# Thinking = Linear? What do NF's mean by this?



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

This was brought up briefly in a thread deleted after the stickys were moved but after reading a thread in the INFP forum referencing it I decided I'd bring it up.

What exactly do some NF's (I've not seen SF's do this to the same extent, but I could be mistaken) mean when they say T thinking is "linear"? I don't think I could honestly say my thought process is "linear" in any fair sense of the word; I don't think that's how the human brain works. To me, linear implies a straightforward and simple process, perhaps even a rigid or narrow minded one. I'm sure the posters didn't mean it that way, but it sounded like they were trying to denigrate logic-based judgments (though sadly, many Thinkers do just this to F-based judgments).

For those of you who see T thinking in this way, what exactly do you mean by it?


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Hmmm, I am an NF, but I do not think my thinking is linear. I blame that on my intuitive inclination though. However, I have seen some Feelers accuse Thinkers of having more linear thoughts than they do as if linear thoughts are a sign of processing things logically and rationally. But, that is all a bunch of bull. So, I don't really know how to respond to this. I just know what I know, which is that as an NF my thinking is not linear but rather spontaneous yet nevertheless rather logical and rational at times.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

vinndi said:


> Hmmm, I am an NF, but I do not think my thinking is linear. I blame that on my intuitive inclination though. However, I have seen some Feelers accuse Thinkers of having more linear thoughts than they do as if linear thoughts are a sign of processing things logically and rationally. But, that is all a bunch of bull. So, I don't really know how to respond to this. I just know what I know, which is that as an NF my thinking is not linear but rather spontaneous yet nevertheless rather logical and rational at times.


Oh, I wasn't accusing_ NF_'s of having linear thoughts. No one would ever dream of doing something like that. I was wondering why some NF's accused _NT_'s of having linear thoughts. Maybe most don't, but I have seen it mentioned more than a few times (to very little disagreement from Feelers) so I wanted to at least know what was going on. Intuition repulses linear thought, but I don't even see Sensors as being linear as a whole (although ISJ's come close: they begin with Si "rules" and send them out in a practical fashion through Je, step by step).

And obviously F's are rational. F is a judging function and concerned with evaluating things, just like T is, it's just F focuses on ethical value and T on soundness.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

I believe that in describing modes of thinking there are two extremes. One is the straight line. The other is total chaos.

The straight line is the fastest road from A to B. Nothing can ever beat it. But you will never reach C or D.

The chaotic mode never reaches B in the first place. But in falling short of its goal, it will visit the entire alphabet on the way.

Actual thinking processes fall between these extremes with S type thinking being more linear and N type thinking being more chaotic. I believe nature is constantly trying to find a balance to introduce as much non-linearity into any system without letting it disintegrate into total chaos. That way 'thoughtspace' is effectively maximized without compromising reaching the conclusion.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Oh, I wasn't accusing_ NF_'s of having linear thoughts. No one would ever dream of doing something like that. I was wondering why some NF's accused _NT_'s of having linear thoughts. Maybe most don't, but I have seen it mentioned more than a few times (to very little disagreement from Feelers) so I wanted to at least know what was going on. Intuition repulses linear thought, but I don't even see Sensors as being linear as a whole (although ISJ's come close: they begin with Si "rules" and send them out in a practical fashion through Je, step by step).
> 
> And obviously F's are rational. F is a judging function and concerned with evaluating things, just like T is, it's just F focuses on ethical value and T on soundness.


Oh. I was definitely confused on the whole NF/NT thing. 
I understand more of what you are getting at. In fact, I think I was discussing something with someone the other day on the INFP forum where they made the same claim you are confused about. I told them that the T function does not indicate linear thoughts since an NT's are rarely if ever linear due to their N function. 
So, I am actually just as confused as you are. But, I think a lot of Feelers feel belittled by a lot of Thinkers who are accusing them to be illogical, emotional beings due to "circular" thought patterns. Though, I didn't quite understand that. Circular sounds like it should be the opposite of linear, but I feel like given the context that their meanings are not opposites. Too bad I don't actually know the original context in which these words were used. But, circular though patterns are not necessarily illogical, so I am once again confused by this whole fiasco.


----------



## Tophat182 (Feb 16, 2010)

My thinking is definitely not linear, it branches off in a multiverse kinda way.


----------



## Boots (Nov 26, 2010)

One thing I've figured out about communicating with my SJ husband is that it's not so much thinking a single, unwavering line of logic that goes from A to B to C... but rather the key being _completion of A and B_ before we go on to C (and certainly before we start incorporating 'R'). 

I wonder if some of the differences between folks within the N category lays in the perception of 'finishing one part before moving on to the next' being perceived as 'linear' by some? (personally I have a really hard time not drawing 'R' in right off the bat, as well as everything in between and maybe a number and a zapf dingbat too just in case they'd enrich the idea, without having closed A off completely from the process in case we need to come back to it... which is about the time his head explodes). 

~ Boots ~


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

I would consider my thinking linear. I think of a topic and then ask a question about it. Perhaps another question. Perhaps a small answer. See where that takes me. Ask another question and go from there. Keeping the last thought in place seeing where you can go next. Linking these endless chains to ultimately either nothing (a waste of time) or a realization.

I've talked to some people who've said their thoughts are random. I would hardly consider mine random. Maybe from time to time, but there is usually an order or structure to how I think. I often get thoughts and push them aside and then choose other thoughts to assess. Actually, now that I think about it more, it's not so much linear as it's like a tree. You go down one branch until you can't go any further. Back up and go down another branch. See it will lead nowhere useful. Choose another. Etc.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Boots said:


> One thing I've figured out about communicating with my SJ husband is that it's not so much thinking a single, unwavering line of logic that goes from A to B to C... but rather the key being _completion of A and B_ before we go on to C (and certainly before we start incorporating 'R').
> 
> I wonder if some of the differences between folks within the N category lays in the perception of 'finishing one part before moving on to the next' being perceived as 'linear' by some? (personally I have a really hard time not drawing 'R' in right off the bat, as well as everything in between and maybe a number and a zapf dingbat too just in case they'd enrich the idea, without having closed A off completely from the process in case we need to come back to it... which is about the time his head explodes).
> 
> ~ Boots ~


Yeah, I really relate to this. My ISTJ Dad loves to talk to me about my career path and doesn't understand why I'm floundering around. I say "I need a goal". He says: "well, your goal could be getting your next degree". "But that's not enough," I respond. "I need to have my ultimate desitination in my mind to be motivated, a sense of the future I'm heading towards." He stammers, confused. As you said, he doesn't understand why I am "trying to incorporate R".


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm the exact same way. When I can foresee a future 5 years down the road, I can set goals along the way to reach that conclusion. But when I'm in a situation where I'm not even sure what will happen in three months I can't cope. Without a long term plan I feel lost.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

ertertwert said:


> I would consider my thinking linear. I think of a topic and then ask a question about it. Perhaps another question. Perhaps a small answer. See where that takes me. Ask another question and go from there. Keeping the last thought in place seeing where you can go next. Linking these endless chains to ultimately either nothing (a waste of time) or a realization.
> 
> I've talked to some people who've said their thoughts are random. I would hardly consider mine random. Maybe from time to time, but there is usually an order or structure to how I think. I often get thoughts and push them aside and then choose other thoughts to assess. Actually, now that I think about it more, it's not so much linear as it's like a tree. You go down one branch until you can't go any further. Back up and go down another branch. See it will lead nowhere useful. Choose another. Etc.


I totally get this. If I claim my thought process to be non-linear and fairly random, it's probably because people have been telling me this my entire life. I, personally, understand the connections and paths form between one topic and the next within my own mind. I understand how the mention of a dinosaur might make me think upon bones which makes me think about Halloween which which might remind me of the time my friend made a hilarious joke about our government on Fourth of July (another holiday). 
I mean I travelled in these topics by means of a 'straight line', but I guess when I don't share with people my thought process they think my sudden retelling of the joke is random. I also think since I rushed through these topics people don't understand how I made any actual connection between them. Because unlike the SJs who were already mentioned, I don't need to fully complete point A before proceeding onward. I just need to know the gist of the topic (which is usually condensed down to some sort of symbol) before I can move on to the next topic. 
However, I am not averse to concerning myself with the little details. I tend to be very detail-oriented when it comes to making arguments for example, but I don't have to think about each individual detail to recognize it in my mind. It's all already up in in a four-dimensonal kind of paradigm.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

Boots said:


> One thing I've figured out about communicating with my SJ husband is that it's not so much thinking a single, unwavering line of logic that goes from A to B to C... but rather the key being _completion of A and B_ before we go on to C (and certainly before we start incorporating 'R').
> 
> I wonder if some of the differences between folks within the N category lays in the perception of 'finishing one part before moving on to the next' being perceived as 'linear' by some? (personally I have a really hard time not drawing 'R' in right off the bat, as well as everything in between and maybe a number and a zapf dingbat too just in case they'd enrich the idea, without having closed A off completely from the process in case we need to come back to it... which is about the time his head explodes).
> 
> ~ Boots ~


Good God this is so true for me and my SJ husband too. I think he's ISTJ but there's a chance he's ISFJ. Whichever he is, Ne is in the inferior position for him so I think that is what causes the problem - he gets out of his depth in conversation very quickly if too many variables are brought in before the original thought has been dealt with. He's like that with tasks as well - must complete first task before starting on second task and please don't ask him to do something that isn't in his head as part of the day's plan! No wonder he gets stressed out at work when he has more and more demands put on him and feels like he has to do all of them, to the best of his ability, before he goes home.

I think the problem for Si-doms is that they must evaluate every piece of information in great detail to see if it fits into their internal framework, so they can only focus on one thing at a time. Ni's do the same thing, but the N will quickly grasp the concept as a whole so can go back to looking at the details at a later date and make their evaluation then, therefore they can move on quicker than the Si who must grasp all the details of the concept before they move on, otherwise they forget it and the potential knowledge is lost and so the conversation is useless.

Perhaps I am hypothesizing a bit too much?


----------



## ThisIsWhereIrunAway (Oct 25, 2010)

nevermore said:


> This was brought up briefly in a thread deleted after the stickys were moved but after reading a thread in the INFP forum referencing it I decided I'd bring it up.
> 
> What exactly do some NF's (I've not seen SF's do this to the same extent, but I could be mistaken) mean when they say T thinking is "linear"? I don't think I could honestly say my thought process is "linear" in any fair sense of the word; I don't think that's how the human brain works. To me, linear implies a straightforward and simple process, perhaps even a rigid or narrow minded one. I'm sure the posters didn't mean it that way, but it sounded like they were trying to denigrate logic-based judgments (though sadly, many Thinkers do just this to F-based judgments).
> 
> For those of you who see T thinking in this way, what exactly do you mean by it?


I would suggest that they are mistaking T for S. Maybe.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

nevermore said:


> This was brought up briefly in a thread deleted after the stickys were moved but after reading a thread in the INFP forum referencing it I decided I'd bring it up.
> 
> What exactly do some NF's (I've not seen SF's do this to the same extent, but I could be mistaken) mean when they say T thinking is "linear"? I don't think I could honestly say my thought process is "linear" in any fair sense of the word; I don't think that's how the human brain works. To me, linear implies a straightforward and simple process, perhaps even a rigid or narrow minded one. I'm sure the posters didn't mean it that way, but it sounded like they were trying to denigrate logic-based judgments (though sadly, many Thinkers do just this to F-based judgments).
> 
> For those of you who see T thinking in this way, what exactly do you mean by it?


Te thinking is linear. Ti thinking is holistic. Whoever wrote that may have been confusing Te with T in general


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

ThisIsWhereIrunAway said:


> I would suggest that they are mistaking T for S. Maybe.


That's possible. NF's often do this. NT's confuse F and S as well, but it is less easy to do because T and S have more in common than S and F do. So you get NF's saying things like "Thinkers are concrete" or "Thinkers like facts" when these are actually Sensing traits. Like NF's, NT's care about what could be, not what is, and come up with realizations in mystical flashes of insight, not step-by-step thought or straight-line reasoning.


----------



## ThisIsWhereIrunAway (Oct 25, 2010)

nevermore said:


> That's possible. NF's often do this. NT's confuse F and S as well, but it is less easy to do because T and S have more in common than S and F do. So you get NF's saying things like "Thinkers are concrete" or "Thinkers like facts" when these are actually Sensing traits. Like NF's, NT's care about what could be, not what is.


Yea.... you know I hypothesize it might have to do with our functions ......because NF's logic are always backed up by an S function..... do you know what I mean? 

INFP= Fi Ne Si Te 
ENFP=Ne Fi Te Si 
ENFJ= Fe Ni Se Ti 
INFJ= Ni Fe Ti Se 

You never see Ti with Ne. You never see Te with Ni. Therefore as NF's I hypothesize that we may think of Ts as sensors because that is how we ourselves use logic.... we only have sensor based logic. This also works with NTs too in that they may think F is S like you said. 

But yes when my INFJ friend found typed her husband she kept calling him an S when he was clearly just using Ti. Her husband is an ENTP. 

Since intuition is so engulfed in our feelings then it's hard for us to separate the two I think, especially if we've never met an NT before in order to see how intuition could mix with T.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

ThisIsWhereIrunAway said:


> Yea.... you know I hypothesize it might have to do with our functions ......because NF's logic are always backed up by an S function..... do you know what I mean?


Yeah, those were my thoughts exactly. My Ti and Ne blend into each other so seamlessly I have a lot of trouble telling where one begins and the other ends.

If Thomson's theory is right (I know a lot of people contest it) and our two preferred functions are on the preferred hemisphere of our brain, that would make sense. The thoughts need to cross the corpus callosum, which would demarcate the shadow and dominant processes clearly.

But do SF's confuse Thinking with iNtuition I wonder? Do ST's confuse iNtuition with Feeling? I expect many of them may.


----------



## ThisIsWhereIrunAway (Oct 25, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Yeah, those were my thoughts exactly. My Ti and Ne blend into each other so seamlessly I have a lot of trouble telling where one begins and the other ends.
> 
> If Thomson's theory is right (I know a lot of people contest it) and our two preferred functions are on the preferred hemisphere of our brain, that would make sense. The thoughts need to cross the corpus callosum, which would demarcate the shadow and dominant processes clearly.
> 
> But do SF's confuse Thinking with iNtuition I wonder? Do ST's confuse iNtuition with Feeling? I expect many of them may.


hmmm interesting. I don't have much evidence for your last question except.....


I play in an orchestra. I am not terribly good at knowing where I am in the music. I tend to daze off. I asked my ESFJ stand partner how he could know where he was and pay attention to the conductor so well and he said that he just used his intuition. I guess that doesn't really indicate a strong leaning towards T but it sort of does in the sense that the stimuli being made sense of were notes and not subjective things like peoples feelings or anything.


----------



## Boots (Nov 26, 2010)

Does anyone know if MBTI type analysis was ever done on those split corpus callosum patients way back? (Wow.. wouldn't that be neat!?)






~ Boots ~


----------



## hungryfooligan (Nov 29, 2010)

i interpret linear as direct and straight forward. i view Ts as characters who abide by rationality and complete tasks in a logical order. straight forward thinking, the way i see it, is someone who knows what they are doing/saying and gets to the point in a direct order with a direct approach.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

penchant said:


> Great to see you again, lirulin!
> 
> I think I do understand and agree so far.
> 
> Do you by linear then mean: step-by-step, without detours (as a straight line from A to B), predictable, reductionistic, controlled, directed?


A straight line, step-by-step, without detours, definitely - basically that the ideas and evidence are _close to_ each other and follow a straight progression - rather than related in a more abstract way, drawing in evidence from all over the place (like Ni) or branching out in tons of different directions (like Ne). Ni can often as part of its analysis relate things that are essentially, abstractly the same, the basic similar pattern, and use the similarity/sameness of these patterns as proof rather than doing anything in order - in a sense that could be considered reductionistic, perhaps? (I think it does so most especially combined with Fe - but perhaps I just see the way they do it as odd and therefore notable and the way I do it as normal) I don't know about reductionistic being linear - &I think controlled and directed can be non-linear as well.


----------



## Tkae (Oct 15, 2009)

nevermore said:


> This was brought up briefly in a thread deleted after the stickys were moved but after reading a thread in the INFP forum referencing it I decided I'd bring it up.
> 
> What exactly do some NF's (I've not seen SF's do this to the same extent, but I could be mistaken) mean when they say T thinking is "linear"? I don't think I could honestly say my thought process is "linear" in any fair sense of the word; I don't think that's how the human brain works. To me, linear implies a straightforward and simple process, perhaps even a rigid or narrow minded one. I'm sure the posters didn't mean it that way, but it sounded like they were trying to denigrate logic-based judgments (though sadly, many Thinkers do just this to F-based judgments).
> 
> For those of you who see T thinking in this way, what exactly do you mean by it?


Linear Thinking (a.k.a. Deductive Reasoning):

Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Non-Linear Thinking (a.k.a. Inductive Reasoning and Analogical Reasoning):

Inductive:

Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.
Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.

Analogical:

Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died.
Premise 2: Plato is human.
Conclusion: Plato will die.

Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died.
Premise 2: Plato is human and Plato died.
Premise 3: Aristotle is human and Aristotle died.
Conclusion: All humans die.

From personal experience, for a T to be accused of linear thinking is for a T to be accused of unwillingness to think outside the box, the box being the territory whose boundaries are set by the tangible, accessible evidence, and the inferences that can be deduced from them.

Example:

T: It's cloudy and raining, therefor the weather is cloudy and rainy.

NF: It's cloudy and raining, so I'll get wet if I get outside, but when it stops raining and the clouds go away, it'll be sunny again. And, based on the fact that there's always sun after a rainstorm, it's fairly safe to assume that it's sunny up above the rain clouds, meaning that it's still sunny even though we can't experience it. So I just need to sit inside and wait for the storm to pass so I can go outside without needing to get wet and having to deal with a wet umbrella when I get to the car.

NFs typically skip the middle, unnecessary fluff between initiation of the thought and the conclusion, which is laced with analogical and inductive reasoning. It's a lot like how native English speakers will leave out words and syllables, leading to a non-native speaker having difficulty understanding what it is we're saying. To us, the jump from "It's raining" to "It's sunny" is as natural as translating "It's cloudy and raining," to " I-'s cloudy -n drainin'".

The inability (or unwillingness) for a Thinker to leave their Deductive bubble and speak non-native Inductive and Analogical Reasoning enough to understand what we're saying, or, even worse, for them to launch an attack on our reasoning is typically what causes an NF to fall back on the "You're just too married to linear thinking (seriously, get a room already)" defense.

Which really isn't all that weird. You guys suck at speaking our language, and it's probably painful for you to try, so learned behavior is that you actively avoid an unpleasant thing by reverting to a more pleasant alternative, which just happens to be a cold kind of logic that pisses us off and makes us distrustful of you for attacking our language and culture with your boring and unemotional way of doing things.

Therein ending up at the main problem between NFs and the rest of the world:

You actively seek to exterminate us and our culture :dry:






Err :mellow:

We still love you and are always there for you though roud:





Until you need a blood donation or kidney after one of your experiments royally fucks you up.

:happy:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Thanks!



lirulin said:


> A straight line, step-by-step, without detours, definitely - basically that the ideas and evidence are _close to_ each other and follow a straight progression - rather than related in a more abstract way, drawing in evidence from all over the place (like Ni) or branching out in tons of different directions (like Ne). Ni can often as part of its analysis relate things that are essentially, abstractly the same, the basic similar pattern, and use the similarity/sameness of these patterns as proof rather than doing anything in order - in a sense that could be considered reductionistic, perhaps? (I think it does so most especially combined with Fe - but perhaps I just see the way they do it as odd and therefore notable and the way I do it as normal) I don't know about reductionistic being linear - &I think controlled and directed can be non-linear as well.


I think this:



> basically that the ideas and evidence are _close to_ each other and follow a straight progression - rather than related in a more abstract way


...is very important. That is defining 'linear' in a way that excludes abstract reasoning (or really very specifically here: N), and I don't think that most NFs see abstract reasoning or N as being something antithetical to 'linear'. After all NFs are also N types.

On this:



> Ni can often as part of its analysis relate things that are essentially, abstractly the same, the basic similar pattern, and use the similarity/sameness of these patterns as proof rather than doing anything in order - in a sense that could be considered reductionistic, perhaps?


... I agree with you completely, as a description of Ni.



> I don't know about reductionistic being linear - &I think controlled and directed can be non-linear as well.


Here, I was trying to hint the possibility that linear might be more a Xi thing after all.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

^^^Yes, deductive and inductive. But that is not about T/F...

You are totally missing the difference between Ti and Te here. And Fi and Fe for that matter.

If your distinction is to be applied to T, I think Ti is deduction and Te induction. And I guess for F one could say that Fi is deductive and Fe is inductive. Though both principles seem to me to be more about perception and conclusion than judging and valuing.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Tkae said:


> NF: It's cloudy and raining, so I'll get wet if I get outside, but when it stops raining and the clouds go away, it'll be sunny again. And, based on the fact that there's always sun after a rainstorm, it's fairly safe to assume that it's sunny up above the rain clouds, meaning that it's still sunny even though we can't experience it. So I just need to sit inside and wait for the storm to pass so I can go outside without needing to get wet and having to deal with a wet umbrella when I get to the car.
> 
> NFs typically skip the middle, unnecessary fluff between initiation of the thought and the conclusion, which is laced with analogical and inductive reasoning. It's a lot like how native English speakers will leave out words and syllables, leading to a non-native speaker having difficulty understanding what it is we're saying. To us, the jump from "It's raining" to "It's sunny" is as natural as translating "It's cloudy and raining," to " I-'s cloudy -n drainin'".





> The inability (or unwillingness) for a Thinker to leave their Deductive bubble and speak non-native Inductive and Analogical Reasoning enough to understand what we're saying, or, even worse, for them to launch an attack on our reasoning is typically what causes an NF to fall back on the "You're just too married to linear thinking (seriously, get a room already)" defense.


I don't understand... I don't see a problem with your example 'NF-speak'. What kind of reaction would you expect a T to typically give you if you made your "It's cloudy so I'll just wait until it's sunny" comment?



> We still love you and are always there for you though roud:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LMAO!! :laughing:


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

penchant said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I think this:
> 
> ...is very important. That is defining 'linear' in a way that excludes abstract reasoning (or really very specifically here: N), and I don't think that most NFs see abstract reasoning or N as being something antithetical to 'linear'. After all NFs are also N types.


I don't mean to completely exclude abstract thinking. More that a lot of N thinking can bring in things that do not follow a more straight line progression. Just as an example, most of my essays have covered several centuries, for I don't see the point in limiting evidence to one time period - I am already limiting it to one concept, however complicated, am I not? Also I will tend to rely on a lot of different reasons to prove something, rather than following a progression. This is true because of this - and also this - and also this - without the reasons really_ following _each other in any way. Although within each reason there can be a more straightforward argument, usually one I fail to explain because I find it obvious. The most linear part, my Ni will gloss over and I have to train myself to explain it too. Basically, evidence (from Te) can come from anywhere so long as it relates to the main idea. This frustrates more linear thinkers, as well as those to whom I fail to communicate my main idea. I do think it is possible to relate abstract concepts to one another in a more linear fashion, if the _steps of thought _are in some way near to each other. 



penchant said:


> On this:
> 
> ... I agree with you completely, as a description of Ni.
> 
> Here, I was trying to hint the possibility that linear might be more a Xi thing after all.


I do agree that introverted functions are more focussed and directed. I am not convinced that this always goes far enough to call it linear though. That seems to relate far more to S.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

@Tkae

Tkae, I really have no idea why you are so bitter. I don`t think anyone in this thread has said anything to deliberately insult NF`s. If anything I say has offended you, please tell me and I will apologize. If not: I am sorry if other T`s have hurt you in the past, but please try not to tar all of us with the same brush. Believe me when I tell you we are not conspiring in smoke filled rooms to `exterminate you and your culture`!:laughing:

Also, let me point out I have never been accused of `linear` thinking (but who knows...perhaps I am about to be!:tongue. If you have NT `enemies`, I am not likely to be one of them. Many of my dearest friends have been NF`s and I don`t think there is any good reason for any of us to resent each other. 

I think a big part of this is the NF equivalent of NT`s dismissing emotions as stupid. They are not good a picking up on them or understanding them, so they pretend they are unimportant. We often don`t admit we are just weak in these areas. A shame really, because by admitting weakness allows us to confront it and, to a degree, rectify it.

Similarly, some F`s like to pretend logic does not exist because many of them are not good at picking up on the logical flow of argument and do not easily notice logical inconsistencies. Not that they are incapable of using logic, just as Thinkers can use Feeling, they are just not as talented at it. Intelligent Thinkers and Feelers work on their weaknesses and balance themselves out; immature ones scorn them and perhaps even dismiss them. So when a T notices a logical contradiction an F does not, especially when it counters an Fs argument, _some _Feelers (hardly all or even most of them) dismiss logical consistency and validity as an artificial prison and ignore the Ts argument instead of developing their tertiary or inferior to become more in tune with logic. Inother words, exactly the same mistake Ts make when they dismiss value judgments as petty and artificial. Frankly, I am disgusted by many of the remarks I have heard about Feeling on the INTP forums. One poster said something along the lines of `intelligent people care less about feelings`. Well, I suppose I am unintelligent, because I care about my Feelings very much, even if emotional decision making is admittedly not my strong suit.

If you wouldn`t mind listening to my cold, boring logical critique, I hop you don`t mind me pointing out that you are not only conflating F with N but also with_ S_! I hope you will at least consider my opinions as the well-meaning insights of a necessarily subjective, flawed outsider and dismiss them if you wish. All I ask is that you try to be honest with yourself.

_Linear Thinking (a.k.a. Deductive Reasoning):_

_Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal._

This is what Ti users do _after_ they have used Ti, yes, and it is a part of Thinking and especially Ti generally. But Ti is ultimately more concerned with definitions and essential qualities (which is why, as lirulin said, we can often seem nit-picky). It`s what gives it the sharp eye it needs to notice logical contradictions that might not be obvious to others (this is why INTP`s are so annoying in debates:tongue. It is actually a very instinctual, gut-driven process (being introverted) and there are no straight lines.

_Non-Linear Thinking (a.k.a. Inductive Reasoning and Analogical Reasoning):

Inductive:

Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.
Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow._

This is Si. Looking back to the past to explain how things are. Not F.

_Analogical:

Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died.
Premise 2: Plato is human.
Conclusion: Plato will die._

This is Ne. Looking for patterns and connections in the external world. Not F. 

_Premise 1: Socrates is human and Socrates died.
Premise 2: Plato is human and Plato died.
Premise 3: Aristotle is human and Aristotle died.
Conclusion: All humans die._

Again, Ne. This stuff is insight, which comes from perception (N/S). T and F examine, telling you if something is logical or of value.

_From personal experience, for a T to be accused of linear thinking is for a T to be accused of unwillingness to think outside the box, the box being the territory whose boundaries are set by the tangible, accessible evidence, and the inferences that can be deduced from them._

I discussed this earlier, but this is indeed where T and F part ways. T believes that people should accept what is true and F is not concerned with truth (it`s no insult, it`s just focused on other things). To a T, there is such a thing as right and wrong, valid and invalid, and T`s purpose is to `discover them`. For many of us, it is an enthralling, even liberating process; many T`s see it as `freeing themselves from delusion`. Conversely, F`s can sometimes see the truth _as_ a box, because values judgment is not as concerned with it. Immature T`s and horrified of being accused of `subjectivity` and want to view things impartially, although not all T`s think of themselves as creatures of pure objectivity and go beyond merely discovering what they consider `truth`.

Thinkers may indeed be closed minded and inside the box thinkers at times. But to a Thinker, going against logic is a bit like doing something unethical for a Feeler. But values are_ more _subjective than logic (again, this word is not meant as an insult), so you being told to think outside the `box` of your values system is less of a demand. I`m sure there are values you feel very strongly about. Values you dont want to beray. So it is with a T and logic. But I must add this only holds true _when_ logic is the only reasonable approach. There are definately some T`s need to realize that it isn`t _about_ logic, that logic is sometimes not needed. I have even felt this when speaking with some Thinkers sometimes. So our way of Thinking, just like yours and everyone else`s,_ can _be a box if we don`t allow ourselves to consider alternative perspectives.

_Example:

T: It's cloudy and raining, therefor the weather is cloudy and rainy.

NF: It's cloudy and raining, so I'll get wet if I get outside, but when it stops raining and the clouds go away, it'll be sunny again. And, based on the fact that there's always sun after a rainstorm, it's fairly safe to assume that it's sunny up above the rain clouds, meaning that it's still sunny even though we can't experience it. So I just need to sit inside and wait for the storm to pass so I can go outside without needing to get wet and having to deal with a wet umbrella when I get to the car._

I could be confused, but this actually strikes me as pretty classic STJ thinking. All about what's practical, looking to the past for guidance, and there is logic all over this paragraph (and nary a hint of values).

T seems to be auditioning for the role of Captain Obvious. I`d say he`s got the job.:tongue:

(I know what you`re trying to say. T doesn`t try to add anything to the situation, it just tries to state what_ is_. Some NF`s don`t always appreciate how difficult it is to scrape off all the dirt that represents prejudice and illusion to get to `what`s really going on` (or at least, what we_ think _is really going on) behind the scenes. They see the discovery of something that already exists as boring. A truism, adding nothing to what`s already there. Not all T`s actually appreciate this scientific way of approaching the world, but those who do seldom use linear thinking to get there. If they could approach things this way, they would not even need to ask the question because it would be obvious.)

_NFs typically skip the middle, unnecessary fluff between initiation of the thought and the conclusion, which is laced with analogical and inductive reasoning. It's a lot like how native English speakers will leave out words and syllables, leading to a non-native speaker having difficulty understanding what it is we're saying. To us, the jump from "It's raining" to "It's sunny" is as natural as translating "It's cloudy and raining," to " I-'s cloudy -n drainin'"._

Yes. This is because F thought is less precise, although it is just as valid (sometimes the precision of Ti can be more of a curse than a blessing!). Mind you, NT`s do indeed make a great meny leaps in reasoning because we don`t think in details. Regardless, none of this is to say T doesn`t get to the same place N and F do; it can just explain how it got there.

_The inability (or unwillingness) for a Thinker to leave their Deductive bubble and speak non-native Inductive and Analogical Reasoning enough to understand what we're saying, or, even worse, for them to launch an attack on our reasoning is typically what causes an NF to fall back on the "You're just too married to linear thinking (seriously, get a room already)" defense._

A bubble based on the concept that there is such a thing as an invalid argument, yes. As I argued earlier, while logic necessarily involves deduciton, what you have described as non-linear reasoning is actually a mixture of Ne and Si.

_Which really isn't all that weird. You guys suck at speaking our language, and it's probably painful for you to try, so learned behavior is that you actively avoid an unpleasant thing by reverting to a more pleasant alternative, which just happens to be a cold kind of logic that pisses us off and makes us distrustful of you for attacking our language and culture with your boring and unemotional way of doing things._

Sadly, there is a lot of miscommunication between T`s and F`s. But things go both ways. Thinkers` logic is not meant to harm, and certainly should not `piss anyone off` or make them `distrust` us. If they just don`t_ care_ about your feelings, let me say I commisserate. Even Thinkers know what it fels like to have other, insensitive Thinkers treat them like objects. To that I say shame on them, but where offense is unintentional I think it is only fair that you try to understand and not sneer at T`s `boring and unemotional` way of thinking.

_Therein ending up at the main problem between NFs and the rest of the world:

You actively seek to exterminate us and our culture_

Crap! Our secret is out!:laughing:

_We still love you and are always there for you though 

Until you need a blood donation or kidney after one of your experiments royally fucks you up._

And I love you too, Tkae!:tongue::happy:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I don't mean to completely exclude abstract thinking. More that a lot of N thinking can bring in things that do not follow a more straight line progression.Just as an example, most of my essays have covered several centuries, for I don't see the point in limiting evidence to one time period - I am already limiting it to one concept, however complicated, am I not?


This seems very Ni to me. You take in whatever data comes across, but when structuring your perception limit it to being conceptually related to one concept. So, I think you confirmed my point that you see linear as antithetical to N. Do you have other examples?



> Also I will tend to rely on a lot of different reasons to prove something, rather than following a progression. This is true because of this - and also this - and also this - without the reasons really_ following _each other in any way. Although within each reason there can be a more straightforward argument, usually one I fail to explain because I find it obvious.


This is the justification part of your essay, so hear you put forward your Te. And while there is no one universal system of logic that connects everything (that would be very Ti) you still rely on each specific argument having a cause-and-effect relation to its conclusion, right? I could also put it like this (and this is more close to what I mean by T being linear) the strenght of the arguments combined is predictable from the sums of the strength of the individual arguments; oversimplified: data in = data out. I am not sure this is so for F.



> The most linear part, my Ni will gloss over and I have to train myself to explain it too. Basically, evidence (from Te) can come from anywhere so long as it relates to the main idea. This frustrates more linear thinkers, as well as those to whom I fail to communicate my main idea. I do think it is possible to relate abstract concepts to one another in a more linear fashion, if the _steps of thought _are in some way near to each other.


Do you mean that your Ni is more structured than your Te? That's how I see it. And I have no hard time seeing how it would frustrate Ti users (Ti doms especially) that your Te is more piecemeal than their Ti. So yes, Te isn't linear in the sense of being universal or monolithic. This is why it is important to understand what we mean by 'linear'. What I do think Ti and Te have in common over Fi and Fe is that both T deals with causation while F deals with correspondance.



> I do agree that introverted functions are more focussed and directed. I am not convinced that this always goes far enough to call it linear though. That seems to relate far more to S.


So, Si is linear while Ni isn't? But isn't the difference between Si and Ni only that Si deals with concrete experiences and Ni with abstract impressions? Both are introverted perception, and look-a-likes in many cases.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

penchant said:


> This seems very Ni to me. You take in whatever data comes across, but when structuring your perception limit it to being conceptually related to one concept. So, I think you confirmed my point that you see linear as antithetical to N. Do you have other examples?


Well, of course it's Ni. It is one example of my brain. Although I have seen Ne from the outside, it would be best to ask someone who uses it for an example of that. The best I can do is one point radiating outwards to multiple possibilities - that is a standard description of Ne, is it not?



penchant said:


> This is the justification part of your essay, so here you put forward your Te. And while there is no one universal system of logic that connects everything (that would be very Ti) you still rely on each specific argument having a cause-and-effect relation to its conclusion, right? I could also put it like this (and this is more close to what I mean by T being linear) the strenght of the arguments combined is predictable from the sums of the strength of the individual arguments; oversimplified: data in = data out. I am not sure this is so for F.


A bunch of specific arguments, with no logical relation to each other. Each not even necessarily an argument in the full "linear" structure, but some just basically data points. And cause and effect is a very broad not specific or entirely true way, yes. It is more vaguely related support than it is proof sometimes. Yes, I can create logical arguments with Te, sometimes even consciously but Te is also concerned with the practical and will not develop a whole argument if it is not needed. It is very scattered. Usually the smaller arguments are grasped as a whole, anyway - not developed in any order or chain of reasoning.



penchant said:


> Do you mean that your Ni is more structured than your Te? That's how I see it. And I have no hard time seeing how it would frustrate Ti users (Ti doms especially) that your Te is more piecemeal than their Ti. So yes, Te isn't linear in the sense of being universal or monolithic. This is why it is important to understand what we mean by 'linear'. What I do think Ti and Te have in common over Fi and Fe is that both T deals with causation while F deals with correspondance..


Structured is a terrible word really. Focussed and directed, but there is no sense of structure whatsoever - well for me. Do you find yours structured? And as I said earlier, I do agree that F is more associative on some levels and T points more often to reasons. But I do not agree that this would make it linear. And I do not define linear as universal or monolithic, but, as I said, as following a straight line A-B.



penchant said:


> So, Si is linear while Ni isn't? But isn't the difference between Si and Ni only that Si deals with concrete experiences and Ni with abstract impressions? Both are introverted perception, and look-a-likes in many cases.


They are not lookalikes to many of us that have it. I have never found any similarity and there seems to be a lot of S-dislike on the forums. Si in making an argument will have things that relate concretely to each other and follow a path. Often they are more inclined to start at the data and reach a conclusion -_ that_ is linear. Ni starts at the _conclusion_, consciously, every time, and cherry-picks evidence in a relatively random pattern, to support it. I have noticed this even in ENTJs, who are not Dom-Ni. How can that be linear? It is not A-B, but B-a, Ba2, B-a7, B-A, B-A6, oh yeah, and F-D4, which implies P....something that radiates out like a star or comet (Ne too can be pictured this way) is not a straight line.

I guess the main point is that, although I end up with A&B in my argument, anyone who sees that and thinks I went from A to B, or B to A, or connected them in any linear fashion, is mistaking my thought utterly. I admit that given the way I need to translate my thoughts into language, they are at a disadvantage - for I don't present my reasoning in nearly as random a way as it occurs - but B is an amorphous growing blob and A is a bunch of puzzle pieces gradually coming together.

I keep editing. Just one more thing - although it seems to me that Sensors will structure things more linearly overall, I don't think they are entirely linear either - only in comparison to others. I don't think any human is completely linear. Even the most linear part of my processing, which for me would be emotion (if anything is straightforward cause-effect it is_ that_) isn't by any means completely linear.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Similarly, some F`s like to pretend logic does not exist because many of them are not good at picking up on the logical flow of argument and do not easily notice logical inconsistencies. Not that they are incapable of using logic, just as Thinkers can use Feeling, they are just not as talented at it. Intelligent Thinkers and Feelers work on their weaknesses and balance themselves out; immature ones scorn them and perhaps even dismiss them. So when a T notices a logical contradiction an F does not, especially when it counters an Fs argument, _some _Feelers (hardly all or even most of them) dismiss logical consistency and validity as an artificial prison and ignore the Ts argument instead of developing their tertiary or inferior to become more in tune with logic.


Oh boy, have I ever seen this one...


----------



## Tkae (Oct 15, 2009)

penchant said:


> ^^^Yes, deductive and inductive. But that is not about T/F...
> 
> You are totally missing the difference between Ti and Te here. And Fi and Fe for that matter.
> 
> If your distinction is to be applied to T, I think Ti is deduction and Te induction. And I guess for F one could say that Fi is deductive and Fe is inductive. Though both principles seem to me to be more about perception and conclusion than judging and valuing.


I was pointing out the difference between linear and non-linear thinking without relation to actual type functions. The only relation to function that I gave was in reference to OP's T/NF scenario. 



unleashthehounds said:


> I don't understand... I don't see a problem with your example 'NF-speak'. What kind of reaction would you expect a T to typically give you if you made your "It's cloudy so I'll just wait until it's sunny" comment?


Well it's hard to just pull one out of my ass lol



nevermore said:


> @_Tkae_
> 
> Tkae, I really have no idea why you are so bitter. I don`t think anyone in this thread has said anything to deliberately insult NF`s. If anything I say has offended you, please tell me and I will apologize. If not: I am sorry if other T`s have hurt you in the past, but please try not to tar all of us with the same brush. Believe me when I tell you we are not conspiring in smoke filled rooms to `exterminate you and your culture`!:laughing:
> 
> ...


I'm bitter? :mellow:

I don't think I'm bitter lol

I said a few things tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not bitter or anything roud:

I'm not saying that it's a bad thing or that it's a Thinker's "fault". God knows I can't understand deductive reasoning to save my life. The second someone starts logic talk my brain closes shop and goes home for the day lol

But yeah, I agree with all that. My post was a bit on-the-fly :happy:


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

In regards to the T functions, I see them as "linear" in their processes as far as making logical connections & having clearer steps/breakdowns in analysis that others can follow, as opposed to random leaps. Obviously NTs, using N, make leaps a lot. Ne thinking in particular can make a person observably random at times. Ni thinking can appear as major leaps to the observer, often asking them to trust a leap without any concrete foundation behind it (I believe many INTJ profiles mention this tendency to make leaps).

Te thinking probably appears the most literally linear in _how_ it's expressed (ie. orderly); but Ti users seem to be the finickiest about expression from others spelling out every connection between their thoughts. There's little benefit of the doubt given, but often it is asked for from the Ti-user when they themselves express, to the annoyance of those around them :tongue:. I've been subjected to one too many INTP asking for every little aspect to be explained in detail regarding my opinion on something (often a topic totally irrelevant to reality). It's tiring, and annoying when I've been able to fill in their gaps in expression easily myself; why can't they do the same? To the NF, it seems a lack of N, but I guess it's really poor F; I suppose F functions allow one to grasp a person's expression in whole so that gaps are easily filled in rather accurately. I notice when INTPs "fill in", it's often negative assumptions, so I'm not sure what solution there is :crazy:. This not only seems rather, er, pompous, but also _dense_ in a way, missing the forest for the trees, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc. 

Okay, I have to do a tangent now.....I recently read some small study involving brain scans & MBTI, and it showed that Fi (and to a lesser degree Fe) was associated with whole brain activity when listening to someone, while the T functions were associated with brain activity being limited to a small area when listening, which to me suggests synthesis versus analysis. And here is where I will stop, not making the connection of this thought to the above for others, and here is where a T/F difference in response to such an expression often occurs.

Anyhow, in short, I think "linear" is meant as a metaphor in this case, not a literal description. You might also contrast it with "holistic", often used to describe Fi, even though Fi reasoning involves a kind of analysis also (and Fe as well). I'd argue that the T functions are NOT more concerned with truth at all, just truth in a different realm, one infinitely easier to "prove" (you could even separate Je & Ji as far as how they go about determining what is truth; Fi & Ti seem more concerned with the consistency within concepts, and Te & Fe with what is viable). As often noted, it's like the difference between math and art. There is much truth in the latter, but harder to define in intellectual terms; yet you know it when you "feel" it.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Thanks very much.:happy: This is a good answer that, if I am to be honest, makes a lot of valid points. You also don't confuse T with S; not once.



OrangeAppled said:


> In regards to the T functions, I see them as "linear" in their processes as far as making logical connections & having clearer steps/breakdowns in analysis that others can follow, as opposed to random leaps. Obviously NTs, using N, make leaps a lot. Ne thinking in particular can make a person observably random at times. Ni thinking can appear as major leaps to the observer, often asking them to trust a leap without any concrete foundation behind it (I believe many INTJ profiles mention this tendency to make leaps).


Okay, this is true. You refer to the "inevitablility" of logic; that it must lead to a certain place, and that this can be proven through steps. While NT's often skip steps, even myself as a dominant Thinker, we are not talking about N here but T alone. A fair point.



OrangeAppled said:


> Te thinking probably appears the most literally linear in _how_ it's expressed (ie. orderly); but Ti users seem to be the finickiest about expression from others spelling out every connection between their thoughts. There's little benefit of the doubt given, but often it is asked for from the Ti-user when they themselves express, to the annoyance of those around them :tongue:. I've been subjected to one too many INTP asking for every little aspect to be explained in detail regarding my opinion on something (often a topic totally irrelevant to reality). It's tiring, and annoying when I've been able to fill in their gaps in expression easily myself; why can't they do the same? To the NF, it seems a lack of N, but I guess it's really poor F; I suppose F functions allow one to grasp a person's expression in whole so that gaps are easily filled in rather accurately. I notice when INTPs "fill in", it's often negative assumptions, so I'm not sure what solution there is :crazy:. This not only seems rather, er, pompous, but also _dense_ in a way, missing the forest for the trees, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, e


Yes, this is is true. Even as a Ti dom, I find Ti extremely annoying in others myself at times. Finnicky, nitpicky, these are exactly the right words to describe it...and it certainly isn't a good thing.

I think "filling gaps with negativity" is related to the Ti tendency to want to hold off believing something until it knows it is "perfect". That is, if something isn't proven as logical, you can't assume it is until you know. Personally I consider this an extremely tedious process and often skip it by filling in the gaps with Ne. But we're isolating the T functions here. 

This all relates to logic's desire to be absolute I suppose, but making sure everything is consistent does indeed make one miss the forest for the trees, as you say. (J.R.R. Tolkien re-wrote a whole chapter of _The Lord of the Rings _because he described something as happening under the light of a full moon and realized that according to the time-frame, that would have been impossible, even though as his daughter said "surely one in a thousand readers would have noticed". He probably knew it didn't matter deep down, but his leading cognative process predisposed him to being bothered by this). Still, the limitations that come with this obsessiveness with flawless logical flow have, despite my resenting them, given me a talent for expressing my thoughts in langauge I would not otherwise have had (don't know if I am showing it here, but my essays are famous for posessing the rare combination of eloquence, insight, and precision/logical consistency). So I guess there's a place for it, even if it is in the useless ivory tower of academia.:crazy:

But I do disagree in one place. Personally, I don't think INTP's actualy _miss_ the big picture, they just insist on making sure the logic in that picture is flawless. That is, we can fill in the gaps (admittedly, we might be doing this with Ne), but most of us want to be absolutely sure that the reasoning was logically justified. (An exception is, of course, emotionally/ethically derrived opinions, where thinkers typically have much more trouble, especially T-doms). I had an INTP English teacher in high school who gave me excellent marks but my paper was red by the time he was finished with it. Every little etymological confusion, every little imprecise use of a word, every little leap of reasoning had to be picked apart. But he knew that my points were sound overall, and didn't let his own fussiness stand in the way of that.



OrangeAppled said:


> Okay, I have to do a tangent now.....I recently read some small study involving brain scans & MBTI, and it showed that Fi (and to a lesser degree Fe) was associated with whole brain activity when listening to someone, while the T functions were associated with brain activity being limited to a small area when listening, which to me suggests synthesis versus analysis. And here is where I will stop, not making the connection of this thought to the above for others, and here is where a T/F difference in response to such an expression often occurs.


(I'm an NP too; tangents are fine!:tongue Yes, absolutely. I agree. F functions are more holistic, which is to be expected as they deal more with human beings. But I wouldn't call that linear; I'd call that analytical (perhaps that's my Ti nitpicking:crazy. But as you say...



OrangeAppled said:


> Anyhow, in short, I think "linear" is meant as a metaphor in this case, not a literal description. You might also contrast it with "holistic", often used to describe Fi, even though Fi reasoning involves a kind of analysis also (and Fe as well).


And you are quite right; that is why I asked this question. I didn't think it was inconceivable that an F might lterally think the T process was linear. I wanted to doubt it, but I also wanted to be sure. "Analytical" is bang on, and to me is much less offensive than the simplicity implied by "linear". One can also see things others miss by looking up close.



OrangeAppled said:


> I'd argue that the T functions are NOT more concerned with truth at all, just truth in a different realm, one infinitely easier to "prove" (you could even separate Je & Ji as far as how they go about determining what is truth; Fi & Ti seem more concerned with the consistency within concepts, and Te & Fe with what is viable). As often noted, it's like the difference between math and art. There is much truth in the latter, but harder to define in intellectual terms; yet you know it when you "feel" it.


I see what you're saying here and quite agree, but by truth I meant "what logic users seek to discover". That is the mroe common definition of "truth".

Anyway, great post.:happy:


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> but Ti users seem to be the finickiest about expression from others spelling out every connection between their thoughts. There's little benefit of the doubt given,


I find Ti can be hard to express, and the less language I need to use, the better... -BUT- what all too often happens is people misunderstand what I'm trying to say, I'll either get blank looks, or get attacked because someone thought I was saying something different than I really meant. I really hate being misunderstood, so that leads me to increasingly try to explain everything, because I'm never sure which parts are not going to be understood by who I'm speaking to. However, if someone shows to me that they get what I'm trying to say, I will ease up and give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

unleashthehounds said:


> I find Ti can be hard to express, and the less language I need to use, the better... -BUT- what all too often happens is people misunderstand what I'm trying to say, I'll either get blank looks, or get attacked because someone thought I was saying something different than I really meant. I really hate being misunderstood, so that leads me to increasingly try to explain everything, because I'm never sure which parts are not going to be understood by who I'm speaking to. However, if someone shows to me that they get what I'm trying to say, I will ease up and give them the benefit of the doubt.


I can relate to wanting other people to understand exactly what I am trying to say, but I don't think Ti is hard to express. It just takes a long time (which annoys people who don't understand our need to be thorough, and even ourselves at times, because it's also a lot of work). Actually, INTP's are supposed to find it easier to express their thoughts than any other type because of the precision of Ti and abstraction/presentation skills of Ne. Similarly, INFP's express their feelings better than any other type, which is why many of them excel at poetry.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

nevermore said:


> I can relate to wanting other people to understand exactly what I am trying to say, but I don't think Ti is hard to express. It just takes a long time (which annoys people who don't understand our need to be thorough, and even ourselves at times, because it's also a lot of work).


Exactly! It is alot of work, and alot of times I get bored and would rather be doing anything else than walking through my thought process.



> Actually, INTP's are supposed to find it easier to express their thoughts than any other type because of the precision of Ti and abstraction/presentation skills of Ne.


um.... I don't know, for me Ti + Ne means "I'll just build the damn thing to show you it can be done rather than sit here and try to explain it", it's much more interesting that way. I work in tech and I've often gone and built proof of concepts because it's alot less frustrating than trying to explain to other people who don't have the same vision I do.



> Similarly, INFP's express their feelings better than any other type, which is why many of them excel at poetry.


I don't know about that. Ti and Fi are both introverted functions.. meant for the user. I've heard Fi is even harder to express than Ti. Fi can often be better expressed as metaphors or imagery, which is why they may make good poets


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

unleashthehounds said:


> Exactly! It is alot of work, and alot of times I get bored and would rather be doing anything else than walking through my thought process.
> 
> um.... I don't know, for me Ti + Ne means "I'll just build the damn thing to show you it can be done rather than sit here and try to explain it", it's much more interesting that way. I work in tech and I've often gone and built proof of concepts because it's alot less frustrating than trying to explain to other people who don't have the same vision I do.
> 
> I don't know about that. Ti and Fi are both introverted functions.. meant for the user. I've heard Fi is even harder to express than Ti. Fi can often be better expressed as metaphors or imagery, which is why they may make good poets


Ti and Fi don't express themselves by themselves, but I wasn't saying they did. They express themselves through Ne, which is the best function for presentation. (It also deals with metaphor and symbol, which is why Fi takes on that quality with INFP's...you tend not to see ISFP's using metaphor to express their feelings a whole lot). When you combine Ne with Ti's precision of thought, it really is quite difficult not to be good at expressing yourself with words. Personally I delight in explaining concepts to others, and have known few people in "real life" who have failed to mention how "well spoken" I am. But perhaps this is a personal idiosyncracy..


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

nevermore said:


> But I do disagree in one place. Personally, I don't think INTP's actualy _miss_ the big picture, they just insist on making sure the logic in that picture is flawless. That is, we can fill in the gaps (admittedly, we might be doing this with Ne), but most of us want to be absolutely sure that the reasoning was logically justified. (An exception is, of course, emotionally/ethically derrived opinions, where thinkers typically have much more trouble, especially T-doms). I had an INTP English teacher in high school who gave me excellent marks but my paper was red by the time he was finished with it. Every little etymological confusion, every little imprecise use of a word, every little leap of reasoning had to be picked apart. But he knew that my points were sound overall, and didn't let his own fussiness stand in the way of that.


I would definitely agree with this and find it true of Te as well. Although it is not nit-picky in the same way as Ti is, Te has its own version of anal. It notices inconcistencies and things that are wrong and things that need to be optimised. This is also, however, the very reason I have qualms about the use of the word "holistic" for F functions. It implies, somewhat (and can be used to state sometimes) that Fs are more big picture thinkers - and I find this invalid. The only reason we can see inconsistencies and deviations is _because_ we see the whole picture. It's not seeing them as details, but as deviations from the "proper" whole picture. Dealing with it as a whole and seeing what doesn't match - rather than what does. Inclusion versus exclusion rather than part versus whole. I find, if anything, Fs just tend to be a bit more more holistic in their _presentation_ of their ideas (which can be both good and bad). To extend that back to thought isn't quite accurate, and is usually paired with a negative judgment or dismissal of Thinkers. Besides which, often when calling F more holistic it is part of the condescending assumption that thinks Ts leave out feeling and Fs include everything. We both leave out stuff, to a degree. If you're excluding everything that disagrees with your values, that is hardly more holistic than excluding the illogical. (Everything, of course, being a generalisation, since we are not incapable of dealing with what we prefer to exclude.) I have found Fs astoundingly detailed in ways that freak me out - emotions, body language, social interaction...we'll likely seem more detail-oriented to someone who only has, and wants, and values, a vague understanding of what we're talking about. Heck, I remember one thread someone started, I think an ENFP, who was trying to interpret what someone said in a conversation. They had said "oh."


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Well, of course it's Ni. It is one example of my brain. Although I have seen Ne from the outside, it would be best to ask someone who uses it for an example of that. The best I can do is one point radiating outwards to multiple possibilities - that is a standard description of Ne, is it not?


Yes, we agree on both Ni and Ne. I was probably just trying to emphasize the distinction between N and T. But I don't remember now...



> A bunch of specific arguments, with no logical relation to each other. Each not even necessarily an argument in the full "linear" structure, but some just basically data points. And cause and effect is a very broad not specific or entirely true way, yes. It is more vaguely related support than it is proof sometimes. Yes, I can create logical arguments with Te, sometimes even consciously but Te is also concerned with the practical and will not develop a whole argument if it is not needed. It is very scattered. Usually the smaller arguments are grasped as a whole, anyway - not developed in any order or chain of reasoning.


I will admit to having a Ti perspective on Te. But I would imagine that the content of the Te data points are internally primarily analytical, even if they do not relate to eachother logically. By support vs proof I understand you as emphasizing that it is more based on experience than pure logic. Is that correct? And about the scattered character and lack of chain of reasoning, I understand that totally. I just didn't find the words to express it.



> Structured is a terrible word really. Focussed and directed, but there is no sense of structure whatsoever - well for me. Do you find yours structured? And as I said earlier, I do agree that F is more associative on some levels and T points more often to reasons. But I do not agree that this would make it linear. And I do not define linear as universal or monolithic, but, as I said, as following a straight line A-B.


I am probably confusing my Ni and Ti so that I think my Ni is structured. But I would also assert that Ni is in some way organised, still. The focus and direction that Ni has makes at least my Ni create visions that are better described as coherent than as impressionistic at least. But if you can help me find even better words for that, I don't mind at all.

And yes, universal and monolithic is more Ti/Fi. I will get back to 'straight line' further down.



> They are not lookalikes to many of us that have it. I have never found any similarity and there seems to be a lot of S-dislike on the forums. Si in making an argument will have things that relate concretely to each other and follow a path. Often they are more inclined to start at the data and reach a conclusion -_ that_ is linear. Ni starts at the _conclusion_, consciously, every time, and cherry-picks evidence in a relatively random pattern, to support it. I have noticed this even in ENTJs, who are not Dom-Ni. How can that be linear? It is not A-B, but B-a, Ba2, B-a7, B-A, B-A6, oh yeah, and F-D4, which implies P....something that radiates out like a star or comet (Ne too can be pictured this way) is not a straight line.


Yes, I meant look-a-likes generally speaking, not for us Si or Ni doms. And I think that the S-N rivalry doesn't mean that we are always extremely different. Just that there are some areas where we bug eachother.

Anyhow, I think you might partly be describing Te here as well as Ni. Ni doesn't start at the conclusion; it is after all a perceiving function. The evidence picking here seems to me to be Te validating the Ni conclusion, rather than Ni at work. Why would Ni be any more random than Si? My Ni doesn't cherry-pick, but my Ti supports my Ni by describing and systematizing the Ni perception so that it can be supported by Ti logic.

And ENTJs, yes. Given that they are Te-driven rather than Ni-driven their Ni is only there to support their Te. Since they don't have an introverted function as dominant, their core cognition is more akin to Ne doms than Ni doms. I have no problem with that. However, I do think that it is their Te that accounts for the radiating strategy, basing judgment here and there and everywhere (pragmatically maybe), and that Ni is normally allowed to run on the variety of mental subsets that Te focuses on, rather than run the whole show as with Ni doms and keep trying to grasp the entirety of human experience.



> I guess the main point is that, although I end up with A&B in my argument, anyone who sees that and thinks I went from A to B, or B to A, or connected them in any linear fashion, is mistaking my thought utterly. I admit that given the way I need to translate my thoughts into language, they are at a disadvantage - for I don't present my reasoning in nearly as random a way as it occurs - but B is an amorphous growing blob and A is a bunch of puzzle pieces gradually coming together.


That makes sense to me as I understand your Te would work not based on linear progression, but on what is available (in a broad sense). But does that not still mean that each particular "support" (I touched on this above I think) is still in the form of causation (rather than correlation, as I see F)? Or do I need to refine my terminology here again?



> I keep editing. Just one more thing - although it seems to me that Sensors will structure things more linearly overall, I don't think they are entirely linear either - only in comparison to others. I don't think any human is completely linear. Even the most linear part of my processing, which for me would be emotion (if anything is straightforward cause-effect it is_ that_) isn't by any means completely linear.


Since all types have a full set of functions, it would take serious onesidedness to be nothing but linear, to the point of not being even remotely healthy. But I hope that I am clear that I am not talking about people or types here, but about the functions themselves. And since I don't agree with you on Sensors being more linear, I don't know what to comment on here. As for perceiving functions generally, I probably would see Ni and Si as more linear in the sense that they are (in theory and from the inside) more predictable than Ne and Se. Your final comment on your Fi though, is interesting. Your Fi is approaching F from a subjective perspective but with universal claims? Is that what you mean by "cause and effect"?


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I would definitely agree with this and find it true of Te as well. Although it is not nit-picky in the same way as Ti is, Te has its own version of anal. It notices inconcistencies and things that are wrong and things that need to be optimised. This is also, however, the very reason I have qualms about the use of the word "holistic" for F functions. It implies, somewhat (and can be used to state sometimes) that Fs are more big picture thinkers - and I find this invalid. The only reason we can see inconsistencies and deviations is _because_ we see the whole picture. It's not seeing them as details, but as deviations from the "proper" whole picture. Dealing with it as a whole and seeing what doesn't match - rather than what does.


Is it not the case that Te can still see what is missing from the whole picture because it still retains a view of the details and understands the whole as composed of the individual parts thus noticing the anomalies in the pattern? That is how I have been seing it, while I understand F not as individual parts added to the whole, but a number of layers combining to the totality, but where it is not possible to tell what is the contribution of each layer and the concept of the single anomaly isn't even meaningful, unless using T for the analysis.



> Inclusion versus exclusion rather than part versus whole.


And isn't this a perfect example of how to distinguish Te from Ti?



> I find, if anything, Fs just tend to be a bit more more holistic in their _presentation_ of their ideas (which can be both good and bad). To extend that back to thought isn't quite accurate, and is usually paired with a negative judgment or dismissal of Thinkers. Besides which, often when calling F more holistic it is part of the condescending assumption that thinks Ts leave out feeling and Fs include everything. We both leave out stuff, to a degree. If you're excluding everything that disagrees with your values, that is hardly more holistic than excluding the illogical. (Everything, of course, being a generalisation, since we are not incapable of dealing with what we prefer to exclude.)


If holistic is understood in the sense of accounting for all data, then I agree. But I think that holistic can also mean the same thing as I explained above, about the inseparable interrelatedness of everything. Is Te still holistic in that sense?



> Heck, I remember one thread someone started, I think an ENFP, who was trying to interpret what someone said in a conversation. They had said "oh."


Ne+Fi+bad confidence. Ouch! :crazy:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> I think so.
> 
> Pragmatic for Te?


Yes, analytical for Ti and pragmatic for Te was my two favourite descriptions before I started reading this thread. Now I'm not so sure about pragmatic anymore though. Not because it isn't characteristic of Te, but because I'm not sure that it is the word that most fully captures Te.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

penchant said:


> Yes, analytical for Ti and pragmatic for Te was my two favourite descriptions before I started reading this thread. Now I'm not so sure about pragmatic anymore though. Not because it isn't characteristic of Te, but because I'm not sure that it is the word that most fully captures Te.


Well, I don't think "analytical" _fully_ captures Ti either but it is a very telling description and the best we're likely to find. I know what you mean though. And Fe can be pragmatic too. Marshaling? (I know, not a good choice, but something in that spirit...I don't like the sound of "managing")


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Well, I don't think "analytical" _fully_ captures Ti either but it is a very telling description and the best we're likely to find. I know what you mean though. And Fe can be pragmatic too. Marshaling? (I know, not a good choice, but something in that spirit...I don't like the sound of "managing")


Yes Fe is pragmatic, as is Te. But then what is the common description for Ti and Fi? I'm not happy with analytical for Fi... Idealistic? Or does that have too many connotations of "emotional" values?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

penchant said:


> Yes Fe is pragmatic, as is Te. But then what is the common description for Ti and Fi? I'm not happy with analytical for Fi... Idealistic? Or does that have too many connotations of "emotional" values?


Fi and Ti, in conjunction with Ne, predispose NPs (especially INPs) to ontological idealism, yes. But I do think it's misleading. Reflective? (Or would you associate that with Pi?)


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

vinndi said:


> Define principle and application. Personally, I feel like my principles are grounded in F, but my application of those principles are grounded in T. I judge things based upon F, but then I carry those out through T (in the sense that there are times that I check if my principles do follow some sort of logical consistency).


I was trying out the possibility of connecting your introverted/subjective judgment (which I understand as the judgment that is more universal or general, and really concerned with the specific situation) with the word principle, and your extraverted/objective judgment (which I understand as the judgment that is more pragmatic and contextual and related to actual performance of the judgment) as application. If you judge things by your inner moral principles and pragmatic "logic" in combination, that would be Fi+Te by that model. If you on the other hand relate more to internal thinking and pragmatic feeling, then Fe+Ti. And, yes, I am really only writing pretty simple stuff in convoluted ways.



> Though, I don't think the high consideration of others is solely a trait of Fe. It is a value Fi-users can hold strongly, and I do believe Fi-users tend to seek harmony amongst people. It's not manifested the same way as Fe, but it still comes forth. I also believe that my high consideration of others (which I do possess) is simply a value that was engrained in me since the day I was born my parents. The adopting of external values may seem like an Fe trait, but everyone no matter their cognitive functions adopts (or at the very least is affected) by their parents. And in the same way I was wondering if an Fi-user could value logic and thus display the traits of an T, I am wondering if a Fi-user could value the consideration of others and thus have it affect their thoughts like an Fe-user. Though, all of this would only to be to a certain extent. And, I am presenting some pretty speculative things here which are probably bending cognitive functions to my need. So, correct me if I am wrong.


Absolutely. Fi also considers other people. Harmony tends to be a common value among Fi doms. But as you see, it is based in a subjective value, rather than in the objective, which means that it will be more consistent than the rather pragmatic and casuistic Fe user. Then you talk about adopting values. As I understand it, if the process of internalisation is successful, then the adopted values are part of the Fi and Ti system. As for bending functions, everyone uses all functions to some degree. But I don't think it would be possible to use Fi and Fe at the same time, only in sequence, and even then they would likely conflict. I think in most cases it is rather the case that Ti+Fe or Fi+Te is used and mistaken for the other function.



> Now even though I changed my wording to things like "Fi-user" in this post, I am probably a little confused on xxFx types versus F-dom types.


'F type' is normally shorthand for the MBTI codes that contain F. Not all these are Fi-users. xxFJ use Fe. xxFP use Fi. Additionally xxTP use Fi as their third or fourth function. Only IxFP are Fi dominants.



> Finally, it could be that my recent study of arguments and philosophy has trained me to state things in a so-called logical manner, presented in a straightforward way. While I believe I have generally been good at creating arguments, I have refined this skill quite a bit lately. This is not to show evidence that one can change their cognitive functions, but I am simply suggesting that no matter your cognitive function that you are display any kind of trait. Cognitive functions (as I see it) boil down to the foundation of your thoughts, the starting point for any one decision. Primarily F-users would start in a different location than primarily T-uses and build up differently from said location, but they may incorporate the kinds of things their respected other would value.


That makes sense that philosophy would boost Ti use. But I think the difference here is whether your arguments (especially previously) where more analytical arguments or more synthetical arguments (per the technical philosophical definitions). The former is more Ti, the latter is more Te. And you are perfectly right that function use is not the same thing as function preference. The MBTI type is set, and doesn't change, but your actual function use will develop and not least change depending on circumstances, mood, etc. So, I really have no possibility to actually tell your type over the internet, since I don't know if this is your most natural mode, and I have very little possibility to consider your environment and previous experiences that have affected you during your life, and especially childhood and teens. However, I do think that you should try to give more credit to the idea that cognitive functions actually describe fairly well not just the starting point, but the full mental process, admittedly in a generalised and highly abstract way.



> And, I believe myself to be a primarily F-user because it is more natural or instinctive of me to choose think in terms of the subjective and the ethical. I don't like viewing things impersonally. I see the value of it in certain contexts, but I generally become discomforted by it. Though, I am certain I believe what is true is true and what is right is right, there is always an exception to the rule and thus basing things on 'the rule' solely is a mistaken notion.


Besides being primary F, you seem to have good use of both the extraverted and the introverted judging function. Since Ti always goes with Fe and Fi with Te, differentiating between Fi and Fe and so on will help you find your type with more confidence. There is a function test, but reading and introspecting is really a better way to do it.

hth...

:happy:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Fi and Ti, in conjunction with Ne, predispose NPs (especially INPs) to ontological idealism, yes. But I do think it's misleading. Reflective? (Or would you associate that with Pi?)


Reflective doesn't really touch a chord at all with me. It seems to "active" for a perceiving function and to "passive" for a judging function. But I do understand why you think Pi.

What about theoretical for Ji and pragmatical for Je? (theor. and pragm. judgment that is, not to confuse it with any labels on the perceving functions...)


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

penchant said:


> Reflective doesn't really touch a chord at all with me. It seems to "active" for a perceiving function and to "passive" for a judging function. But I do understand why you think Pi.
> 
> What about theoretical for Ji and pragmatical for Je? (theor. and pragm. judgment that is, not to confuse it with any labels on the perceving functions...)


Hmm...to me, theoretical, like idealistic, seems more T-ish, even though it's correct in a technical sense...

Hmm...

Evaluative? (if my unpleasable Ti ever looks like it's just never going to be satisfied please let me know:wink


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Hmm...to me, theoretical, like idealistic, seems more T-ish, even though it's correct in a technical sense...
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Evaluative? (if my Ne ever gets too open ended here and appears to be dithering about forever until my unpleasable Ti is satisfied please let me know:wink


Don't worry... I've got a pretty mean Ti too... :crazy: And there is nothing better than Ne to feed my Ni... :laughing:

Isn't 'evaluative' just as valid for Te and Fe? I think we need something similar to the concept of totalitarian, but with less negative associations...


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

unleashthehounds said:


> Interesting... every so often I get confronted by an INFP I know about my words and actions, I get puzzled about how she drew her conclusion since they're often wrong about my feelings (trying to read an INTP's actions is tricky, lol) But she never really elaborates either.. She might just say 'it doesn't matter'. Is that the process you're describing?


NTPs online strangely seem to complain a lot about NFPs supposedly telling them that they, the NTP, must feel something they claim they do not feel; I experience the reverse more often (being accused of feeling something I do not by NTPs), but I have never been accused of assuming such things myself (especially IRL). I don't tell people how they feel or insist they are experiencing an emotion; if anything, I'm more sensitive to the idea that feelings vary dramatically between individuals & are not easily predicted. However, I may make an internal judgment that discredits their perspective in that instance because it appears to use an inconsistent evaluative process (ie. poor value-based reasoning). Being a P type, it's more of a mental notation open to change, not some final judgment of character. Over time, it could lead to that though, if it happens over & over, especially as I do begin to identify the external validations of my own feeling.

And the process I am describing is noting real, not imagined, inconsistencies in expressions, sometimes enhanced by clear emotional undertones; other times, it's plainly in the wording/action itself. For instance, sometimes peoples values are inconsistent with their behavior, or other times they are inconsistent with each other. Sometimes what they are saying is inconsistent with their "tone", or their tone implies additional information that suggests an impure motive. This hypocrisy is noted as easily as a T type may note something is illogical. I find FPs the most sensitive to integrity of feeling, and Fe types more sensitive to appropriateness.

Everyone does this to a point, though, in their expression & their readings of other people. You can take the same statement & change its meaning by how you say it; that's usually an emotional undercurrent coming through and/or a feeling value. Other times, it's glaringly clear a person is being hypocritical or obscuring a less than noble intent; anyone might see it. Feeling types in general seem more aware of these nuances, especially as they get more & more subtle. The difference in how an FP & FJ gauge these is similar to the difference between a TP & TJ's gauge of what is logical.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

OrangeAppled said:


> NTPs online strangely seem to complain a lot about NFPs supposedly telling them that they, the NTP, must feel something they claim they do not feel;


Well it's not so much telling me what I feel as telling me what I don't feel, like my actions are saying something different.



> I experience the reverse more often (being accused of feeling something I do not by NTPs), but I have never been accused of assuming such things myself (especially IRL). I don't tell people how they feel or insist they are experiencing an emotion


I seem to run into this with Ni users, especially when not dominant Ni. Like they know exactly what my motivations/feelings are, but they are usually wrong.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> NTPs online strangely seem to complain a lot about NFPs supposedly telling them that they, the NTP, must feel something they claim they do not feel; I experience the reverse more often (being accused of feeling something I do not by NTPs), but I have never been accused of assuming such things myself (especially IRL).


I believe it. My ISFP mother complains that I "read too much into people" (ie. tone of voice and all that), constantly insisting I'm just paranoid and there's nothing there. Probably what happens when you mix a strong Ne with a weak Fe...


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

penchant said:


> Don't worry... I've got a pretty mean Ti too... :crazy: And there is nothing better than Ne to feed my Ni... :laughing:
> 
> Isn't 'evaluative' just as valid for Te and Fe? I think we need something similar to the concept of totalitarian, but with less negative associations...


Lol! I'd say more along the line of "stance decider"...


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Lol! I'd say more along the line of "stance decider"...


I'm not sure I got that... :mellow: I'm looking for something to describe the fitting of everything into one big theory.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

penchant said:


> I'm not sure I got that... :mellow: I'm looking for something to describe the fitting of everything into one big theory.


What I meant by that was that Ti and Fi tend to give their users the ultimate stance on things. Like you know how Si and Ni give their users a world view (so I've seen it described; you'd know better)? The ultimate view _of _the world? Well for Ti and Fi it's like the ultimate view _on_ the world. Ti being the ultimate view on the truth of things, and Fi being the ultimate view on the value of things.

Do you see what I'm saying now? I think the "one big theory" really only applies to how it's used in NP's...


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

nevermore said:


> What I meant by that was that Ti and Fi tend to give their users the ultimate stance on things. Like you know how Si and Ni give their users a world view (so I've seen it described; you'd know better)? The ultimate view _of _the world? Well for Ti and Fi it's like the ultimate view _on_ the world. Ti being the ultimate view on the truth of things, and Fi being the ultimate view on the value of things.
> 
> Do you see what I'm saying now? I think the "one big theory" really only applies to how it's used in NP's...


Yes, thanks! And "one big theory" is probably really even just INTP... I don't see INFP as really systematising in that sense. But they do have the "ultimate view" on things... true. It really fits well with how I have been thinking about P having a hard time understanding other people's opinions at times.


----------

