# Te and authoritarianism/status quo



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

VodkaBear said:


> Interestingly some of the worst systems, which were not even all that self-sustaining, survived for centuries but that's a topic for a different thread.


I think that sort of thing is quite relevant to discussing authoritarianism and the status quo. I find it hard to imagine a thinking function that is operating naturally could me moved to support some of the systems it may find itself within on the virtue of the system itself.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)




----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I think it depends on the aux or dom. 

Si Aux or Si Dom - Defend status quo, do things the way they've always been done, come up with solutions based on previous experience 

Ni Aux or Ni dom - Work for the most objectively good solution to fit their vision of the future and internal logic. 

So Si + Te - Great for managing a system that Ni + Te set up. 

Ni + Te - Great at setting up systems for the Si-Te people to manage.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

Te is not inherently power seeking. But rather, seeks to alter and control ones environment. That of course, will often require power / influence, the reason you may have formed that misconception.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

seiei said:


> Te is not inherently power seeking. But rather, seeks to alter and control ones environment. That of course, will often require power / influence, the reason you may have formed that misconception.


That's likely more of a motivational thing than an informational. The functions are the latter. 

You don't have to want power or influence to prefer Te. What _is _true is that Te is a judging function, and therefore _comes across as _an assessment. And if the Te person finds an objective flaw in something around them they will at least notice it as such, whether or not they choose to call it forward. Choosing to say or do something (or any other function) to gain power or influence would entail a motive, whereas for someone who has a very different motive (say, group harmony) but prefers Te would still go about getting what they want through Te as a function, perhaps in a very gentle way (e.g. a peace-loving ISTJ). 

In a nutshell, there is a separation between why you say and do something and how. Te shouldn't be stereotyped as "rough" without also generalizing the motivations of everyone who prefers it as requiring that kind of communication.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

if any one dominant perspective is looked at in a vacuum, you can make all sorts of ideas and theories that hold a great deal of water... but when you take into account that that perspective only exists due to a "severing of a whole", and its opposite is just beneath the surface--influencing, and possibly even rectifying an overbalance--the variables begin to mount. 

and what you'll find is that while the initial theory may have (or may not have) exemplified a concentrated form, this form doesn't truly exist--it's a definition at best to give one a basic idea on how to approach this myriad of variables that come into play once both sides of the person are taken into account--emphasis on "taking into account both sides". 

i think you'll also find that the variables mount enough to the point, that if you were to try to predict behavior or motives, you'd end with every type falling into every category... because that opposition and push-pull dynamic going on their heads breeds diversity of spirit, of consciousness--it's like a fertile ground that can lead very "cognitively" different people in the same directions (although, possibly by different routes). 

i know an ENTJ who looks like a "skater punk"... he takes care of his little brother and hopes to open up his own skate shop (at the moment though, his attempts are all online [i believe], as it's cheaper).


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

> That might be Ni + Fi. What are your reasons for hating capitalism (and I agree with you there and am glad to see a socialist ENTJ, I don't think many of them exist)? Can you tell us your reasons and we'll see whether that's more Te or Ni or Fi?




I don't see many other socialists being ENTJ's either. Stalin was an ENTJ IIRC, but he is not really a great example of how the ENTJ can work... Anyway, I'm a socialist because I believe capitalism is inefficient. It caters to the needs of the few, the top, over the needs of the largest social class, the poor. The poor don't get what they need in a capitalist system, and this prevents their voices from being heard. Ideally, hard-work would have a greater impact on your future, but in a capitalist system, your social class is mostly determined by birth. I'd vehemently argue that the poor have no political power because of this. The poor rarely vote, because their education is poor, and this causes them to be a group that has little political sway. 

I'd say my views are mostly Te and Ni, my opinion was formed by my observations, Se, and my strong feelings come from my Fi.


----------



## VodkaBear (Mar 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> I find it hard to imagine a thinking function that is operating naturally could me moved to support some of the systems it may find itself within on the virtue of the system itself.


Oh well that's basically my entire argument :tongue:. 

I mean it's not like the systems collapse every two weeks but in the long run are totally unsustainable and require ridiculous sacrifices in order to function. One example was the Roman Republic because the country basically functioned by invading and plundering others at costs to its population that were unbelievable (maybe half of the Roman population was killed in some cases). But in a sense the system did "function" for centuries and then as an empire for more centuries. 



Scelerat said:


> So Si + Te - Great for managing a system that Ni + Te set up.
> 
> Ni + Te - Great at setting up systems for the Si-Te people to manage.


This is a really good way of putting it.


----------



## VodkaBear (Mar 5, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> Anyway, I'm a socialist because I believe capitalism is inefficient. It caters to the needs of the few, the top, over the needs of the largest social class, the poor. The poor don't get what they need in a capitalist system, and this prevents their voices from being heard. Ideally, hard-work would have a greater impact on your future, but in a capitalist system, your social class is mostly determined by birth. I'd vehemently argue that the poor have no political power because of this. The poor rarely vote, because their education is poor, and this causes them to be a group that has little political sway.
> 
> I'd say my views are mostly Te and Ni, my opinion was formed by my observations, Se, and my strong feelings come from my Fi.


I have very similar views but for different reasons. As assumptions (Ti) I take that a system should offer the most freedom for the most people (whether public or private) and still be able to function. In this sense, workers controlling the means of production in a democratic way is pretty much as close to that dream as possible because they the most say and control over their lives both economically and politically (Fe?). 

Anyways I really don't want to turn this into a debate but it would be cool to see people's beliefs in systems expressed via their functions.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

VodkaBear said:


> I have very similar views but for different reasons. As assumptions (Ti) I take that a system should offer the most freedom for the most people (whether public or private) and still be able to function.


What's really interesting about your last sentence there is evidence for the connection between Fe and Ti. For what other reason is the categorizing and classifying in a consistent way than for everyone else's sake? 

There is also a connection between Te and Fi, where what is objectively factual or structured provides the support necessary to validate one's inner ethical assessments as poignantly as they would feel is appropriate. For what other reason is the objectiveness than for one's personal assessment of what needs to be assessed?


----------



## Light_92 (Aug 2, 2013)

_Imagine an INTJ with Ni and Te developed around in the same way ... It's extremely confusing when my "leader-like" moments come out and when my Judging Tendence makes me express my idea in a straight to the point way. Feeler types may think I'm something like a dictator or just lack tact, and as time went by I learnt to look kinder and say things in a softer way.

Sometimes, I act like an ENTJ, but I'm without doubt an introvert. _


----------



## VodkaBear (Mar 5, 2013)

Figure said:


> What's really interesting about your last sentence there is evidence for the connection between Fe and Ti. For what other reason is the categorizing and classifying in a consistent way than for everyone else's sake?


It's very possible, I remember reading that Fe can have a "golden rule" effect and I usually look at what I might prefer as a basis for others (and being a "lazy" NTP it's usually freedom to do things). Although my biggest interest for the past few years has been politics so it's pretty well articulated as a theory/belief (and I was influenced by left-libertarian thinkers).


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung makes the point I think pretty clearly in Psychological Types when he talks about extraverted thinking. It is a formulaic approach. One where everything that fits the formula is good and all that doesn't fit is considered useless or flawed. In my opinion Jung is merciless on Extraverted Thinking types in his treatise, no doubt the result of his years with Freud.


I agree that it's a bit harsh, but I don't see that what you bolded is entirely false or does not describe Te with some accuracy. Having lived with a Te-aux all of my life, I definitely see the parallels. I have found that when an idea is abstract and not necessarily grounded to the formula that Jung talks about, the person I am interacting with will either be incapable or unwilling to play with said idea and find some way for it to fit with reality.

None of that is to say that Ti is the bastion of all reason though.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Ni Aux or Ni dom - Work for the most objectively good solution to fit their vision of the future and internal logic.


"Objectively good" describes what Jung is talking about though. Compare to the inverse if you want to understand what the OP is talking about (Ne/Ti).


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Hum... I've just remembered this:
While I wouldn't call XNTPs authoritarian, they often do uphold the status quo.
E.g. when there is some unfair practice that is quite widespread they'll just say "That's the same everywhere." rather than debate about whether it should be legal or not or needs to be improved.

XNTPs are more like case law/common law (precedents/ what a 'reasonable man' would do: everybody does it that way, it's common practice, so it's OK) while TJs are more like statutory law (this and that is wrong and if somebody does that he'll get punished, doesn't matter how many other people do it, because they'll get punished, too).

Me: They do this and that in England.
INTP friend: It's the same here in Germany.
Me thinks: _I don't care whether it's the same there, it's wrong and has to be changed! AAARGH

_I think lots of times when TJs talk (especially IXTJs?) talkd about how the world should be improved, XNTPs prefer to spot patterns (Ne-Si, rather than Ne-Ti) so they can remain stoic. I kind of admire that because if you can't do anything about the situation anyway or it's got nothing to do with you, why get heated up? But it can be a bit annyoing sometimes because it can seem like they don't care about anything.


----------

