes sense if a person is trying to make a point that your visit was ove rstayed, but if they are just pointing out the misuese of a word, it's just like, ugggggggh who cares!




Northern Lights said:


> In a more general sense, far more often than people being obnoxious about irrelevant details, it's actually genuine disagreements about what details _are_ relevant. So instead of dismissing things with "that's besides the point", it would probably be helpful to stop at that exact moment and _ask_ why the other person considers this aspect relevant. The ratio of people I encounter that do the former vs. the latter is not too inspiring. (Not that I'm free of sin, but at least I'm trying.)


Or the person could explain why they are making the point they are making. In alot of these cases the other person is focused on their point being understood, that they explain and explain until it sinks in _then_ their focus is free enough to try to understand the other person's point. It's like a process of constantly clearing up what you are saying so the other person understands, and i guess that's why you guys say we need semantics to clear things up. It just can be frustrating for both parties when you think you are clear but realize you are only clear to you and not to the other. This can happen quite a bit when you are speaking in general and someone takes you very specifically.



Northern Lights said:


> For instance: If I responded with that the sky isn't literally blue, in the same way that water isn't blue, and only appears that way, is this me understanding what you are trying to say and focusing on some irrelevant technicality -- or am I trying to tell you something, simply using your example? Who knows, right?


If we are discussing what color the sky looks like or what color the sky actually is, that would determine whether what you are trying to explain is relevant. And I guess that's me using semantics. But yea, if you were explaining what creates the color of the sky when people just wanted to know if it looks blue or not, then yea irrelevant and a waste of time, because once your done explaining you might get this "Is it blue or not?" and your whole explanation is over looked. So I guess there is a time and place for everything. Te usually focuses on the result you are saying so I think that's why it is often stated "Get to the point already". While Ti looks for all the connecting dots that build up what you are saying, so that's why you get "That doesn't make sense." Sometimes people don't care about all those connecting dots and just want the final verdict, blue or not blue.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Lord Pixel said:


> I just don't see how stating something like "The sky is blue." means this person holds all objective knowledge or whatever.


 That's because that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about _the content_ of what is said. I'm talking about how it's presented and how people who present it think of themselves. The same people who say _the sky is blue_ might also say something fairly subjective like _being a liberal/conservative is the only objectively right ideology and everyone else is wrong._ To them, those are _objective facts_ as well. A Te-user is a human being, not a database, they will of course express thoughts, feelings and opinions like everybody else. The issue is that Te-users can fall into a trap of believing that their opinions constitute logical fact, because they arrived at those opinions by doing research. No one _only_ states facts.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> That's because that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about _the content_ of what is said. I'm talking about how it's presented and how people who present it think of themselves. The same people who say _the sky is blue_ might also say something fairly subjective like _being a liberal/conservative is the only objectively right ideology and everyone else is wrong._ To them, those are _objective facts_ as well. A Te-user is a human being, not a database, they will of course express thoughts, feelings and opinions like everybody else. The issue is that Te-users can fall into a trap of believing that their opinions constitute logical fact, because they arrived at those opinions by doing research. No one _only_ states facts.


Ok yea, that makes sense. I think strong beliefs or opinions can be expressed as facts, until proven otherwise.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Lord Pixel said:


> If we are discussing what color the sky looks like or what color the sky actually is, that would determine whether what you are trying to explain is relevant. And I guess that's me using semantics. But yea, if you were explaining what creates the color of the sky when people just wanted to know if it looks blue or not, then yea irrelevant and a waste of time, because once your done explaining you might get this "Is it blue or not?" and your whole explanation is over looked.


What I meant to say there was that things might not be as "factual" as people think they are -- that they are different from what they look like.

People are wrong all the time. So the problem naturally appears when people think they are stating facts, but actually don't. If they then insist on their "fact", there are two ways this can go: There are those that feel a strong need to convince others of their wrong "objective truth", and those that are content to keep it to themselves. Both are wrong, but the latter is a lot more pleasant to deal with.

*Edit:* Basically ninja'd by @Conscience Killer .


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Lord Pixel said:


> Ok yea, that makes sense. I think strong beliefs or opinions can be expressed as facts, until proven otherwise.


 That's pretty much what most Te-users believe as well. That's almost entirely my point! I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that tends to be the difference. Ti-users usually make a clear distinction between facts and opinions, Te-users generally do not. The statement I just made is basically Ti-epitome, lol. (Clarifying statements of generally/usually, indicating a lack of judgment, specificity, etc etc.) It's totally natural to me to do this. Te-users leave out a lot of that language. 

This is why I think Ti-users are more preoccupied with _semantics_ (how things are said) than Te-users. It is not always a good thing. Sometimes I can get the general point of what someone is saying and yet still have a contention with how they've said it. That's Ti vs Te. A Te-user would just respond to that point itself, a Ti-user would object even though it's not necessarily relevant. There's flaws and benefits to both.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Northern Lights said:


> What I meant to say there was that things might not be as "factual" as people think they are -- that they are different from what they look like.
> 
> People are wrong all the time. So the problem naturally appears when people think they are stating facts, but actually don't. If they then insist on their "fact", there are two ways this can go: There are those that feel a strong need to convince others of their wrong "objective truth", and those that are content to keep it to themselves. Both are wrong, but the latter is a lot more pleasant to deal with.
> 
> *Edit:* Basically ninja'd by @Conscience Killer .


In the grand scheme of things yea sure, telling someone your "objective truth" is wrong if you are speaking about something that needs to be stated absolutely correctly because if not it might miseducate people. This is where Ti-flourishes I think, clearing up the facts, destroying myths and what not. But in everyday conversation, it's like you are using a damn 50-calibur machine guy to take out a duck. if say the sky is blue, and then someone goes on and on about how it's not, doesn't change the fact that when you look at the sky you see blue, so the result is the same not matter how correct someone is. This can be applied to a bunch of more casual conversation. I literally had an argument with a friend about whether or not spaghetti is yellow. It can get ridiculous.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Lord Pixel said:


> In the grand scheme of things yea sure, telling someone your "objective truth" is wrong if you are speaking about something that needs to be stated absolutely correctly because if not it might miseducate people. This is where Ti-flourishes I think, clearing up the facts, destroying myths and what not. But in everyday conversation, it's like you are using a damn 50-calibur machine guy to take out a duck. if say the sky is blue, and then someone goes on and on about how it's not, doesn't change the fact that when you look at the sky you see blue, so the result is the same not matter how correct someone is. This can be applied to a bunch of more casual conversation. I literally had an argument with a friend about whether or not spaghetti is yellow. It can get ridiculous.


were you in the "spaghetti is yellow" camp or the "spaghetti is beige" camp? I really thought I would be in the "spaghetti is beige" camp... until I did a google image search now and picked the most beige, least yellow picture of spaghetti that I could find...and then I thought, what if I had a shirt the same color as that beige spaghetti? I would call it a yellow shirt :O and that realization weirded me out


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> were you in the "spaghetti is yellow" camp or the "spaghetti is beige" camp? I really thought I would be in the "spaghetti is beige" camp... until I did a google image search now and picked the most beige, least yellow picture of spaghetti that I could find...and then I thought, what if I had a shirt the same color as that beige spaghetti? I would call it a yellow shirt :O and that realization weirded me out


I was in the spaghetti is yellow camp.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

"Semantics/language games" et al, are only irrelevant in debate (i.e., arguments) - to which "refutation" does not require a fixation on language games/word play, but only requires a demonstration of where (X) claims _warrant _doubt (e.g., demonstrating that (X)-argument is either explicit/incoherent/unsound), to which can be done by expunging useless definitions, and calling _any claim/premise_ into question. One could say, most average 'arguments' are refuted quite easily with this knowledge.

Many in which are (syntactical) testable/important for sense-making (e.g., logic/performative consistencies) - not necessary "semantically" interesting (re: meaning). To address the_ psychology _within a heavy discussion (semantic) - and address the (syntactical/logical consistency), makes the ride smoother, less repetitive, _more receptive_, and less conflicting for those that do not speak 'logical language' only fluently.

"Semantics" outside of (arguments) is important to myself, because of the distinction(s) that arise between Susie that is speaking Español from España; and Maria that speaks Español from Central America. 

Outside of debate, for myself, it is all about *dual-usage *of "people" *Psychology* (effective communication to reduce biases/unnecessary 'work' and hang-ups), and being combined with "Te" logic, or what have you. To implement my idea in the real world, among people, means it must be implemented effectively utilizing not only "logical consistency" but Psychology (specimens often reject what they "don't get"), communicative-judo, and sensibility. Since XNTJ's tend to be "real world" people with an 'abstract' funny bone, rather than 'abstractly logical' in another dimension, they often stress the importance of awareness when it comes to semantic disparities, because it is necessary when prefer travelling frequently between the two destinations.

The first thing that run(s) through my mind is: *I am going to get a translator,* for both Susie and Maria, and deal with the conflict of communicative-error(s) that lead to more problems in (basic Psychology) than necessary. Because neither Susie or Maria are attempting to 'refute' each other; but rather present pragmatic "short-hands" for fluidity/productivity among two specimen(s) that speak different dialetics, the goal is to maximize the effectiveness of their interactions/exchanges, not be "consistent" in all areas. I am not always 'in argument' (attempting to dis/prove) something as (re: a Ti-dominant) state of mind, so it is common I am going to fixate on the 'consistency' of anything first.

It is *important *we are communicating on the _same page_; for various reasons; and no, not everything is a "communicative/semantic issue", but if a _strong key_ to any type of success. I will not waste my time with a specimen '_outside' of logical debate_' that has difficulties communicating efficiently and effectively. Vocabulary, communicative-styles, "semantics" are important because not only does it reduce the problem of ad infinitum, but also because they deescalate _psychological conflict_ that makes 'rationalizing' - reasoning skills/reasoning with others - (not mere logical synchronicity), difficult.


----------



## Ethn1c (Apr 29, 2018)

I would say a better approach to the "semantics" problem is to ask what other peoples definition of a word or phrase or whatever is. That is how I usually do it to understand exactly what the point they are trying to make is. Or I ask them if they can come up with a practical example.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

Lord Pixel said:


> I was in the spaghetti is yellow camp.


I think I'm taking your side on that one  it's weird because I have this mental image of spaghetti being beige, but then if I actually look at it - then it looks absolutely 100% yellow.

like this one - least yellow spaghetti I could find with Google images (whose color isn't altered by sauce) and it's still undeniably yellow!


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> I think I'm taking your side on that one  it's weird because I have this mental image of spaghetti being beige, but then if I actually look at it - then it looks absolutely 100% yellow.
> 
> like this one - least yellow spaghetti I could find with Google images (whose color isn't altered by sauce) and it's still undeniably yellow!


yellow/beige/tan etc, when I was having the argument with the person my whole point was that spaghetti was in that family of colors which I simplified as yellow, and his point was that beige and yellow are not the same. And my response was who cares we know that it definitely isn't blue or red, and it's a whole lot more yellow that it is blue or red, so I call it yellow.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> I think I'm taking your side on that one  it's weird because I have this mental image of spaghetti being beige, but then if I actually look at it - then it looks absolutely 100% yellow.
> 
> like this one - least yellow spaghetti I could find with Google images (whose color isn't altered by sauce) and it's still undeniably yellow!


 I must be fucking color blind because I've always thought spaghetti was white. Instructions unclear. Dick stuck in spaghetti.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Conscience Killer said:


> This is why I think Ti-users are more preoccupied with _semantics_ (how things are said) than Te-users. It is not always a good thing. Sometimes I can get the general point of what someone is saying and yet still have a contention with how they've said it. That's Ti vs Te.


So would I and here's why: when people are being sloppy in how they express themselves, figuring out what they are saying takes more effort. I dislike wasted effort, I don't appreciate a lack of effort to communicate clearly, and sometimes, using the wrong word is a sign that someone has the wrong _idea_, a misunderstanding that I can potentially clear up easily. So I have sometimes tried to quickly and unobtrusively question or correct their phrasing or word usage (then get on with the conversation) so that I (and other people) don't have to expend so much effort to understand them the next time they mention the subject. 

When people object to that or say things like someone said up thread (and it's been said in another thread as well), that the ideas are more important than the words, to me that sound like, "all I care about is expressing myself, who gives a shit whether anyone understands." Which seems not only inconsiderate but makes no sense: why talk/write/post if you don't really care whether people understand?

What I wonder, however, is whether the issue is differences in the _purpose_ of communication. When I say something, I want to *make* people understand and will answer questions/clarify at length to do so, even responding to rude and dismissive people just so they can't pretend to not understand. I want everybody on the same page; the mutual understanding is paramount. It's very Fe-like. When I'm sharpening ideas I might communicate, I often think of them in terms of explaining them to someone else.

Maybe the Te/Fi users (who I hope respond), on the other hand, tend to express themselves with the attitude, "I'm just going to put this out there; whoever understands, fine. Whoever doesn't, that's also fine." A more passive or introverted sort of communication, more Fi-like in that the relationship between the self and the idea really _is_ more important than the relationship between others and the idea.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Nookie Monster said:


> Maybe the Te/Fi users (who I hope respond), on the other hand, tend to express themselves with the attitude, "I'm just going to put this out there; whoever understands, fine. Whoever doesn't, that's also fine." A more passive or introverted sort of communication, more Fi-like in that the relationship between the self and the idea really _is_ more important than the relationship between others and the idea.


Based on my experiences, INTx types of both kinds are least likely to be like this.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

When an INTJ says some dumb shit and an INTP has to set the record straight http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/191/035/135.png


----------



## Interpretatio Socionica (Aug 14, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> I have a harder time with INTPs because Ti and Ne combined is like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ get to the point already.


Yes, this is my experience as well. I can only take so much rambling.


----------



## ButIHaveNoFear (Sep 6, 2017)

When you try to explain an apple to somebody when you don't have an apple to use as an example, you have to make sure that you and the person can speak and understand the same language. 

So, when you're an INTJ and your abstract introverted world exists as an abstraction and you want to explain your abstraction to somebody, you have to make sure that you and the person will understand the same meanings attached to the same words—like speaking the same language—_semantics_. 

Without a common language, or set of meanings associated with certain words, it's like when I try to use my flash drive to put something from my Mac onto a Windows. Ni is hard to understand, and Te chooses semantics as the system of transfer.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> This is a trend I've noticed a lot in personality forums and the like: a bunch of self-proclaimed "INTJs", usually those who are heavily into "Jungian Cognitive Functions", who love using "semantics" as a dirty word when "Ti-doms" (especially INTPs) take concrete language into the abstract realm. Then these same people will love to talk about how their existence is like the epitome of abstraction. To me, it usually reeks of a fear that their ideas look fine in the concrete realm, but don't add up in the abstract realm. This is not what I'd expect out of Jung's Introverted Intuitive type (nor his Introverted Thinking type for that matter). Thoughts?


In what planet are (actual) INTJs concrete and not abstract?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

vinniebob said:


> our crusade against semantics and our love for it?
> h:
> your title and thread contradict's itself
> can you be more abstract please


He meant the crusade against wrong semantics, pay attention


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Felipe said:


> He meant the crusade against wrong semantics, pay attention


what pray tell are ''wrong semantics''?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

vinniebob said:


> what pray tell are ''wrong semantics''?


wrong semantics is like when you are at a discussion then the guy supposedly INTP says "cry me a river" then the other supposedly INTJ says:

"oh it's impossible to cry a river cause there wouldn't be enough tears in your eyes and yada yada..."

Oh wait that's not semantics, that's just an hiperbole that was taken literally, anyway nvm.


----------



## Myrkur (May 6, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't get why believers in The Functions make their own dichotomy about "external organization" vs "internal organization" as if they are usually in competition with each other.


Christ. 

"Believers" in functions? "Cognitive functions" is a theory. It's not a religion or a set of organized belief. 

And here you are, talking about why INTJ's crusade against semantics and how important abstract thinking and semantics can be.

Practice what you preach.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Felipe said:


> In what planet are (actual) INTJs concrete and not abstract?


Well in functionlandia, if INTJs are to be dominant in Ni or Ti then you'd expect that they'd have abstract leanings. In MBTIlandia, since they are N you'd expect that they have abstract leanings. This is part of my point though. It's as if these self-proclaimed "INTJ"s are acting as if "INTP"s are too abstract for them and they need to stay in their concrete comfort zone.


Myrkur said:


> Christ.
> 
> "Believers" in functions? "Cognitive functions" is a theory. It's not a religion or a set of organized belief.


Call it what you want but "theory" associated with The Functions can be believed. For instance, if you observe someone you think has strong "Ti", you can believe they "have Fe not Fi".


> And here you are, talking about why INTJ's crusade against semantics and how important abstract thinking and semantics can be.
> 
> Practice what you preach.


Here you are acting like something has to fit some sort of conception of a "religion" or "set of organized belief" in order to be "believed". Maybe a little (abstract) semantic analysis should be in order...

By the way, I assume the above is how you think "ENTJ 8"s act?


----------



## Myrkur (May 6, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Well in functionlandia, if INTJs are to be dominant in Ni or Ti then you'd expect that they'd have abstract leanings. In MBTIlandia, since they are N you'd expect that they have abstract leanings. This is part of my point though. It's as if these self-proclaimed "INTJ"s are acting as if "INTP"s are too abstract for them and they need to stay in their concrete comfort zone.
> 
> Call it what you want but "theory" associated with The Functions can be believed. For instance, if you observe someone you think has strong "Ti", you can believe they "have Fe not Fi".
> 
> ...


I'll put it very easy for you.

Theories are based on empirical analysis. Empiricism relies on observation. That is what separates them from beliefs, because observation and belief are by nature, contradictory. Would you be believing in a God that you were able to see? Y_ou don't even know what creates the difference between a theory and a belief_, which I just mentioned, so you just try to rub it off in a laughable attempt by saying "call it what you want". If you didn't have your "tfw too intelligent" façade all the time, maybe you'd be able to actually understand what message I was trying to convey before making such an ass of yourself. Oh and, if I think I observe someone having "strong Ti", I'd not believe "they'd have Fe or Fi", I'd assume that, instead of "believing" and make further observations. 

By the way, I am not buying your "I assume the above is how you think ENTJ 8 act" bullshit. 

You couldn't be more off-topic and I think your projection is off the chart there, but hey, that happens when you have weak Fe. You mistake your emotions with others'.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Myrkur said:


> Theories are based on empirical analysis. That is what separates them from beliefs.





> "Believers" in functions? "Cognitive functions" is a theory.


Let that stew around in your head a bit before thinking about this:


> ...before making such an ass of yourself.


Yeah, I wonder who is actually doing that.


> By the way, I am not buying your "I assume the above is how you think ENTJ 8 act" bullshit. You couldn't be more off-topic and I think your projection is off the chart there, but hey, that happens when you have weak Fe.
> 
> You mistake your emotions with others'.


Sorry for getting you bothered.


----------



## Myrkur (May 6, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Let that stew around in your head a bit before thinking about this:
> 
> Yeah, I wonder who is actually doing that.
> 
> Sorry for getting you bothered.


I am trying to say when there is empirical analysis, which Jung claims that he is doing, belief can't exist due to the existence of what separates it from theory. Also, thank you for fully countering my arguments and not nitpicking in them in order to feed your starved ego more. Here I am, thinking that I was a sore loser.

Pathetic.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Myrkur said:


> I am trying to say when there is empirical analysis, which Jung claims that he is doing, belief can't exist due to the existence of what separates it from theory.


I don't know the exact extent of the empirical input into Jung's _Psychological Types_, but his descriptions appear to be on the speculative side, especially as it relates to function "stackings". He has a strong habit of citing his own psychoanalysis of individuals to make his points, anyway.

And this is not to mention Harold Grant's stacks which are the main structural foundation of "modern function theory", which Grant himself admitted were not backed up by data nor particularly faithful to Jung's ideas.

By your definition of "theory" though, this so-called "function theory" doesn't qualify as theory, because most of it is pulled out of imagination, and has anyone produced any kind of evidence that would lead one to believe that "Ti" is somehow connected to "Fe" for example, other than in a negative correlation?


> Also, thank you for fully countering my arguments and not nitpicking in them in order to feed your starved ego more.


You countered your own argument, so that's why I didn't even have to do it. Sad!


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

@Ocean Helm Nice observation. 

I've noticed this as well, and the reason behind it to me is this: Ni organizes abstract concepts, hence why they are so precise about language, for them two synonymous words can mean two very separate things, while to someone with Ne, whom gather abstract concepts don't value such precision for a wider picture. 

You see Ni can perceive things in great depth, but for others to see their mind maps, they have to go along with the Ni users definitions. 

This is not the case with Ne people, whom can perceive things in great width, but others don't be to be so precise to see them or at the very least get a blurry picture of it.

This is why they are so stuck up on semantics. 

For example the abstract concept of knowledge and information. One can distinguish between them in many ways. But each one doesn't correlate to the same thing you see. So when Ne gathers all the possible ways to distinguish the two, Ni is more focused and in depth about certain ones for a certain perceptive lens. This is why Ne people are more elastic while Ni people are more stiff. 

It can be really frustrating to deal with such nit picky behavior I know, but know that it has its purpose. The reason a lot of INTJ's are seen as mystics is because they also feel frustrated with others whom don't comply to their semantic demands, and hence why close themselves and their ways to others.


----------



## isn't anything (Apr 6, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't know the exact extent of the empirical input into Jung's _Psychological Types_, but his descriptions appear to be on the speculative side, especially as it relates to function "stackings". He has a strong habit of citing his own psychoanalysis of individuals to make his points, anyway.
> 
> And this is not to mention Harold Grant's stacks which are the main structural foundation of "modern function theory", which Grant himself admitted were not backed up by data nor particularly faithful to Jung's ideas.
> 
> ...


Are you getting paid for this?


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't know the exact extent of the empirical input into Jung's _Psychological Types_, but his descriptions appear to be on the speculative side, especially as it relates to function "stackings". He has a strong habit of citing his own psychoanalysis of individuals to make his points, anyway.
> 
> And this is not to mention Harold Grant's stacks which are the main structural foundation of "modern function theory", which Grant himself admitted were not backed up by data nor particularly faithful to Jung's ideas.
> 
> ...


Carl Jung said that the functions were merely for orientation. He never claimed it was a theory that described human behavior, in fact he stood against it. 

The function theory came from Isabel Briggs Myers I think, though I'm not sure.


----------



## Myrkur (May 6, 2018)

isn't anything said:


> Are you getting paid for this?


If he is, I am going to write a complaint to his handler. He's doing his job very poorly.



Ocean Helm said:


> I don't know the exact extent of the empirical input into Jung's _Psychological Types_, but his descriptions appear to be on the speculative side, especially as it relates to function "stackings". He has a strong habit of citing his own psychoanalysis of individuals to make his points, anyway.
> 
> And this is not to mention Harold Grant's stacks which are the main structural foundation of "modern function theory", which Grant himself admitted were not backed up by data nor particularly faithful to Jung's ideas.
> 
> ...


Oh? You don't? 

So, you disregard its theoretical concept with an assumption of "he has a strong habit of citing his own psychoanalysis anyway". Very, very strong argument. Had it not been only an assumption, I'd give a less mocking answer though. You don't know the exact extent of empirical input of Jung's Personality Theory, but you know enough to state that it is pulled out of imagination, by only citing Harold Grant? 

Well, this is contradictory on a new level.

And, I didn't counter my own argument, shit your delusions somewhere else. Though, I have suspicions either you are too dumb to understand what is written, or in possession of a certain low cunning that, which isn't gonna work on me, you deliberately try to misrepresent my argument. If I did counter my argument, why did you try to reply to my explanation about empirical analysis in the first place? 

What makes me irritated with you is not your inferiority complex fueled obsession about INTJ's.

It's your inconsistency and contradictoriness. Your logic is unable follow a linear pathway and swallowing every source about MBTI and functions isn't going to change that I am afraid.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

This thread is still going?


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

@RGB Sure.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Myrkur that's a lot of words to try to cover up that you tried to make some point about cognitive functions being a "theory" which in your world separates it from something which can be "believed" because it's "empirical".

Harold Grant's function stack (ex: ENTJ = Te-Ni-Se-Fi), not Jung's, is the main model of modern "function theory" so why wouldn't I bring it up? You know, if my point is that "function theory" doesn't have an empirical basis, pointing out the main model which doesn't have an empirical basis is kind of relevant? This is getting sad.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

Semantics have their place but in most cases seem to only serve as a distraction, at least to Ni doms.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Doom said:


> Semantics have their place but in most cases seem to only serve as a distraction, at least to Ni doms.


Damn, you've got me good here. Why would "Ni doms" ever get distracted by something like meaning?


----------



## Sait (Jun 24, 2015)

Ocean Helm said:


> Damn, you've got me good here. Why would "Ni doms" ever get distracted by something like meaning?


 @Ocean Helm Didn't you read what I wrote?


----------

