# So extraverted thinking uses subjective logic and introverted thinking uses objective



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

logic?


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

what?!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The title of this thread is slightly ironic given the OP's type.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

I'm not sure if the OP is trolling or not, but I'm sure that I haven't smoked something that could alter my perception of reality.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I tend to prefer the following definitions: 

Te: Pragmatic and objective form of thinking. 
Ti : intellectual masturbation without the orgasm.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

AhAhahah​a
logic?


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Te: Pragmatic and objective form of thinking.


_Premature ejaculation_


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Reverse.

Extroverted thinking is broad and objective, while introverted thinking is more specific and subjective.

In layman's terms, Te is like a grenade, and Ti is like a sniper rifle. Both are useful, but in different circumstances.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Khiro said:


> _Premature ejaculation_


So, what you're saying is that even when having sex Te users are more time efficient.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Now I'm genuinely wondering.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

*Ti: Subjective, more logical.*

Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed.

*Te: Objective, more practical.*

Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of extraverted Thinking. Extraverted Thinking helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. Empirical thinking is at the core of extraverted Thinking when we challenge someone's ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made, often trying to establish order in someone else's thought process. In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Dezir said:


> *Ti: Subjective, more logical.*
> 
> Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed.
> 
> ...


I question your logic, the descriptions do not describe Ti as "more logical", even if it was it could hardly be measured. Rather it describes it as A) Subjective and B) Picking things apart and using multiple perspectives.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

_*The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.*_ - This is the multiple perspectives part specific to Ti not Te.

Te is rather _*"Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying".*_
Ti is rateher _*"express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point".*_
Which one seems more logical between these two ?

Te is thinking in order to act while Ti is thinking in order to understand.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> *Ti: Subjective, more logical.*
> 
> Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed.
> 
> ...


Your Ti description at some points sounds more like Ni than it does thinking, and your Te description is shit. If you can't fully understand each perspective, then don't offer any attempts to define them. 

EDIT
I take it back that these descriptions are likely ones you made yourself. They sound actually something like Nardi would say which in my opinion just reinforces the fact that he is not an INTJ. Well, fuck you too Nardi. 

From Lenore Thomson. At least she knows wtf Te is about:


> Introverted Thinking (Ti) makes sense of the world by apprehending it in terms of effects emerging from a cause, or a harmony of elements. For example, the way a beautifully made desk appears to emerge from a single idea. As an epistemological perspective, Ti leads one to trust only things that you understand first-hand for yourself, preferably through direct, hands-on interaction. You must see for yourself how a given thing or subject makes sense. Knowledge must emerge from the concrete reality itself, not from preconceived categories or criteria, and the search for knowledge must follow wherever logic and the subject matter lead, regardless of how people feel about it. As an ethical perspective, Ti leads you to do what is best for the system regardless of reward or gain or social conventions that define right and wrong behavior. For example, the sense of "natural law" that guides Clint Eastwood to do what needs doing in Old West towns regardless of the law.





> Extraverted Thinking (Te) makes sense of the world by viewing things "objectively": in terms of categories and measurements that can be defined in advance of observation. For example, defining the specifications of a wheel that make it acceptable for use on the road. Stable categories and measurements enable people to define shared goals and enforce agreements fairly. You can tell whether the wheel met the specifications or not; anyone can tell, because the specifications are defined independently of both the wheel and the person doing the measuring. As an epistemological perspective, Te leads you to be concerned with logical and empirical justification. No conclusion may be accepted until it has been grounded on a firm foundation of other facts that have themselves been firmly established. What has not been tested is unknown; what cannot be tested is meaningless. As an ethical perspective, Te leads to a life of "rational hill-climbing": making every decision according to well-defined criteria for what counts as better and worse. You might not know how to get to your goal, but at each decision, you take the choice that leads closer to it: you improve your position at every opportunity. Moral codes in a Te worldview emphasize keeping one's promises. Justice is understood as a social agreement negotiated by all parties, which specifies rewards and punishments that must be enforced fairly according to objective rules.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Who the fuck is Nardi ?
Oh please, I can't even relate to half of the things you defined about Ti, you should do your homework first.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Who the fuck is Nardi ?
> I haven't red your descriptions but whatever.


You quote without even recognizing where your quotes come from? Great... 

http://www.darionardi.com/Welcome.html


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Bravo, outstanding roud:

You didn't even made put any link to the specific quotes, you only assume I've taken that from there.
There you go: The 8 Cognitive Functions :tongue:


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Ti: Pure reasoning.

Te: Empiricism + Pragmatism.

Ti: Philosophy.

Te: Science.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Ti: Pure reasoning.
> 
> Te: Empiricism + Pragmatism.
> 
> ...












The bias in favour to Ti is so glaring that grates my nerves. If you will write about Te, please learn about the core aspects of it before writing so much BS. Assuming that you can only do science with Te, while you can do pure reasoning with Ti shows that you haven't grasped what logic really means.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Bravo, outstanding roud:
> 
> You didn't even made put any link to the specific quotes, you only assume I've taken that from there.
> There you go: The 8 Cognitive Functions :tongue:


???

Make more sense please.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Logics of Worlds said:


> A Game of Cognitive Functions.


Wintuition is coming


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Dezir said:


> I belive I'm above your level of understanding.
> 
> That Lenore Thomson is full BS, next time show us an official source not some frustrated single _(there's not even a team who got to that conclusion, just some guy)_ psychologyst which is clearly subjective and have no ideea what Ti is like.




This whole theory comes of out just one guy: Jung. It was expounded upon by one amateur psychologist and her mother…not exactly a "credible" team. What makes Lenore Thomson's analysis BS? As far as I am concerned, her theory is fairly consistent with Jung's and has offered me a lot of unique insight into understanding how my own mind works. Moreover, How can you dismiss Nardi as "clearly subjective" and "[having] no idea" when you just quoted him?


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Octavian said:


> No, it was not biased in favor of Ti, idiot.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/170281-your-take-ti.html#post4364305 if anything my bias is the reverse.
> 
> ...


First, if you're discussing something about Te and Ti, why you didn't show that link before or even bothered to copy paste that explanation? making such simplistic statements is useless here if you want to argue in depth. Seriously, how the hell did you expect that I could think that there was no bias, if the context that you gave was beyond poor? If you don't know, I can't read your mind nor make good inferences with your 'descriptions' and I never go to the INTJ subforum, so how did you expect that I saw that post before you made such bold and summarized statements? I bolded the information that couldn't be correctly deduced from your post, if you can call that as one, and if you reply again with something like "you're a dumbass!!111" because I wasn't able to imagine shit, then I wouldn't be able to take you seriously. 

I already know that Ti only bothers with logical validity and Te checks soundness, so thanks for repeating stuff that brings nothing new to the discussion. By the way, could you explain how a logical sound argument isn't valid at the same time? now if you pull something from thin air for ignoring that you wrote this, which can be also misinterpreted considering how it's written: "*Logic: adhering to principles of validity. Logical validity does not imply logical soundness meaning that while an argument may satisfy a premise, it is not necessarily true. Te users aim for logical soundness, not validity. Logic in and of itself aims for simply THAT*." I would add an only were you say 'not validity' for avoiding confusion.

So if you want to discuss you should first write a proper frame of reference and write something less misleading. BTW thanks for calling me idiot, when you're not so clever if you don't see that a lack of context leads to pure confusion. Have a nice day.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Dezir said:


> I belive I'm above your level of understanding.
> 
> That Lenore Thomson is full BS, next time show us an official source not some frustrated single _(there's not even a team who got to that conclusion, just some guy)_ psychologyst which is clearly subjective and have no ideea what Ti is like.


What makes a team more credible than a single psychologist? The underlying theory was originally founded by just some guy (Carl Gustav Jung). Furthermore, MBTI theory was developed by a mother-daughter team as a hobby, both of whom were not formerly trained in psychology; one a housewife and the other a political science major.

Official sources on MBTI would be:

The Myers & Briggs Foundation
CAPT.org
MBTI Manual
Gifts Differing

On the underlying theory of Psychological Types:

Psychological Types


Thomson would be considered just as much an authority on the topic as Berens or Nardi.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

If we look at the definition of objective from Merriam-Webster 


> : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
> _philosophy_ : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
> _grammar_ : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions



Te clearly qualifies as being the more objective of the two based on the factual orientation in definition 1 and the criteria of existing outside of the mind in the philosophical definition. 

If we add Jung to the mix, here is his definition of extraverted thinking:



Carl Jung "Psychological types" said:


> As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.
> 
> Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.
> 
> Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education. The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective?


 

Contrast this with introverted thinking:



Carl Jung "Psychological types" said:


> Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour.


 

So in the two relevant definitions Te is the most objective of the two. 

As for which is more logical the Merriam-Webster definition of logic is:


> : a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
> : a particular way of thinking about something
> : the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning


 

However, in order to explore this I have to go into the more nuanced definitions:


> a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge


The meaning of a science that deals with principles and criteria for validity of inference and demonstration has to be in accordance with the philosophical definition for objective, otherwise each mind is free to create his or her system for validity of inference and demonstration, in which case the system cannot function. 



> *b *(1) *:* a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2)


In this case, the definition B is directly based on definition A, as A decides the validity and faculty of B. 



> *c* *:* interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable


In this definition facts or events directly relate to the definition of objective as they are external. 
Objective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

So, I asked Lenore Thomson Bentz if those function descriptions were hers, and she confirmed that they were not, but rather originated on a now-defunct wiki page that had indeed been authorized to use her book for source material, but that had grown out from that into a discussion that she was not a participant in.

It is perfectly reasonable, then, for there to be an assumption that Lenore originated the data. First, they don't sound wholly unlike her. Second, they originated from a discussion centered on her work. 

I would have happily quoted them, myself. 

Also, it doesn't matter in the least who originated these descriptions. This reliance on authority and citation is so illogical to me. Someone who never heard of typology before could stumble on this forum, spew out nonsense, and it could just so happen to be the best description of the Te/Ti dichotomy ever known... so that all who gazed upon it would be taken up into typological nirvana, becoming masters of all the functions. Gods among gods.
@_reckful_ - devolving into an attack on his integrity? ... really? How about not making assumptions you couldn't hope to know the truth of. 

-------------

J is an assessment of data/concept. Je assesses based on what presents in the environment, by what appears. By what works. Inexact, ad hoc, functional. Good enough to work with. It leads, and here is why:

Using INTJ as an example:

Ni cannot function without data (Se), Se is useless unless assessed (T) for coherence/consistency. Te/Se creates a 'loop', like a factory, where data is iterated over and quickly assessed based on it's ostensible consistency, _or how logical it appears to be._ From this churning, Ni begins to form a deeper comprehension - a perception of a deeper truth, or, more commonly, a comprehension of a lack of deeper truth. Lacking this epiphany, INTJ says the data is shallow and dross. It assigns it a value, a ranking of agreeableness with Fi. This assessment can be difficult to break from.

That depth was not handled by T, but by N. Te just called it as it saw it... a quick assessment based on what appeared in order to allow Se to churn. Te is 'good enough' logic. It's 'given the information is good' good enough logic. It's observational logic.

Much of the defense of Te on this thread is really a defense of Pi... or a conflation of Te with qualities of Pi.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Ti is indeed purer logic. It is not a snapshot, or a functional assessment. It is much 'deeper' than Te. It does not jump to assessments, it does not take what works. It waits for more data and assesses it very carefully for logical consistency - refusing to conclude until everything is accounted.

Te can be insufficient logic in the mind of Ti. Too willing to take what works, to take something at face value.

Example:

A study shows a set of data. It's from a reliable source, and everything appears to be in order. Te will give it the thumbs up. Ti will not. Ti will want more.... Ti will wait for the edge cases to come in, the exceptions. Ti is like Ni - what APPEARS is never good enough. What adds up only adds up because of a limited context. 

Ti will turn to Pe and ask to be fed, insatiably, until all optimism is gone and hope is dead... until the whole universe is inducted and then it will say, "maybe". Is there something we left out?

Again, it will be easy for an NTJ to conflate this with Ni.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> I belive I'm above your level of understanding.
> 
> That Lenore Thomson is full BS, next time show us an official source not some frustrated single _(there's not even a team who got to that conclusion, just some guy)_ psychologyst which is clearly subjective and have no ideea what Ti is like.


Oh, you are? Then please show me, with your own words, how deep your understanding is of Ti and Te respectively. Give me a description of yours, not a quote, but your own definitions of them, so I can judge your understanding yourself without you falling back on crappy source such as Nardi and Berens who clearly only have superficial understanding of Te.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

They are the reason people mistake Te with being bossy. Myers doesn't talk about Te being about making charts and telling people what to do; nothing of the sort in Jung, either.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Doge said:


> They are the reason people mistake Te with being bossy. Myers doesn't talk about Te being about making charts and telling people what to do; nothing of the sort in Jung, either.


If you read the socionics description of the type equivalent of ESTP (though I remember you were lurking there so I bet you have), they are actually the ones described as rulers, generals and bossying people around with little concern of their feelings.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Doge said:


> They are the reason people mistake Te with being bossy. Myers doesn't talk about Te being about making charts and telling people what to do; nothing of the sort in Jung, either.


I think that's the problem with the "description" approach. Taking observed behavior and linking it to a given cognitive function can be done quite easily, but to my knowledge has not been done, it's all based on whatever the author of a given description has seen themselves.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

As far as Te telling people what to do .. it's more that it frankly assesses the perceiving aspect of the situation and 'calls it'. What should be done is obvious, given that assessment.... so...........

....and that can be interpreted as bossiness, but really it's just, to the Te, the facts of the matter. They don't understand why others wouldn't do what obviously needs to be done. 

The need to socialize that could easily be called 'bossiness', or just frankness. I think it's only really inclined to 'bossiness' when coupled with Si.. because Si deals with experiential causation... do this, and this will happen. That frankness, and anticipation, can translate as bossiness... due to fear of what might otherwise occur, but I suspect the ESTJ would say 'if you got a better solution, I am all ears'. They are really just calling it as they see it.


The only time I have ever really felt bossed around is by an ESTP.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Doge said:


> It feels good to sometimes do that tho tbf.


I agree, I do the latter quite consistently. the problem I have is when TPs and FPs think other people are stupid/shallow/etc for not over reflecting/intellectualizing the way they do.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> The only time I have ever really felt bossed around is by an ESTP.


I think there are many ways to experience oneself being bossed around to begin with. I can find that Fe types can equally boss people around just like how Te does it, but instead what Fe does is that it expects people to align according to group standards, ideals, atmospheres of feeling etc. To an Fe type perhaps, Te can seem bossy, but I personally think Fe types can be as darn bossy. Then we get on the subject that the MBTI doesn't bring up at all, but Jung touched upon and socionics stresses the most when it comes to Se:



> Zhukov, Male Portrait, ESTp by Beskova
> 
> Even if the male Zhukov is thin and slender (though this is rare), nevertheless he looks like a well grounded person who solidly stands on his two feet. His demeanor gives off an impression of a steady, large person. He moves slowly but naturally and with confidence. His judgements sound solid and substantiated.
> 
> ...


As an example. I think a lot of people, would we compare, would think that if this would not concern the socionics description of the SeTi type, would mistake it for the ESTJ type if only going by descriptions. A lot of the things I think MBTI has gotten wrong.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_ - devolving into an attack on his integrity? ... really? How about not making assumptions you couldn't hope to know the truth of.


The _truth_ is that those quotes did not come from Thomson — nor, as you've noted, did she have anything to do with their preparation or review/approve them in any way. Presenting them as Thomson quotes is _false_. Doing it once could be chalked up to a careless mistake. Continuing to do it after somebody's been called out on it suggests an integrity problem — and, in any case, is a misrepresentation that calls out for correction.

I'm sorry if your standards are lower. Does "anything go" because it's "just an internet forum" as far as you're concerned?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I think there are many ways to experience oneself being bossed around to begin with. I can find that Fe types can equally boss people around just like how Te does it, but instead what Fe does is that it expects people to align according to group standards, ideals, atmospheres of feeling etc. To an Fe type perhaps, Te can seem bossy, but I personally think Fe types can be as darn bossy. Then we get on the subject that the MBTI doesn't bring up at all, but Jung touched upon and socionics stresses the most when it comes to Se:
> 
> 
> 
> As an example. I think a lot of people, would we compare, would think that if this would not concern the socionics description of the SeTi type, would mistake it for the ESTJ type if only going by descriptions. A lot of the things I think MBTI has gotten wrong.


Yeah, my daughter is an Fe-dom and is pretty darn bossy, as is an ESFJ girl she interacts with. ESFJs, I think, are bossy in their way - but, as you say, with an expectation of appropriate behavior. What you SHOULD be doing. The bossiness of the ESTP was very much centered around what I 'ought' to do, the responsibilities I had on account of those who relied on me... giving it a strong Fe implication. That it was low order gave it a neurotic aspect - like it was a loose variable, but was not something they were able to focus on and to engage maturely, and thus oafishly and overbearingly delegated out... to get someone 'on it' to appease that uncertainty. To get it 'handled'. Obligation was definitely the angle... and it was done very much in 'broad strokes', very imprecisely, like 'this is your obligation... just handle it... you don't have to mean it or like it, but do it or else'.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Yeah, my daughter is an Fe-dom and is pretty darn bossy, as is an ESFJ girl she interacts with. ESFJs, I think, are bossy in their way - but, as you say, with an expectation of appropriate behavior. What you SHOULD be doing. The bossiness of the ESTP was very much centered around what I 'ought' to do, the responsibilities I had on account of those who relied on me... giving it a strong Fe implication. That it was low order gave it a neurotic aspect - like it was a loose variable, but was not something they were able to focus on and to engage maturely, and thus oafishly and overbearingly delegated out... to get someone 'on it' to appease that uncertainty. To get it 'handled'. Obligation was definitely the angle... and it was done very much in 'broad strokes', very imprecisely, like 'this is your obligation... just handle it... you don't have to mean it or like it, but do it or else'.


That is a very accurate description of my ESTP cousin. She's precisely that way. Her Fe is a bit more developed or at least appears to be more engaged when she engages with people interpersonally, but when it comes to getting the job done, then expect no real sympathies. Either you will do what she says or you are just in the way. I think the latter may be more stressed in men who feel they must also adhere to specific masculine ideals that would repress the former behavior that Fe ultimately brings with it, even further.



reckful said:


> The _truth_ is that those quotes did not come from Thomson — nor, as you've noted, did she have anything to do with their preparation or review/approve them in any way. Presenting them as Thomson quotes is _false_. Doing it once could be chalked up to a careless mistake. Continuing to do it after somebody's been called out on it suggests an integrity problem — and, in any case, is a misrepresentation that calls out for correction.
> 
> I'm sorry if your standards are lower. Does "anything go" because it's "just an internet forum" as far as you're concerned?


A hint: maybe you should care about the quality of the content instead of where the content came from. It equally applies to you and your lack of independent and critical thinking. You may produce a lot of text, but it sure is void of any meaningful content.

It doesn't matter where the information came from as long as it is of good content. Your thinking is exactly the reason why people still devalue wikipedia as a good source of information even though it may in fact at times, be m*ore accurate,* than other sources. Good information has nothing to do with where it came from.

My issue with Nardi is exactly that - he and Berens don't know shit wtf Te is beyond superficial descriptors, just like he clearly doesn't understand Ni, and his Fi is also kind of fucked, and Se equally simplified though at least more accurate than the others. It has nothing to do with who Nardi is as a source. I couldn't give a fuck about his validity within the MBTI community. What I am concerned about is whether his information that he provides is accurate or not and it fucking isn't. That quote I copied, whether it is written by Lenore or not, I don't care, is still *more accurate* a description of Te than Nardi's. In fact, that fucking says something in itself. You are so narrow-minded with your concern for sources it's not even funny. In fact, it actually disgusts me. You need to learn to see the importance of content over where it came from. This is why you don't understand Jung but can only paraphrase him and this is why you ultimately can't even see yourself and your own cognition. Sad.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> A hint: maybe you should care about the quality of the content instead of where the content came from. It equally applies to you and your lack of independent and critical thinking. You may produce a lot of text, but it sure is void of any meaningful content.
> 
> *It doesn't matter where the information came from as long as it is of good content.* Your thinking is exactly the reason why people still devalue wikipedia as a good source of information even though it may in fact at times, be m*ore accurate,* than other sources. Good information has nothing to do with where it came from.


If someone states that it came from a given authority on a subject, yet it's not from that authority it matters. It's in essence making an appeal to authority with no authority present.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> If someone states that it came from a given authority on a subject, yet it's not from that authority it matters. It's in essence making an appeal to authority with no authority present.


Sure, but that wasn't the issue here in itself. One could equally argue that 16types is a site of authority among typology groups. If one is going to nitpick on the potential of logical fallacy when the point was built around an entirely different argument which was the quality of definitions, then it's merely an accurate criticism but still a strawman.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> The _truth_ is that those quotes did not come from Thomson — nor, as you've noted, did she have anything to do with their preparation or review/approve them in any way. Presenting them as Thomson quotes is _false_. Doing it once could be chalked up to a careless mistake. Continuing to do it after somebody's been called out on it suggests an integrity problem — and, in any case, is a misrepresentation that calls out for correction.
> 
> I'm sorry if your standards are lower. Does "anything go" because it's "just an internet forum" as far as you're concerned?


This doesn't even make sense. I literally contacted Thomson. I then contacted the admins at the site I linked and asked them to alter the implied citation. Then I posted it all here.

Reread what I wrote and think about what I actually said.

My response was solely concerning your invocation of the integrity of ephemereality. I told you not to make assumptions about what you couldn't know. There are many reasons that he may have continued those citations, and I criticized your choice of which it might be... as displaying insufficient consideration of the likely variables involved. A crappy leap off of insufficient data and insufficient profile of the individual in question. 


Hey! This is a good example of Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe?

EDIT: I was totally being bossy just then, and it was totally Fe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Okay roud:
> 
> I like how you avoid proofs and support an idea you don't even show because you know it's full of gaps, what's next correcting my grammar ?


If this is a response to me, why are you still writing here if you wrote you were done with responding? Regardless, I have no interest to throw pearls before swine. I could give you deep and elaborate descriptions of both (if you bothered to search through my posts you'll find some examples) but why should I bother when you aren't willing to provide yourself? I asked you specifically to provide but you didn't. That suddenly doesn't mean you shift it back on me since the burden of proof is still on you. Maybe focus more on trying to fill your own gaps first. 



> You're not trying to argue with facts to arrive at a correct conclusion, you only argue in order to prove you're right, well I'm not going to stop you I've already made ​​my point.


Then what is a fact? It's clear you aren't adhering to any strict principles of facts either so let's just cut the pretentious crap right here. If you want facts, at least provide me something Jung wrote with your own interpretation of it. I might consider it if it's worthwhile enough. 



> I know that you already know this and you're trying to mask it but the base ideea and the cause of the argument was simple: I assume the deffinition quoted by you is broken since your source is not worthy of trust because it wasn't written by Thomson, you asume I'm wrong because dots avoiding proofs and support an idea you don't even show because you know it's full of gaps, that's why I don't want to argue with you, you want to win the argument by any means not to arrive at a correct conclusion, so, are we done ?


But no, it wasn't. I didn't correct you whether Thomson wrote it or not. I used it for one simple reason - it's a better description of Te. I happened to in this case, reinforce my argument with authority because that description is generally understood as being written by Thomson. That you are anal over this just shows you have nothing else to offer in terms of theory. 

I am not assuming you are wrong; I merely argued Nardi's description of Te sucks. That is the actual argument at hand. I then suggested you offer your own definitions of Te and Ti respectively because you declared yourself so superior in understanding compared to myself because apparently that description of Te sucks because it's not written by Thomson, but when it came down to proving it you couldn't deliver anymore. You can't show why it's a bad description of Te. Now you argue that that description of Ti is not accurate at all of Ti, but yet you can't even say why it is. If you argued that it has an ST bias, I might in fact agree with you. I think Nardi's definition of Ti is far superior compared to his definition of Te and is at least more accurate than it is most of his other function descriptions. With that said, that "Thomson" description isn't inaccurate either, and many Ti types relate to it regardless if they are xSTPs or not. 

So no, the problem here, and the only problem, isn't that I am interested to win a debate, but that you realize you cannot engage in this debate at an actual theoretical level but yet you insist that you can. Would you engage this theoretically with me you might find that this conversation would have been extremely different. Instead you pull the card where you suggest that your knowledge is superior and now you've painted yourself into a corner because you cannot live up to this illusion. Tough luck. I am not going to let someone off the hook simply because they told me so. 

As for my type, I wonder if you are confusing my enneatype with my cognitive type. You aren't the first one to do so.


----------



## Becker (Oct 19, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> That's somewhat strange since you're in a forum called "cognitive functions". However, if that's the case sure, as Popper said, you should always be willing to play by your opponents rules...


They're the same definitions, except Myers-Briggs was interpreted for layperson typology, so it would be less descriptive. 

In terms of both Jung and Myers-Briggs' cognitive functions, logic is thinking and information is sensing/intuition. Cognitive functions work by objectively using logic (extraverted thinking) with subjective information (introverted sensing/intuition) or subjectively using logic with objective information, so I was incorrect in that extraverted thinking is subjective logic and vice-versa.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> If this is a response to me, why are you still writing here if you wrote you were done with responding? Regardless, I have no interest to throw pearls before swine. I could give you deep and elaborate descriptions of both (if you bothered to search through my posts you'll find some examples) but why should I bother when you aren't willing to provide yourself? I asked you specifically to provide but you didn't. That suddenly doesn't mean you shift it back on me since the burden of proof is still on you. Maybe focus more on trying to fill your own gaps first.


I never said I'm done with responding, what I've said is one things what you might interpret is another thing, I said I'm done with you, more specific that game that avoidance of yours, but since now you're going for a less personal aproach I'll give it a try. Burden of proof is still on me, maybe from your point of view. You cricized my definitions taken from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) responding with another definiton from an unworthy of trust site that's and besides that he mightn't be the one who wrote them. I criciezed your Ti definiton only assuming it's very unaccurate and unrealistic and in response you asked me to prove my knownledge, what can I say, 100% logic.



ephemereality said:


> Then what is a fact? It's clear you aren't adhering to any strict principles of facts either so let's just cut the pretentious crap right here. If you want facts, at least provide me something Jung wrote with your own interpretation of it. I might consider it if it's worthwhile enough.


I like your very strict and confident yet so very wrong assumptions, it makes me belive your arrogance is above your level of understanding. I gave you so many facts so far that I don't think that you still have room for more. Let's recap.

*FACT:* Your definition of Ti is not from a trustworthy site.
*FACT:* I criticiezd your Ti definition and you avoided a response asking me to prove my knownledge => burden of proof is on you.
*FACT:* You ask me to prove something Jung wrote with your own interpretation of it yet you never posted anything Jung wrote that proves your own interpretation right.

I'm now willing now to look for all of them but there are a lot more facts which you were unable to see.



ephemereality said:


> But no, it wasn't. I didn't correct you whether Thomson wrote it or not. I used it for one simple reason - it's a better description of Te. I happened to in this case, reinforce my argument with authority because that description is generally understood as being written by Thomson. That you are anal over this just shows you have nothing else to offer in terms of theory.


If you used it for one simple reason it's a better description of Te then why you also posted a description of Ti and accused me of not knowing anything about this (you actually accused the author from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) but that's another story). What argument reinforces ? you don't even have an argument, what argument, that description is generally understood as being written by Thomson, *that's not a certain fact* because it is only assumed as being written not sure as being written, besides the fact some assume it isn't written by Thomson even if would, that wouldn't make it more thrustworthy than Mark Hunzinker and Leona Haas.



ephemereality said:


> I am not assuming you are wrong; I merely argued Nardi's description of Te sucks. That is the actual argument at hand. I then suggested you offer your own definitions of Te and Ti respectively because you declared yourself so superior in understanding compared to myself because apparently that description of Te sucks because it's not written by Thomson, but when it came down to proving it you couldn't deliver anymore. You can't show why it's a bad description of Te. Now you argue that that description of Ti is not accurate at all of Ti, but yet you can't even say why it is. If you argued that it has an ST bias, I might in fact agree with you. I think Nardi's definition of Ti is far superior compared to his definition of Te and is at least more accurate than it is most of his other function descriptions. With that said, that "Thomson" description isn't inaccurate either, and many Ti types relate to it regardless if they are xSTPs or not.


You merely argued ? You did or you didn't, you don't merely blow. Yeah "that is the actual argument at hand" which is not really an argument, is like a thief saying "I merely stole anything from that house". Besides the FACT that you're the one without proofs you assume "I can't show why it's a bad description of Te", well I don't even want to, I never said anything about the description of Te, I don't know where you got that one from.



ephemereality said:


> So no, the problem here, and the only problem, isn't that I am interested to win a debate, but that you realize you cannot engage in this debate at an actual theoretical level but yet you insist that you can. Would you engage this theoretically with me you might find that this conversation would have been extremely different. Instead you pull the card where you suggest that your knowledge is superior and now you've painted yourself into a corner because you cannot live up to this illusion. Tough luck. I am not going to let someone off the hook simply because they told me so.
> 
> As for my type, I wonder if you are confusing my enneatype with my cognitive type. You aren't the first one to do so.


I'm the one who can't debate this at a theoretical level, huh ? that's the main reason I didn't wanted to take this any further cause you didn't bring any arguments or facts, your logic in reasoning is broken and your understanding skills are low, at first I thought it was because you might be narrow-minded or arrogant, or both but now I tend to belive you're masking it because you only want to win the argument not to find the truth. From your point of view it seems that engaging theorectially means proving how has more knownledge rather that proving who is right about the actual argument, kinda fucked up logic isn't it.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Actually, not just this thread any form of scientific research is ultimately pointless. On the other hand, the more likely conclusion is that philosophers have way too much time on their hands and need to get back to getting my coffee for me in the morning.



Well, humanity is stuck in a game that we're eventually going to lose.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> I never said I'm done with responding, what I've said is one things what you might interpret is another thing, I said I'm done with you, more specific that game that avoidance of yours, but since now you're going for a less personal aproach I'll give it a try. Burden of proof is still on me, maybe from your point of view. You cricized my definitions taken from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) responding with another definiton from an unworthy of trust site that's and besides that he mightn't be the one who wrote them. I criciezed your Ti definiton only assuming it's very unaccurate and unrealistic and in response you asked me to prove my knownledge, what can I say, 100% logic.


Let's get this clear though it should have been evident long time ago - I don't care about whether sites are worthy or not in terms of quality of knowledge. In fact, I think most MBTI sites are unworthy, official sources or not, because most of them are mere simplifications of what the functions are. 



> I like your very strict and confident yet so very wrong assumptions, it makes me belive your arrogance is above your level of understanding. I gave you so many facts so far that I don't think that you still have room for more. Let's recap.


lol. Cute. 



> *FACT:* Your definition of Ti is not from a trustworthy site.


Actually, 16types is often regarded as a good source of information among type communities. Your definition of trustworthy thus only hinges upon the misattribution to that very page, and I do not know the history why this is though it's still a moot point you're arguing and I have argued this the past few responses now. 



> *FACT:* I criticiezd your Ti definition and you avoided a response asking me to prove my knownledge => burden of proof is on you.


So I avoided it in the last post? Essentially, what you've been doing is just turning the tables. I criticize the Te description you provided. I did copy and paste a Ti description as well, though I cannot remember the exact reasons why I did that now, but likely because I wanted to compare and contrast in that I still think that Ti description is not entirely off which was meant to suggest that those definitions are overall, still of better quality than Nardi's. You have however, yet to comment anything regarding Te. 



> *FACT:* You ask me to prove something Jung wrote with your own interpretation of it yet you never posted anything Jung wrote that proves your own interpretation right.


I actually told to you search for some of my posts on this forum but it appears as if you didn't bother, but if you are looking for evidence here is one description of Te I wrote rather recently:



> Te is essentially awareness of externa logic meaning logical systems, facts, data and external definitions. It seeks factual objectivity such as logical consensus opinion. If 98% voted yes it is a yes because it is a logical fact that most people actually agree on yes. Te ignores subjective value in reasoning hence it can come across as callous and cold because it doesn't consider the individual as much as the individual is merely a factual representation of a larger factual system. Like with Fe it sees the world and the self as objects that can be quantifiable. So how do we differentiate Te from just extroversion e.g. referring to the outside world in general and Se with its as is observations that may seem factual? Te seeks objective and precise measurements. When an Se type observes something of high speed its fast (logically undefined category and only conveys sense impression) but to Te speed can be quantified. It's moving at x m/s. Now we have made a logical categorization. Similarly, Se notices that an object is round which is a fact, but Te knows the definition of round based on commonly agreed upon definitions. And this is different from when someone cites a source or copies information to prove a point, because to Te the information is a logical system that stands on its own such as the evolution theory. Te sees authority in external systems where the more agreed upon it is the more valid it is in an exaggerated sense.
> 
> Here we also see the dynamic aspect of Te because when the factual situation changes so do the systems and definitions we operate with. How we logically weigh an answer is context-related and not derived on subjective principles.
> 
> ...





> I'm now willing now to look for all of them but there are a lot more facts which you were unable to see.


Nitpicky Ti logic sigh. 



> If you used it for one simple reason it's a better description of Te then why you also posted a description of Ti and accused me of not knowing anything about this (you actually accused the author from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) but that's another story). What argument reinforces ? you don't even have an argument, what argument, that description is generally understood as being written by Thomson, *that's not a certain fact* because it is only assumed as being written not sure as being written, besides the fact some assume it isn't written by Thomson even if would, that wouldn't make it more thrustworthy than Mark Hunzinker and Leona Haas.


Here we go. Who the fuck cares about it being trustworthy or who it is written by? I don't. Your type 6 logic is staggering, holding onto structures like this like no tomorrow. Again, the point is that it's about the _content_ of the post that is being presented, not who wrote it. When you realize this, perhaps we can actually get somewhere far more interesting. 



> You merely argued ? You did or you didn't, you don't merely blow. Yeah "that is the actual argument at hand" which is not really an argument, is like a thief saying "I merely stole anything from that house". Besides the FACT that you're the one without proofs you assume "I can't show why it's a bad description of Te", well I don't even want to, I never said anything about the description of Te, I don't know where you got that one from.


Stole? lol. Here we go again, projecting things that's not there. You sound like those people who go on Youtube claiming that just because you're not a musician you have no right to criticize the music of others, as if people cannot provide insight into something without being professional in that particular field of interest. The reason why Nardi's definition of Te is bad is because, as I have actually mentioned elsewhere, is because it's a dumb simplification of what Te is, something that the description I linked touches upon, in that it actually mentions how Te works _cognitively_ instead of looking at specific behavioral results that ultimately may or may not have anything to do with Te. 

If you understood that cognition is about modes of thinking patterns, then you would realize why it is a bad description of Te but clearly you don't seem to understand cognition this way. 



> I'm the one who can't debate this at a theoretical level, huh ? that's the main reason I didn't wanted to take this any further cause you didn't bring any arguments or facts, your logic in reasoning is broken and your understanding skills are low, at first I thought it was because you might be narrow-minded or arrogant, or both but now I tend to belive you're masking it because you only want to win the argument not to find the truth. From your point of view it seems that engaging theorectially means proving how has more knownledge rather that proving who is right about the actual argument, kinda fucked up logic isn't it.


Your paranoia is quite rife. The evidence is at the very first interaction right there. You don't see it. Of course, so typical. I care about truth all right, but certainly not about the 6 way of needing truth. I care about deep and genuine understanding, you however, seemingly don't, which is why you are _still_ stuck on whether 16types is a credible source or not instead of actually seeing the description exactly for what it is - it touches on a deeper cognitive mechanic than Nardi which alone, makes it more credible compared to Nardi because it is actually closer to Jung and how Jung visualized type compared to what MBTI has for most of the part, reduced it into, which is a set of stereotype behaviors.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I wonder what a logic penis looks like. I'm guessing Ti is long and skinny. It hits those depths, but requires work and effort to hit that climax. Te is short and fat, it lacks depth, but requires little effort to hit the right spots to get her done.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

If it gets her done, it's obviously deep enough.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Let's get this clear though it should have been evident long time ago - I don't care about whether sites are worthy or not in terms of quality of knowledge. In fact, I think most MBTI sites are unworthy, official sources or not, because most of them are mere simplifications of what the functions are.


Another post of yours says the otherwise, cute 



ephemereality said:


> Actually, 16types is often regarded as a good source of information among type communities. Your definition of trustworthy thus only hinges upon the misattribution to that very page, and I do not know the history why this is though it's still a moot point you're arguing and I have argued this the past few responses now.


Nice try, except those defintions aren't from 16 types.



ephemereality said:


> So I avoided it in the last post? Essentially, what you've been doing is just turning the tables. I criticize the Te description you provided. I did copy and paste a Ti description as well, *though I cannot remember the exact reasons why I did that now*, but likely because I wanted to compare and contrast in that I still think that Ti description is not entirely off which was meant to suggest that those definitions are overall, still of better quality than Nardi's. You have however, yet to comment anything regarding Te.


Yeah, sure I bet you can't remember, it has nothing to do with your need of always being right. I already mentioned why those definitions aren't overall still of better quality, is not my problem you aviod reasoning. That's why this argument isn't going to get anywhere, you're avoiding the truth. Well, live in your own fantasy world where those definitions of yours are true if you like.



ephemereality said:


> I actually told to you search for some of my posts on this forum but it appears as if you didn't bother, but if you are looking for evidence here is one description of Te I wrote rather recently:
> 
> Te is essentially awareness of externa logic meaning logical systems, facts, data and external definitions. It seeks factual objectivity such as logical consensus opinion. If 98% voted yes it is a yes because it is a logical fact that most people actually agree on yes. Te ignores subjective value in reasoning hence it can come across as callous and cold because it doesn't consider the individual as much as the individual is merely a factual representation of a larger factual system. Like with Fe it sees the world and the self as objects that can be quantifiable. So how do we differentiate Te from just extroversion e.g. referring to the outside world in general and Se with its as is observations that may seem factual? Te seeks objective and precise measurements. When an Se type observes something of high speed its fast (logically undefined category and only conveys sense impression) but to Te speed can be quantified. It's moving at x m/s. Now we have made a logical categorization. Similarly, Se notices that an object is round which is a fact, but Te knows the definition of round based on commonly agreed upon definitions. And this is different from when someone cites a source or copies information to prove a point, because to Te the information is a logical system that stands on its own such as the evolution theory. Te sees authority in external systems where the more agreed upon it is the more valid it is in an exaggerated sense.
> 
> Nitpicky Ti logic sigh.


Gosh this guy is difficult.

*Logic level:* -9000
*Irony level:* Ultimate

You're so very off-topic, I didn't asked you for this but now I see why you esitated there are a few essetinal things in that descriptions of yours that you're wrong about, you have gaps but that's another story and this is not the main point . The reason I say you're off-topic is because I've already told you twice I only told you that the Ti descripsion you quoted is wrong. I tell you Ti description is wrong and you show me you know what Te is, seems highly very logical _(sarcasm)_, you're indeed a genius, either too limited to understand or either try to avoid logical reasoning because you already know you're wrong, either way you're very ilogical, extroverted thinking doesn't seem to define you, is probably useless if one's IQ is low.




ephemereality said:


> Here we go. Who the fuck cares about it being trustworthy or who it is written by? I don't. Your type 6 logic is staggering, holding onto structures like this like no tomorrow. Again, the point is that it's about the _content_ of the post that is being presented, not who wrote it. When you realize this, perhaps we can actually get somewhere far more interesting.


You are right ! "Who the fuck cares about it being trustworthy or who it is written by ?". Here goes this quote "People with dialouge in their signature should be praised as absolute gods", it doesn't matter who wrote it or if is trust worthy you have to accept it as truth. _(sarcasm in case you didn't notice, you seem to have problem understanding this according to your text right below)_



ephemereality said:


> Stole? lol. Here we go again, projecting things that's not there. You sound like those people who go on Youtube claiming that just because you're not a musician you have no right to criticize the music of others, as if people cannot provide insight into something without being professional in that particular field of interest. The reason why Nardi's definition of Te is bad is because, as I have actually mentioned elsewhere, is because it's a dumb simplification of what Te is, something that the description I linked touches upon, in that it actually mentions how Te works _cognitively_ instead of looking at specific behavioral results that ultimately may or may not have anything to do with Te.


When I used the word "stole" it was a quite obvious sarcastic compatation, but it seems you wasn't able notice that 



ephemereality said:


> If you understood that cognition is about modes of thinking patterns, then you would realize why it is a bad description of Te but clearly you don't seem to understand cognition this way.


Gosh, do I really need to say this again ? 



ephemereality said:


> Your paranoia is quite rife. The evidence is at the very first interaction right there. You don't see it. Of course, so typical. I care about truth all right, but certainly not about the 6 way of needing truth. I care about deep and genuine understanding, you however, seemingly don't, which is why you are _still_ stuck on whether 16types is a credible source or not instead of actually seeing the description exactly for what it is - it touches on a deeper cognitive mechanic than Nardi which alone, makes it more credible compared to Nardi because it is actually closer to Jung and how Jung visualized type compared to what MBTI has for most of the part, reduced it into, which is a set of stereotype behaviors.


Yeah it's quite obvious you "care about truth all right", that's why you avoid it. Now you argue yourself, you've said that 16types is a credible source and now you said that it ain't, you can't be an INTJ, sure of the answered to MTBI the way you would want to be not the way you are. That lack of logic and consistency is clear. You can study as much as you want, you may know a lot more about MTBI than me but that doesn't mean you're as logical as you think you are and as truthful as you think you are. All this "conversation" only strengthened my main point for which will not reach a conclusion, you lack a deep understand of logic, you can't be an NT, I cannot have a productive and fun debate with someone like you, is like trying to play footbal with a crippled person _(note: this is a comparation)_, you can't get it, I already proved I'm right and you keep going with things that have nothing to do with the subject and with this I'm done responding to you, for good.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

I normally won't intercede on those kind of discussions, but this attitude grates me to no end. I don't care, but I think this is the right thing to do. You're putting words in the mouth of others, which is also a sick way of debating. You're really stubborn if you have to resort to glaring logical fallacies like ad hominem for getting your failed point across. Besides your reply to one of my post showed that you didn't get the message of it.



Dezir said:


> Another post of yours says the otherwise, cute
> 
> Nice try, except those defintions aren't from 16 types.
> 
> ...


Really do you had to resort into insults like the shit that I bolded? way to go dude, you're the one that wants to win at any cost, yet you're so blind that you don't see it.

You're such a bad debater that thinks that a source must be from X authority, but if that criteria isn't met then you discredit that completely even if the argument is solid and well documented. Even people on university level won't be so anal with sources, and I tell this as a chemistry major.

I can also assure to you that ephemereality didn't get his type from a crap test, as I've verified myself that he's an INTJ after talking with him on a regular basis, and I mean taking into account how he reasons, so discrediting his typing is a utter waste of time. You're attacking his own integrity with your BS instead of giving sound arguments that could be useful for the general discussion. Besides your logic isn't good, my friend, otherwise you would've grasped the relevant concepts that were mentioned on the thread. If your logic is weak, your own arguments won't be solid as well. Now, who's the one that really sucks at logic and probably isn't an NT as well, because your Ti doesn't seem to be too strong? plus your crappy nitpicking will bring you nowhere.

Besides, I've seen that you type as socionics ILI because you got that on a test, yet you don't even know what that means, so how you can expect I could take your arguments seriously? If you want to debate on a serious level, please educate yourself on the theories before trying to discredit the information given by others. You're projecting too much stuff as well. P.D.: your grammar is bad.

In conclusion, reasoning with you is like hitting a brick wall.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Wouldn't a more efficient way of dealing with this being that both boxers provide their definitions for Te and Ti, and work from there making it clear what is from the source and what is from the fighter?

If not, I need to get more popcorn.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> That could be true because Jungian Subjective and Objective doesn´t mean necessarily the same as the words may imply.


Actually, Jung was pretty close (but no cigar) to narrowing down what subjective and objective is. The audience however is still clueless and the words objective and subjective lost their meaning. I think that most people are not really aware that Jung was very much influenced by Eastern beliefs and religions and all the rest of it and it shows.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

> Besides, I've seen that you type as socionics ILI because you got that on a test, yet you don't even know what that means, so how you can expect I could take your arguments seriously ? If you want to debate on a serious level, please educate yourself on the theories before trying to discredit the information given by others.


You feel you can't take my arguments seriously instead of thinking being lazy has nothing to do with lack of logic. Ok, but what if I don't want to debate theories and I want to debate logic ? Is it logical that he support a theory from an unworthy of trust site _(which isn't 16 types)_ while the is discrediting a from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) a site more trust worthy than his, or is it something theoretical ? By the way those things weren't insults, he actually wasn't able to notice my sarcasm which makes me doubt him being an NT.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Another post of yours says the otherwise, cute


What post?



> Nice try, except those defintions aren't from 16 types.


Sigh. I don't even know where to begin with this because this argument is so fucking stupid. 



> Yeah, sure I bet you can't remember, it has nothing to do with your need of always being right.


There you go again with that paranoia of yours. I have no need to be right. I am not arguing for the sake of being right. I am arguing for the sake of deepening knowledge always. You aren't really providing. 



> I already mentioned why those definitions aren't overall still of better quality, is not my problem you aviod reasoning.


...

No, I don't. I think most people who actually read my posts in this site will agree on that I am actually in fact, a person good at making rational arguments and to logically reason. I think the issue here is that _you_ however, hold your own reasoning to such a high regard that you cannot see the flaws in your own reasoning. And you have the guts to call me arrogant. 



> That's why this argument isn't going to get anywhere, you're avoiding the truth. Well, live in your own fantasy world where those definitions of yours are true if you like.


Au contraire, I think you're the one living in a fantasy world here since I must for one, apparently repeat myself in such a manner and yet you deny what I write and project intentions that aren't there, or interpretations that aren't intended. 



> Gosh this guy is difficult.
> 
> *Logic level:* -9000
> *Irony level:* Ultimate
> ...


No, I am not. You asked me to provide with examples of my own on how I describe the functions, since apparently, according to your logic, it was a part of the burden of proof you placed on me. I delivered. Do I need to quote you on this? It should be pretty self-evident. Now you discredit my delivery because it's off-topic. Making sense? Not really. I could have written you a Ti description too if that's what you desired, though I try to prefer not to describe functions I do not favor in any greater detail simply because my understanding isn't as deep as it is of those of my own i.e. NiTeFiSe. You keep digging for counter-arguments so you don't have to actually respond in a serious way. It's weak and disappointing. If the issue is with the Ti description I provided, you should, if you were actually interested in intellectual debate, show why it was incorrect in _terms of content_ instead of keep stating it is incorrect without describing why or citing it is not credible because it doesn't come from a credible source. That is hardly showing critical and independent thinking skills. So I asked you for this, the burden of proof is on you, because I already showed you why I thought the Te description by Nardi was incorrect by citing a description I found more apt as a replacement to express my idea. That was all. And you still haven't been able to move beyond that. It's really sad. 

Also, if there are a "few essential things" that are missing in my description, please tell me, what are they? Just saying something to be true doesn't make it true. And as a final point regarding my IQ, what IQ do you think I possess and what is yours in comparison? 



> You are right ! "Who the fuck cares about it being trustworthy or who it is written by ?". Here goes this quote "People with dialouge in their signature should be praised as absolute gods", it doesn't matter who wrote it or if is trust worthy you have to accept it as truth. _(sarcasm in case you didn't notice, you seem to have problem understanding this according to your text right below)_


What? You are really grasping for straws now when you actually try to use my signature against me. This is so funny. So I'll explain to the exact nature of that signature and why it exists as such then:

That dialogue if you will, though it actually isn't at all, because it's a compilation of quotes said by several people to one person, is placed in my signature picture because it is representative of the character and his relationship to the other character in that very picture. It has nothing to do with credibility of quotes. It has to do with representing meaning because to me, creating signatures is an expression of art. It is an art form to make well-crafted signatures. One way to do that is to quote that which one finds meaningful, liked about the show/character/game whatever the signature depicts etc. In this case, I like the way the relationship is depicted between the two characters and I chose to represent that utilizing quotes said by others to the main character.

As for the text underneath, that's not a quote but a piece of text that is original, if you will. It's my own decision to include it here as I find it holding personal meaning which is why it is there. The rest is just a conundrum list of my types in various systems so I don't hold it to some overly great importance for more than the fact I think it's a neat feature to have in one's signature. I after all identify with these types. 



> When I used the word "stole" it was a quite obvious sarcastic compatation, but it seems you wasn't able notice that


Obviously you didn't understand my analogy either. I understood very well that you were being facetious, but it does not hide the overall paranoid undertones that keep defining your posts. 



> Gosh, do I really need to say this again ?


Apparently you feel compelled to. 



> Yeah it's quite obvious you "care about truth all right", that's why you avoid it. Now you argue yourself, you've said that 16types is a credible source and now you said that it ain't,


Nope, I fucking didn't. That's you putting words in my mouth and changing meaning into something I didn't intend. What I wrote, and I quote myself: 


> Actually, 16types is often regarded as a good source of information among type communities.


Keyword there is "often". I then go on to address your accusations about the credibility of that particular page where I note that the credibility for that particular page may not be very accurate in this case, but it does not change the fact that _overall_, 16types is considered a credible source of information. Your thinking lack nuance. The world isn't black and white. It comes in scales and variables. 



> you can't be an INTJ,


No?



> sure of the answered to MTBI the way you would want to be not the way you are.


This sentence makes no sense in terms of syntax. I have no clue what you are trying to express, though I intuit you seem to think I am trying to make myself to be something I am not. Too bad, I am terrible at faking myself. 



> That lack of logic and consistency is clear.


Hint: The need for internal logical consistency is usually something attributed to Ti types, not Te types. I don't care about logical consistency. I care about accuracy. 



> You can study as much as you want, you may know a lot more about MTBI than me but that doesn't mean you're as logical as you think you are and as truthful as you think you are.


No? So you claim I have been lying to you about theory and myself this whole time?



> All this "conversation" only strengthened my main point for which will not reach a conclusion, you lack a deep understand of logic,


A deep understanding of logic huh? Please show me how I am illogical and how my logic is so flawed. I fail to see it. At least I, compare to you, actually address the arguments put forth instead of creating ad hominem strawmen at every sight. 



> you can't be an NT,


No? Then what am I if I cannot be an NT? 



> I cannot have a productive and fun debate with someone like you,


Same goes to you. 



> is like trying to play footbal with a crippled person _(note: this is a comparation)_, you can't get it,


Oh, because here I thought you were the one who didn't _get_ it. 


> I already proved I'm right


So now you claim it's about you proving yourself right in this argument? And where did you prove yourself to be right? I seem to have overlooked it because I can't remember you doing such a thing at any point during this exchange. 



> and you keep going with things that have nothing to do with the subject and with this I'm done responding to you, for good.


And here I thought you were the one who keep insisting on holding onto a subject that I saw as having no relevance since this holding onto this particular subject in this case, was constantly used by you in order to avoid meeting my arguments seriously.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Okay, bye roud:


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Dezir said:


> You feel you can't take my arguments seriously instead of thinking being lazy has nothing to do with lack of logic. Ok, but what if I don't want to debate theories and I want to debate logic ? Is it logical that he support a theory from an unworthy of trust site _(which isn't 16 types)_ while the is discrediting a from Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) a site more trust worthy than his, or is it something theoretical ? By the way those things weren't insults, he actually wasn't able to notice my sarcasm which makes me doubt him being an NT.












Yeah sure that I didn't think before confirming that you're a brick wall, and for your information, I didn't feel that your arguments sucks, I *thought* that, or you will begin to say that I'm not an NT because I don't agree with your awful logic? if you want to debate logic, you must be sure that your's is good enough.

Besides clinging so badly on shitty sources shows a lack of critical thinking that it's glaring. Believing blindly on those descriptions is like thinking that any paper that comes from a magazine like Nature or Science must be 100% right, when you always can find errors on them. Heck, I've found fails on many papers, and if I want to get a whole picture of a concept I delve between different sources, creating my own 'version' of a concept instead of getting stuck with a textbook definition. But yeah, you will be still be deaf because my concepts aren't exactly the same from some book, even if deep down the concept is the same, right?

By the way, assuming that only NTs can understand sarcasm could be considered as typism, and I won't recommend to get into that territory.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Yeah sure that I didn't think before confirming that you're a brick wall, and for your information, I didn't feel that your arguments sucks, I *thought* that, or you will begin to say that I'm not an NT because I don't agree with your awful logic? if you want to debate logic, you must be sure that your's is good enough.
> 
> Besides clinging so badly on shitty sources shows a lack of critical thinking that it's glaring. Believing blindly on those descriptions is like thinking that any paper that comes from a magazine like Nature or Science must be 100% right, when you always can find errors on them. Heck, I've found fails on many papers, and if I want to get a whole picture of a concept I delve between different sources, creating my own 'version' of a concept instead of getting stuck with a textbook definition. But yeah, you will be still be deaf because my concepts aren't exactly the same from some book, even if deep down the concept is the same, right?
> 
> By the way, assuming that only NTs can understand sarcasm could be considered as typism, and I won't recommend to get into that territory.


I can't belive you were the one talking about putting words into one's mouth.








1) You or your friend didn't gave me any arguments yet you say that I'm a brick wall. 10 points for logic 
2) I can't have a logical debate with someone who is off-topic like your friend when it comes to the actual cause of debate.
3) Talking of putting words into mouth, when did I ever clinged so badly on shitty sources ?! insert proof of me clinging so badly without reason and sources being shitty too either your logic is invalid.
4) I have my own vision of the Ti concept _(I have no ideea where did you friend came up with Te from, I never questioned anything about that, probably from his "logic")_ except I want to find out if my concept is true also and I realised I cannot have an objective proof based argument with him. 
5) All you're saying and mostly your friend is saying is "you're like a brick wall", "your argument suck" without actual proof, I think it's pretty obvious who's right for others. 
6) I bet you don't even know the cause of the conflict.
7) Putting words into mouth huh, "assuming that only NTs can understand sarcasm could be considered as typism", when did I ever assumed that thing.



> Yeah sure that I didn't think before confirming that you're a brick wall, and for your information, I didn't feel that your arguments sucks, I *thought* that, or you will begin to say that I'm not an NT because I don't agree with your awful logic? if you want to debate logic, you must be sure that your's is good enough.


I'm glad you realised what I did there, your friend wouldn't be able to see that so very simple "feel" and "think" game of words, because well he wasn't even able to understand simple sarcasm that's why I belive he isn't NT.

Being unable to notice sarcam makes me doubt him being an NT =/= Only NT types can notice sarcasm.
Basic logic.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Ok, this thread derailment is getting pointless.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Dezir said:


> I can't belive you were the one talking about putting words into one's mouth.
> View attachment 88421


Could you be a bit more clear? if you said that about my last phrase, I concluded that from this part: "he actually *wasn't able* to *notice my sarcasm* which *makes me doubt him being an NT*." Seriously if you don't want to get misinterpreted you shouldn't leave ambiguous comments in the first place.

BTW, I hope this clears the point so the topic gets back to it's original track.

Oh well, I will try to brief with this:



Dezir said:


> 1) You or your friend didn't gave me any arguments yet you say that I'm a brick wall. 10 points for logic
> 2) I can't have a logical debate with someone who is off-topic like your friend when it comes to the actual cause of debate.
> 3) Talking of putting words into mouth, when did I ever clinged so badly on shitty sources ?! insert proof of me clinging so badly without reason and sources being shitty too either your logic is invalid.
> 4) I have my own vision of the Ti concept _(I have no ideea where did you friend came up with Te from, I never questioned anything about that, probably from his "logic")_ except I want to find out if my concept is true also and I realised I cannot have an objective proof based argument with him.
> ...


1) Are you for real? the argument was that even if you cited a 'reliable source', the content of it is pretty much bland and even inaccurate if you compare it with Jung, plus quoting stuff without interpreting doesn't show deep understanding. I only can say this for the functions that I value, as those are the ones that I grasp well.
2)Yeah sure, the cause of the debate was to see the nature of Te and Ti (please read the thread title before writing BS). The source issue was a mere tangent that could had been avoided.
3) I don't like the descriptions of Nardi, as they're too simplistic and stuff like Ni and Te is really poorly defined. Even socionics definitions are better than them. Heck, if I recall well Scelerat posted good information about Ti and Te on some former post.
4) Having an idea of Ti isn't an issue, as it's part of the discussion, but you seem to be unable to grasp that here was being evaluated the nature of *BOTH Ti and Te*, therefore my friend showed Te quotes for that reason, because those were on-topic. I you don't see this then GTFO.
5) Hahaha, don't make me laugh, you've deflected my friend's comments with weak counter arguments, which were repeating the same crap definitions like a scratched disk. That's no good way of debating.
6) You really think I'm that stupid? I've followed the whole discussion, so I perfectly know that your POV of repeating the same info clashes with my friend's expectations of getting deeper information about Te and Ti.
7)That could be easily derived of one of your phrases that I quoted before. Plus you're still implying that NTs are superior at detecting sarcasm. Simple contextual analysis my friend.

Your logic is still wacky if you weren't aware that the whole thread is centered on the Ti and Te discussion and that the source crap was a mere side effect of that.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Doge said:


> Ok, this thread derailment is getting pointless.


Was that based on objective or subjective logic?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

This thread is already pointless. 

The only function it could have served was for learning, but the initial thread is posed around an erroneous statement instead of a question.

Within functions extroversion is orientation from the object, introversion is orientation from the subjective to gain supremacy over the object. 

Pure objectivity and pure subjectivity is irrelevant fiction when ascribed to humanity and its capabilities, for it has never existed and thus has no precedent for the claim that it is useful or relevant. The functions have little to do with them.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

@_Satan Claus_, your work here is outstanding.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Could you be a bit more clear? if you said that about my last phrase, I concluded that from this part: "he actually *wasn't able* to *notice my sarcasm* which *makes me doubt him being an NT*." Seriously if you don't want to get misinterpreted you shouldn't leave ambiguous comments in the first place.
> 
> BTW, I hope this clears the point so the topic gets back to it's original track.
> 
> ...


<sigh>

1) The inconsistency between what this statement and the subject of the debate and what his friend said is strong in this one.

2) I was sure you don't get it, I never questioned his knownledge about Te and Ti or assumed I know a lot about them, the cause of the debate and the subject of the topic are 2 different things. The cause of the debate was that he posted an inaccurate definition of Ti from a random unreliable site, that's it nothing more and nothing less. I proved his subjectivity and that his site wasn't reliable and he had to prove that his definition was right, but instead he avoided it with excuses or things that has nothing to do with the argument, like Te for example. *LOGIC 101:* If both of us would write a definition of Ti It would be like any other definition from random unreliable _(reliable = knowing for sure)_ site, you can't you tell which one is more correct than the other, you can just give your guess because you're not an expert with Ph.D.

3) The fact that you don't like the descriptions of Nardi has nothing to do with the thing I asked you at this point. Again, when did I ever clinged so badly on shitty sources ?! insert proof of me clinging so badly without reason and sources being shitty too either your logic is invalid.

4) *facepalm*, read point 2. Now if you're going to ask me why I used the term "off-topic" then, it means your logic is 6 feet under the ground.

5) Again, you have no real argument _"you've deflected my friend's comments with weak counter arguments, which were repeating the same crap definitions like a scratched disk"_ that's pretty much how all yours and your friend's arguments were like. A longer version of "Your arguments suck" , "your definitions are crap" without no actual proof isn't a real rational and logical argument which you assume you're trying to have in a disccusion, all you're saying is "No, you're wrong, I'm right because I want so".

6) "my friend's expectations of getting deeper information about Te and Ti" this is exactly why I question a lot your friend's logic and ability of understanding, he is getting off the subject without even being aware of it. He expected me to post a definition of myself about Te and Ti in order to _(read logic 101)_.

7) Being unable to notice sarcam makes me doubt him being an NT =/= Only NT types can notice sarcasm AND being unable to notice sarcam makes me doubt him being an NT =/= NTs are superior at detecting sarcasm, simple contextual analysis using logic my friend.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Look:


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Oh look. Te users getting frustrated and ganging up on Ti users again.

Seen this a million times.

Ti finds discrepancies. It finds holes in arguments and logic. 
Te links external facts, data, research and objective "truths" rapid fire. It is prone to discrepancies to a Ti user. Eventually this all becomes an external fact that Te argument is incomplete(or rather, is flawed), and Te users get all butthurt(this is the point where Fi come into it).

I'm not saying Ti is right, and Te is not. Ti just better at arguments due to the nature of it. It may not be a real victory to a Te user, but neither is a Te argument with all of these gaping holes to a Ti user

Te doms however are more likely to keep beating that dead horse until a Ti dom can't be bothered anymore. Happens often.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> Oh look. Te users getting frustrated and ganging up on Ti users again.
> 
> Seen this a million times.
> 
> ...


Generalization has evolved into straw man. It uses logical fallacy. It is not very effective.

Readership uses apathy. Readership flees.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Keep beating it pal. I wont be up at night.


----------



## Tagxy (Dec 9, 2013)

Wow! This thread was pretty entertaining xD

Alright I'm pretty sure anyone who tried to make a distinction of logical aptitude between Te and Ti is incorrect. T is a processioning function. What exists with strong T are going to be more or less equally competent at logic. The terms objective logic and subjective logic are a bit misleading and its not entirely clear what the OP meant. Using the best possible guess on context, the only difference between the two is:

Te focuses its use of logic on the outer 'objective' world
Ti focuses its use of logic on the inner 'subjective' world

T has nothing to do with soundness, it can only process it does not provide information. If you want to make a broader argument on ability to logically reason, the way information is perceived needs to be considered. External perceiving functions naturally lead to a broader scope, by default this makes Ti a more logically rigorous trait. Basically the external perceiving function takes in a whale load of info, and uses Ti to shove the monstrosity into something accurate. imo N is broader than S, so if you hands down need the best and most accurate entity at logical reasoning, you probably want to go to an INTP. But if you need it quickly, you prolly want to try someone else .


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

yes


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

.


----------



## unoriginal (Dec 22, 2013)

Explain plz


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

i get so much pleasure from watching INTxs argue


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I'm just going to ignore the 12 pages that have gone before and give my perspective... 

Te is about bringing will to bear on the external world through non-personal factors (logic, if you will)

Ti is about bringing will to bear on self, based on non-personal factors (logic, again, if you will).

the difference is the direction of the applied will, and has nothing to do with the content or any of the things being argued... That is for the following...

If I understand Jung correctly, or more accurately, MBTI, if our judging function is introverted, then our primary perceiving function is extroverted, and visa versa.

This perceiving function is the _basis_ for our judging function. In other words, we judge based upon what we perceive. For dominant judgers, this means that our perceiving function merely supports what we judge, so it plays a lesser role than the judgment alone. For auxiliary judgers, this means that the perception comes first in basing our judgments, and our judgments merely serve a supporting role to perception. 

So, let's think this through. If someone is an extroverted judger, they are bringing judgments to the object--the objective world, if you will. HOWEVER, the source of their judgment is _not_ objective, but a subjective perceiving function. So, in effect, their judgment is a subjective judgment onto an objective world. And if they are a dominant judger, this means that their judgment is even _more_ subjective, because their already subjective perceiving function plays even less of a role than if they were dominant perceivers. 

And, if one is an introverted judger, then his or her perceiving function is objective--i.e. aimed to the objective world outside the person. Therefore, the primary source of their judgments is the objective world, not subjective perceptions. In this case, I'm not sure if that means that a dominant introverted judger is less objective than a dominant perceiver, but I'm going to guess that yes, that's probably true.

So, theoretically, the most objective, practical person out there would be an ESTP. Next would be ENTP. Next, ISTP, and then INTP. 

But feel free to ignore these ravings of a mad man... (but I started thinking along these lines watching my Fe daughter, and Te friend, and other dom-Je and aux-Je folks I know constantly make totally off-the-wall statements/judgments that didn't as near as I could tell, have any semblance to reality)


----------

