# The T/F divide in genders has more to do with Te/Ti



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_dizzycactus_, wow, seriously? This is degrading further and further to the point where I'll soon consider you a pro-rape culture advocate.


Soon I'm going to consider you a pro-rainbow-coloured-lizard culture advocate. See? I can make up cultures too. 



> Men are not only controlled by their sexual desires, you know, and women do not just exist for the pleasure of men.


Really? Then why do they keep bringing me sandwiches? 
On a more serious note, there is a difference between control and motivation. Everything we do ultimately has an instinctual source. By definition, they are the basis upon which our motivations are determined. 


> Men and women are selective for several reasons, and they are selective about different things.


That's sexist! Kill the infidel! But of course that must all just be socialisation... 
lol


> I know of a guy IRL who says he has no problem getting women whatsoever but because he desires this specific and very particular woman, he's been single for 5 years.


Yes, it's called limerence. It corresponds to one of two male sexual strategies. The first is to spread seed as far as possible and hope some of the offspring survive, the second is to invest all resources into one particular offspring, so it has a better chance of survival. This is what motivates long term pair bonding. In such a situation, the male is more picky. But the important distinction is, that males have the first strategy where females generally do not, and thus, there will be a very noticeable trend within the male population to try and utilize such a strategy. 


> Sexual and romantic desire are complex things in every individual. Part of what we desire is biological, part of what we desire is socialized,


Oh, so you agree with me. Our instincts define our unconscious sexual goals, socialisation influences how we achieve those goals. 


> part of what we desire we do simply because we are who we are as individuals. Did you know that men find penises attractive? Probably not.


So, first you emphasise that one can not generalise about sexual desire due to individuality, and then you go on to make a generalised statement about how men find penises attractive? 
You're missing the table for the wood-grain, anyway. Everyone's eyes are different, right? Yet we basically all have two eyes. I am talking about trends with simple, common sources, you are trying to obscure anything meaningful behind focusing on small details and exceptions that have little to do with the whole. 



> You're again reducing complex issues by ascribing them overly simplistic explanations.


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. "



> Also, as for your logic... It leaves something to be desired.


your opinion. You display incredible ego here by thinking you are able to claim some sort of external judging authority on logical integrity. I think your logic makes about as much sense as a cow eating steak. 



> Just because you've studied physics and programming doesn't make you smart or even logical.


Um, I had to use logic to, you know, do stuff in them. To make a computer program, I have to enter logic, and it has to work. My ability to reason and use logic is proven to at least a certain minimum standard, because that was what was required to accomplish anything on those courses. You may have grounds to declare that I am not really really logical, but you cannot claim the complete opposite, that I am very illogical. Not to mention, that I have before won competitions within the course for independent thinking. Being given a problem unrelated to any course material, and having to be the first one to work it out correctly. Well, how would you measure logic and intelligence objectively anyway? Do you subscribe to IQ? I score at a rarity of 1 in 700 for that, if so. I beat the national schools debating champion in the only school debate I ever took part in. Hate to resort to any of this, but maybe there is something there that might actually mean something to you. 


> I don't think I'm overly logical at times either.


Ah, another thing we agree on.


> Being an MBTI T doesn't guarantee one to be logical or smart.


I thought I was an Fi user? Of course, my INFP friend would have found that hilarious, but still. Apparently people can't distinguish between Fe expression in the face of frustrating lack of comprehension, and Fi. Because it's _so_ characteristic for an Fi dom to take a controversial idea, and then argue about it in the face of overwhelming unpopularity for an extended period of time, isn't it? lool. 


> The fact that you don't even bother to respond to my counter-arguments seriously but make up an entirely new post suggests that you got nothing to truly offer, and instead you choose to create a strawman which is easier for you to attack. So much for logic. Nevermind those cute ad hominems up there.


There has to be something tangible for me to address, before I can address it, first. Would you respond to someone blowing raspberries at you? 
You ad hom comment amuses me. You don't seem to understand what it is. You see, ad hominem is the practice of attacking someone's arguments on the basis of personal critique and assumptions. What I did, was criticise your character on the basis of your arguments. What _you _did, and others, was try to dismiss my arguments on the basis of assumptions about my character. You see the difference? Yours was ad hom, mine was not. 



> You're clearly not interested in engaging with new information or even seeking new information but rather only seeks that which reinforces your point of view.


Your issue is, you take a theory and then look for things that confirm it. I look at what's happening around me, and then look to explain it. How do you think I came to every take on board any of my theories, without being open to new theories and information? You know, I'd like to believe your point of view. It's a very easy point of view to believe, really. It's popular, supported by society, and paints a much more optimistic view of how things are. It's just that, I can't. I can only believe what I truly think is true. I am incapable of buying into anything that seems idiotic, to me. 




> One should not have to cite references when claiming that elephants are grey


That was my point. 



> So no, I'm clearly not making up or cherrypicking my sources. And you have yet to present yours. Go ahead and feel butthurt.


You don't have to make up your sources, feminist sources tend to make up their data by themselves, so you don't have to. 
Again, why should a point of view that is unpopular enough that no-one will ever fund for research, be expected to have as much research done about it? Lets face it, lots of societies throughout the years have held highly flawed views, and the majority of the population will believe it. I mentioned Nazi Germany. I believe your response was "this isn't Nazi Germany luls". For someone supposedly who studied formal logic theory, you sure don't seem to understand why that argument is completely invalid. Do you think the population at the time believed what they were doing was wrong? Imagine if, during that time, in that society, someone compared it to a different society that was similarly bad. Then, they would say "but we're not that culture". Completely missing the point. The point, if you missed it, is that popularity does not make a theory correct or right, that large populations can believe something deeply flawed, that social engineering and mass censorship and propaganda can and does happen on a large scale throughout societies, and can be subtle enough that people do not realise it is happening, and that unpopular opinions which may actually be correct, will not have a platform, by merit of being unpopular, to stand upon such as to be accepted by those who have already bought into the popular opinion. I already know that many feminist studies have been deliberately twisted to produce false statistics, and that these statistics have made it into official government figures and have had a heavy influence over public consciousness, that feminist funding depends on making problems seem as big as possible, and I know that men face a shocking array of very serious issues, all of which have been directly caused by feminism, some of which you even admitted to be true, but just brushed off because of some misguided belief that feminism is going to turn around and fix what it caused, as if it has any reason or sign of doing so. 

Now, I've got to go write and test various types of software that I should have done yesterday. Sometimes I feel obliged to keep arguing, it's an INTP trait I guess, but I really need to get stuff done.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

this still doesn't account for women who are more promiscuous though, and men who are less. or women who don't desire to have children. because those people do exist.

i never personally said anything comes down to pure socialization, nor do i think anyone else did, but i could be wrong. i think it's a combination of that and evolution, but i definitely think it's a combination of both.

other than that i think you're dead wrong on the misandry but i am not going to argue with you. you're young. some of us and our mothers remember when it wasn't like this. like when my mom (who made more money than my dad and had higher education than him) had to have her father co-sign on a house she was buying in the 70s, when a man wouldn't have been required to do so.

i can't speak to the science part! i'm an NF. but being an NF, i don't believe science is the be-all end-all either. science is constantly disproved. and using science solely to explain human behavior is a very frightening concept to a lot of people. it makes me think of eugenics and whatnot and pigeonholes people way way way too much. not to mention, it's just stifling.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> this still doesn't account for women who are more promiscuous though, and men who are less. or women who don't desire to have children. because those people do exist.
> 
> i never personally said anything comes down to pure socialization, nor do i think anyone else did, but i could be wrong. i think it's a combination of that and evolution, but i definitely think it's a combination of both.
> 
> ...


Society has expected different things from different genders, and placed them into different roles, historically. But I refuse to see that as "oppression". Oppressed classes have always been forced to work for other's benefit. They have a poor quality of life and generally die earlier. Historically, that has been more true for men than women. But I do not pretend that was direct oppression, either. My reaction is in defense to modern attitudes, not offensive. 

But, socialisation can have a large effect on how sexually can become expressed. The underlying goal for sexuality, regardless of environment, is to seek a method to successfully spread your genetic traits. This actually leads to different determinations of what is attractive across cultures. In a culture in which monogamy is enforced, and there is little room for promiscuity, the stable provider type guy was more attractive, because that was the most promising option for successful procreation. In current society, guys that sleep with lots of women are more attractive, because they will pass on those traits presumably to their children, and those who procreate with lots of people are genetically successful. This doesn't mean everyone must follow such a course, but as a general trend, it is undeniable. Sometimes, intellectualisation can get in the way. For example, I have had several opportunities for sex, and have turned them down, do not seek them, because I choose, consciously, to invest only in a woman I can connect with deeply, and will love. Some individuals will not follow instinct, and will deviate from the trends, but the trends happen regardless.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

i understand all the science stuff. i just really don't think it's humane or helpful anymore in the modern world, for the most part. 

as for men dying earlier- i've recently read that men die earlier because they don't take enough preventative health measures. the other thing i read was that males die earlier to balance things out because more boys are born than girls. i don't think men die of horrible oppression.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> i understand all the science stuff. i just really don't think it's humane or helpful anymore in the modern world, for the most part.
> 
> as for men dying earlier- i've recently read that men die earlier because they don't take enough preventative health measures. the other thing i read was that males die earlier to balance things out because more boys are born than girls. i don't think men die of horrible oppression.


I didn't say that, either. Just that, if I had to choose the gender closer to being oppressed, I would have more reason to choose men than women. I point that out, because of how ridiculous it is for women to constantly say they are being oppressed by us. And I point it out, because a lot of very nasty and misandric things are going on in modern culture, that need addressed.
But, what do you mean that males die earlier to balance things out? You think it is a biological mechanism? That seems insulting, and ignoring the real causes. Men have a later retirement age. Working to a longer age contributes to more stress, which lowers life expectancy. Less money is spent on treatment and research of male-specific diseases. Males have to work the really physically demanding, dangerous, and unhealthy jobs, because women don't want them. I think these should be addressed before we just assume we're biologically meant to die earlier. 

And, if something is true, it is always helpful. I suppose that isn't really part of your own values, as an NF. But we can't build things on lies, and expect them to function well.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> I didn't say that, either. Just that, if I had to choose the gender closer to being oppressed, I would have more reason to choose men than women. I point that out, because of how ridiculous it is for women to constantly say they are being oppressed by us. And I point it out, because a lot of very nasty and misandric things are going on in modern culture, that need addressed.
> But, what do you mean that males die earlier to balance things out? You think it is a biological mechanism? That seems insulting, and ignoring the real causes. Men have a later retirement age. Working to a longer age contributes to more stress, which lowers life expectancy. Less money is spent on treatment and research of male-specific diseases. Males have to work the really physically demanding, dangerous, and unhealthy jobs, because women don't want them. I think these should be addressed before we just assume we're biologically meant to die earlier.
> 
> And, if something is true, it is always helpful. I suppose that isn't really part of your own values, as an NF. But we can't build things on lies, and expect them to function well.


men are not more oppressed when young girls in the middle east get acid thrown on them for trying to get an education. but keep trying to convince me, sure.

i agree that BOTH sexes are oppressed, due to an outmoded _patriarchal_ judeo-christian system, but women are more systematically and dangerously oppressed. men's oppression sucks though and i am against it, but it isn't worse _overall _and it isn't feminism's fault.

i didn't say men are meant to die earlier. i read that once-it was a scientific theory, not mine! probably another NTs, since y'all are the scientists. as an NF, i'm not concerned about who dies when, i'm more concerned about my short time i have here on this earth and how i can make the best of it and maybe improve it a little.

most regular old medical tests were done on men to years, not taking women and how their bodies react differently, at all. in fact i think the majority still are.

as for lies, i hardly think all these women are lying about the crap we've been dealing with for centuries. that's like me as a white person telling a minority that they really don't have it hard in this country, that they have it as good, if not better than i. which is ridiculous, plus i would never try to speak for something i really can't understand because i haven't lived it.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> men are not more oppressed when young girls in the middle east get acid thrown on them for trying to get an education. but keep trying to convince me, sure.


There are more women in the middle east in education than men. 
Empowering Women, Developing Society: Female Education in the Middle East and North Africa - Population Reference Bureau
Violent acts have always been isolated events, carried out by individuals, and little, if anything, to do with systemic discrimination. For every example of female-specific violence, I could list male cases. Males get their penises cut off. However, it isn't these isolated acts that mean anything, it is the cultural reaction to these incidents that determine true attitudes. In the case of a males having his penis cut off, the woman was acquitted, and appeared on chat shows in which it was made out to be a joke. You can't be serious, if you think some mentally deranged individual committing a violent act is nearly the same as an entire nation being ok with it, even finding it funny. That is what I call real discrimination. 



> i agree that BOTH sexes are oppressed, due to an outmoded _patriarchal_ judeo-christian system, but women are more systematically and dangerously oppressed. men's oppression sucks though and i am against it, but it isn't worse _overall _and it isn't feminism's fault.


Dangerously oppressed? 98% of all work-place deaths are even now, men. Men died in huge numbers in battles. What, exactly, was so dangerous about being at home? Men are even the victims of more general violent acts, such as assault, than women. When you take into account rape that occurs in prison, men are even much more commonly the victims of rape than women. 



> i didn't say men are meant to die earlier. i read that once-it was a scientific theory, not mine! probably another NTs, since y'all are the scientists. as an NF, i'm not concerned about who dies when, i'm more concerned about my short time i have here on this earth and how i can make the best of it and maybe improve it a little.
> 
> most regular old medical tests were done on men to years, not taking women and how their bodies react differently, at all. in fact i think the majority still are.


That's a nebulous and vague claim. What do you even mean by that? Anything that is biologically sex-specific, such as hormone level tests, take into account sex differences, otherwise, it'd be pretty retarded. 



> as for lies, i hardly think all these women are lying about the crap we've been dealing with for centuries.





> which is ridiculous, plus i would never try to speak for something i really can't understand because i haven't lived it.


lol...


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

tell you what, here's a series of issues caused almost exclusively by feminism. See if you can still justify the idea that feminism isn't the problem, after reading them. 



> I need men’s rights because when she changed her mind the next day, I went to jail for 5 years;
> 
> 
> I need men’s rights because I was the victim of abuse but nobody believed me;
> ...


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

dizzycactus said:


> There are more women in the middle east in education than men.
> Empowering Women, Developing Society: Female Education in the Middle East and North Africa - Population Reference Bureau


According to your link, in the Middle East and North Africa illiteracy among women is higher than among men and fewer women than men are enrolled in schools or universities. It states the opposite of what you claim.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> That's a nebulous and vague claim. What do you even mean by that? Anything that is biologically sex-specific, such as hormone level tests, take into account sex differences, otherwise, it'd be pretty retarded.


i will only reply to this, since the rest is complete BS. REGULAR, non-sex-specific tests were mostly done on men and still are _from what i have read_. i didn't personally do the tests themselves, so i have to rely on scientific studies that are released for _reading_. this is not _my _claim. here does it make more sense this way: "women are underrepresented in biomedical tests."

Women aren't properly represented in scientific studies - Slate Magazine

it's as common knowledge as is the fact that the world is a much more dangerous place for women _overall_. i am not trying to convince you otherwise though, and i'm done with this thread  it's way off-topic now anyway. this quote pretty much sums up actual reality, as opposed to the reality you live in:
_
A woman's worst nightmare? That's pretty easy. Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them." When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."_


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Cocachin said:


> According to your link, in the Middle East and North Africa illiteracy among women is higher than among men and fewer women than men are enrolled in schools or universities. It states the opposite of what you claim.


oh. that's strange, everything thing else says otherwise. 
Mideast women beat men in education, lose out at work - CNN.com

anyway, the middle east is hardly relevant to conditions in western society. There's a lot of stuff going on there that's messed up.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> i will only reply to this, since the rest is complete BS. REGULAR, non-sex-specific tests were mostly done on men and still are _from what i have read_. i didn't personally do the tests themselves, so i have to rely on scientific studies that are released for _reading_. this is not _my _claim. here does it make more sense this way: "women are underrepresented in biomedical tests."
> 
> Women aren't properly represented in scientific studies - Slate Magazine
> 
> ...


First off, rejecting my arguments because they are "BS" is lazy, and essentially admitting you lack the capability to discount them. 
Secondly, that quote says nothing about conditions. It just says women are more afraid of being killed. That means nothing. I am afraid of having a heart attack, yet I have never had one. If we go back to evolutionary psychology again, it is natural for women to be more fearful and cautious than men, because they are more physically vulnerable. This says nothing about whether or not these fears are justified.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

please actually _read_ what i wrote. women are afraid of *MEN* killing them. men are afraid of women *laughing* at them.

women are not naturally more cautious and fearful because of physical vulnerability. they are more cautious because they have to often times be afraid predatory men.

to clarify, again, that's: *killed vs. being laughed at.*

unsubscribing and done! unless someone gets this more back on topic


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

OK, I just read the second link about the Middle East and all it says is that at universities (i.e. among those who have the money and time to attend, the upper middle class and upper class of these developing countries) there are more women than men - and that one of the probable reasons is that there are far more men than women on the labor market and that the traditional role system means that men have to work and women become homemakers as soon as they graduate. Very archaic, traditional societies.

The first link also said there were more women than men _at universities_. That is true. BUT you talked about "education" not "universities" and in countries where few people ever see the inside of a university the fact that fewer girls than boys are allowed to go to school and and fewer women than men know how to read and write is much more relevant because it concerns a broader share of society.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

mirrorghost said:


> please actually _read_ what i wrote. women are afraid of *MEN* killing them. men are afraid of women *laughing* at them.


Again, what they are afraid of is irrelevant to actual fact. 
And, what is this from, again? One person's opinion? 
You know what, I think I feel like a woman raped me. Do something about it. 
Oh wait, a feeling isn't actually grounds for doing something, because it's subjective, unmeasurable, and not in itself demonstrative of any actual action or situation being, in actuality, real. 



> women are not naturally more cautious and fearful because of physical vulnerability. they are more cautious because they have to often times be afraid predatory men.


Again, men are victims to violent crime much more so than women, and have higher death rates due to it. So, men also have to be cautious, even more so, infact. They simply do not fear it so much, because it isn't ingrained so much into them via evolution. 



> to clarify, again, that's: *killed vs. being laughed at.*


And to clarify again, a *feeling.* A baseless, unjustified feeling, and one person's point of view. 


> unsubscribing and done! unless someone gets this more back on topic


And how will you know unless you're subscribed or checking?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Cocachin said:


> OK, I just read the second link about the Middle East and all it says is that at universities (i.e. among those who have the money and time to attend, the upper middle class and upper class of these developing countries) there are more women than men - and that one of the probable reasons is that there are far more men than women on the labor market and that the traditional role system means that men have to work and women become homemakers as soon as they graduate. Very archaic, traditional societies.
> 
> The first link also said there were more women than men _at universities_. That is true. BUT you talked about "education" not "universities" and in countries where few people ever see the inside of a university the fact that fewer girls than boys are allowed to go to school and and fewer women than men know how to read and write is much more relevant because it concerns a broader share of society.


ok, but, in a society in which working is deemed a requirement for men, and an optional extra for women, who do you think should have the priority for education, when education is often essential to get a job? That's just how things have been, traditionally, and for that reason. Modern technology has made more female-friendly working environments, and an easier to manage home-life, but poor regions still depend more on the traditional family structure and roles, because it has to.


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

OK, so I went on a Wikipedia spree...


If you are more interested in the US:










Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, 2009










US Gender Pay gap, by industry, 2009



> Any given raw wage gap can be decomposed into an explained part due to differences in characteristics such as education, hours worked, work experience, and occupation, and an unexplained part which is typically attributed to discrimination.[SUP][16][/SUP] The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee shows that "as explained inequities decrease, the unexplained pay gap remains unchanged.[SUP][17][/SUP] Cornell University economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn stated that while the overall size of the wage gap has decreased somewhat over time, the proportion of the gap that is unexplained by human capital variables is increasing.[SUP][18][/SUP]
> Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the United States Secretary of Commerce Rebecca M. Blank found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.[SUP][19]
> 
> [/SUP]By looking at a very specific and detailed sample of workers (graduates of the University of Michigan Law School) economists Robert Wood, Mary Corcoran and Paul Courant were able to examine the wage gap while matching men and women for many other possible explanatory factors - not only occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce, but also childcare, average hours worked, grades while in college, and other factors. Even after accounting for all that, women still are paid only 81.5% of what men "with similar demographic characteristics, family situations, work hours, and work experience" are paid.[SUP][20][/SUP]




As for fear of violence:










A map of the world showing countries by level of women's physical security, 2011.



> Women are much more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. In the United States, in 2005, 1181 women, in comparison with 329 men, were killed by their intimate partners.[SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]





> Laws on domestic violence vary by country. While it is generally outlawed in the Western World, this not the case in many developing countries. For instance, in 2010, the United Arab Emirates's Supreme Court has ruled that a man has the right to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he doesn't leave physical marks.[SUP][6][/SUP] The social acceptability of domestic violence also differs by country. While in most developed countries domestic violence is considered unacceptable by most people, in many regions of the world the views are different: according to a UNICEF survey, the percentage of _women_ aged 15–49 who think that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances is, for example: 90% in Jordan, 85.6% in Guinea, 85.4% in Zambia, 85% in Sierra Leone, 81.2% in Laos, 81% in Ethiopia.[SUP][7][/SUP]





> Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men.[SUP][116][/SUP][SUP][118][/SUP][SUP][119][/SUP][SUP][120][/SUP] In addition, there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner.[SUP][119][/SUP][SUP][120][/SUP][SUP][121][/SUP]
> According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1% of women and 7.4% of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.[SUP][122][/SUP] A 2010 survey of over 21,000 residents of England and Wales by the UK Home Office showed that 7% of women and 4% of men were victims of domestic abuse in the last year.[SUP][123][/SUP] A study in the United States found that women were 13 times more likely than men to seek medical attention due to injuries related to spousal abuse.[SUP][124][/SUP]
> Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[SUP][125][/SUP] and 1181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.[SUP][126][/SUP][SUP][127][/SUP] In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010.[SUP][128][/SUP] In 2008, in France, 156 women and 27 men were killed by their intimate partner.[SUP][129][/SUP]





> In the United States, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44.[SUP][220][/SUP]





> *Domestic violence in United States,* experienced by 22-25% of American women in their lifetime, is part of a dynamic of control and oppression, often with multiple forms of physical and non-physical abuse. 60% of Native American women are physically assaulted in their lifetime by a partner or spouse. Women are nearly three times more likely to be killed by their partner than men and more likely to be killed during pregnancy. More than 50% of homeless women were subject to domestic violence.
> Men are also subject to domestic violence, such as in situational couple violence, but are less likely to be physically hurt. Intimate terrorism, an ongoing, complicated use of control, power and abuse is what generally results in most of the violence against women





> The United States was one of the countries identified by a United Nations study with a high rate of domestic violence resulting in death during pregnancy.[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][nb 3][/SUP]





> 1 in 33 men and 1 in 6 women have experienced an attempted or completed rape against a partner. More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP]





> Dating violence is often a precursor to domestic violence. 22% of high school girls and 32% of college women experienced dating violence in a 2000 study. 20.6% of women experienced two or more types of dating violence and 8.3% of women experienced rape, stalking or physical aggression while dating.[SUP][33][/SUP]





> The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999) estimated that 91% of U.S. rape victims are female and 9% are male, with 99% of the offenders being male.[SUP][8][/SUP] Rape by strangers is usually less common than rape by persons the victim knows,[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP]





> The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of rapists are male.[SUP][113][/SUP]


On the number of false rape reports:



> The largest and most rigorous study was commissioned by the British Home Office and based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. However, the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. Closer analysis of this category applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation and excluding cases where the application of the cases where confirmation of the designation was uncertain reduced the percentage of false reports to 3%. The researchers concluded that "one cannot take all police designations at face value" and that "[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors." Moreover, they added:
> The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasized (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of 'insufficient evidence'), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.[SUP][124][/SUP][SUP][125][/SUP]​ Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with the 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.[SUP][126][/SUP]


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

double


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, so let me get this straight: men rejecting feeling has more to do with Te than Ti, even though Jung calls Fi more feminine? That doesn't make sense - you reject feeling because of it being inferior, not because thinking is dominant (I mean, Jung even says that dominant thinking will let feeling in as long as it can support it). This doesn't make sense at all. I mean, Jung calls both Fe and Fi feminine (probably because he was an inferior Fe type projecting his anima onto women, so honestly, I'm not sure he was fully accurate there), so why would it matter which is coming into the equation? I mean, then, he says something I totally don't really understand, frankly, about Te doms being embodied by a woman or something (don't ask me what Jung meant by that, because I have noooo clue), but this doesn't point to a gender divide, anyway. *shrugs* He seems to point to inferior Fe types having women fears and issues, though (once again, most certainly a generalization, but I'm just going off of what he said).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LOL @JungyesMBTIno the timing of your post is absolutely hilarious.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Can't be arsed to go through the studies atm. I have coldpress juice anyway. I'll assume they're valid, but still maintain a vague suspicion towards trusting other's conclusions, when data has before been twisted out of context. 
But I'm willing to admit there might be more stuff going on globally than I am aware of. Having said that, I maintain still that there are very serious issues confronting men in our current culture that have been produced by a malicious and/or uncaring crusade of feminism, and they need addressed badly.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

LeaT said:


> LOL @_JungyesMBTIno_ the timing of your post is absolutely hilarious.


by the way, my closest friends are and have generally been female. I feel like I can express my feelings towards them easier. That is one of the strengths of women, they tend to have a more open nurturing and caring nature. Not to say they actually are more caring, but they are much more expressive and comfortable with dealing with those kinds of things, on average.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> by the way, my closest friends are and have generally been female. I feel like I can express my feelings towards them easier. That is one of the strengths of women, they tend to have a more open nurturing and caring nature. Not to say they actually are more caring, but they are much more expressive and comfortable with dealing with those kinds of things, on average.


No one made any assumptions about your friends. Women can be as much feminist haters as men can, although men tend to be moreso on average for a logical reason that feminism usually doesn't challenge the identity of women as it does to some men. 

But suggesting that women are in a conspiracy is really taking things too far. Feminism is not the root of all evil.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

LeaT said:


> No one made any assumptions about your friends. Women can be as much feminist haters as men can, although men tend to be moreso on average for a logical reason that feminism usually doesn't challenge the identity of women as it does to some men.
> 
> But suggesting that women are in a conspiracy is really taking things too far. Feminism is not the root of all evil.


I never said they are in a conspiracy, that would imply they fully know what they do, and why. Social engineering is more like herding sheep. People are given a push in the desired direction with various tools, and they go. 

But I see you are quite a bigot and a hateful person, anyway, to feel the need to categorise me with your own stereotypes and preconceptions just for disagreeing with you, so I'm done paying attention to you.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> /snipped/


Let's us go through this point by point and address some of your assumptions.

1. "A woman would want to only become impregnated by the right man/There is no particular disadvantage to a man sleeping with as many women as possible."
Response A: There is no particular reason why the right man to impregnate would be the same as the right man to form a social coupling bond. Women have the same capacity to sleep with multiple people and often do. Jerry Springer anyone? I'm sorry dizzycactus but you are not the father. 
Response B: HIV/Chlamydia/Syphilis/Gonorrhea/Herpes/Hepatitis etc. Not to mention there are some strange people out there, might lose a kidney if you meet with the wrong woman. All of these are biological disadvantages that would curtail spreading the genes around due to discomfort and in some cases death. *Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Information from CDC *for more on these problems. Before you say that these were not around during the evolution of our species. There is no hard evidence to say they were but as with most anthropology it's reasoned speculation for the most part. Given that there is evidence of it in the early cultures with historical records it's safe to assume it originated roughly around or before that point. *sexually transmitted diseases: a brief history: Information from Answers.com


*2. "Most men, given the opportunity, would be having sex with at least 2 different women a day. Women, on the other hand, have this opportunity."

Response: As far as I know men are just as selective about partners as women. And I challenge you to prove a *majority* of men want this on a daily basis in actuality. Let's analyze this for a moment. Women never have trouble finding sex as a group. That's your point. Which women? All of them? Just 50% or so of them... less due to their perceived sexual viability? You are making a significant error by using blanket statements in this way. You are falling into the trap of mistaking "common knowledge", something little different than hearsay, as truth. It's a weak usage of Te. But it's struggling for life so I'll let it keep grasping at straws like this. Makes no difference to me.

3. "If a woman goes up to a man and offers sex, 9 times out of 10 or more, he will comply. A woman could be having as much sex as she wants, and yet she does not do so, *because the emphasis is on finding a worthy mate, not mating with as many people as possible.*"

You have proof that this figure of 9 out of 10 is not made up? Are you sure? I know this may seem crazy but there are men, hetero men, who don't want to have sex with certain women for various *socialization* issues. Or lack of enough sexual attraction. Or better prospects. Or any damn reason at all. This isn't even an exception, it happens pretty regularly. At the office, at home (family and adopted family are usually off limits)... No shortage of men turning women down. Less often but that can be explained by societal pressures to normally let men make the first move. I've made many a first move because I'm not patient enough to wait around and I suck at figuring out the social cues of romantic attraction. So, unless I have a string of bad luck/attraction to gay guys 9 times out of 10 I should be getting laid. 


Last thing: No one has of yet denied that evolution has shaped us. They just deny the *particular assumptions* you have put forth for consideration being *solely* or *mostly* evolution.




dizzycactus said:


> I never said they are in a conspiracy, that would imply they fully know what they do, and why. Social engineering is more like herding sheep. People are given a push in the desired direction with various tools, and they go.
> 
> But I see you are quite *a bigot and a hateful person*, anyway, to feel the need to categorise me with your own stereotypes and preconceptions just for disagreeing with you, so* I'm done paying attention to you.*


For our viewers at home @_dizzycactus_ just intimated feminists, not sure if he meant both women and men or only women, are little more than animals. Not capable of reasoning on their own.

How can you argue the Fi, bro? Look at all those feeling judgments, subjective feeling judgments at that.

No one was stereotyping you. No one was being hateful towards you. No one is bigoted towards you, your gender, your identity as a male. The ideas are what matter here. I find your words uncalled for in this case.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_Elyasis_ it's the poor use of Te that made me feel INTJ was probably less likely, and when actually asked to back up his assumptions with Te, he ignored or refused those requests, dismissing it with Fi judgements.

Anyway @dizzycactus, whatever dude, feel free to type however you want, but you might want to take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself where your mental health is going, where you are going as a whole with life and also do your research a bit about the cognitive functions and personality type. 

For your own sanity I think it would be better for you to find out your actual type though, because INTP doesn't strike me as very likely considering this little argument we've had here. It's sufficient enough to look at our different rhetorical styles to figure that out, and it's very very unlikely I'm a mistype.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> Let's us go through this point by point and address some of your assumptions.
> 
> 1. "A woman would want to only become impregnated by the right man/There is no particular disadvantage to a man sleeping with as many women as possible."
> Response A: There is no particular reason why the right man to impregnate would be the same as the right man to form a social coupling bond. Women have the same capacity to sleep with multiple people and often do. Jerry Springer anyone? I'm sorry dizzycactus but you are not the father.


When women favour promiscuity, they do so in a different manner, and for different reasons. When males are promiscuous, the emphasis is on quantity. When women are promiscuous, the emphasis is on quality. This is because, in females, more viable offspring are produced if she sleeps with a number of men. Presumably, it selects for the "strongest" or most fertile/mobile sperm. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12872886

When it comes to forming a bond... 
Males with lower amounts of testosterone, and thus fertility, strength, etc, tend to make the best fathers. However, they tend to be less desirable for mating. The ideal situation for females is to become impregnated by desirable men, and then form a bond with a better father, who can provide resources and care. 
This was controlled by successful societies, traditionally, by social pressure and consequences to not have sex before marriage. Now, however, this happens often. They sleep with guys, the guys run off on them, eventually they learn to seek a guy who is "better", who then ends up raising her kids. 



> Response B: HIV/Chlamydia/Syphilis/Gonorrhea/Herpes/Hepatitis etc. Not to mention there are some strange people out there, might lose a kidney if you meet with the wrong woman. All of these are biological disadvantages that would curtail spreading the genes around due to discomfort and in some cases death. *Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Information from CDC *for more on these problems. Before you say that these were not around during the evolution of our species. There is no hard evidence to say they were but as with most anthropology it's reasoned speculation for the most part. Given that there is evidence of it in the early cultures with historical records it's safe to assume it originated roughly around or before that point. *sexually transmitted diseases: a brief history: Information from Answers.com*


You may notice, that there are no STDs that kill quickly. It is in the favour of a disease to have a negligible effect on one's ability to procreate. The ones that killed people off quickly, did not spread. I think the rapid spread of things like HIV is testament to their lack of significance in selecting against promiscuity. Also, the idea of viruses etc is an intellectual one, not so relevant to instincts. We have sex to procreate, right? And yet, even with a condom, something that makes it pointless in such a context, we still do it. Instincts did not evolve completely in sync with more intellectual rationalisations. If you're having sex, the part of you that manages that stuff thinks you are procreating. 



> Y2. "Most men, given the opportunity, would be having sex with at least 2 different women a day. Women, on the other hand, have this opportunity."
> 
> Response: As far as I know





> And I challenge you to prove


hypocritical much? 


> a *majority* of men want this on a daily basis in actuality. Let's analyze this for a moment. Women never have trouble finding sex as a group. That's your point. Which women? All of them? Just 50% or so of them... less due to their perceived sexual viability?


Actually, at least 99% of them, probably more. Men can be selective in selecting long term partners, but they are not so for just sex. Some girls might be so ugly that men will not even consider sex with them, but they are a percentile or less. 
Here's an experiment you can do, if you want to see for yourself. Make an online dating profile with an average looking woman. State that you are looking for sex, and are not fussy. You will get dozens of messages. Now try with a woman of below average attractiveness. Slightly less messages, but still lots. I know a girl who would get rejected by every guy she was ever interested in. She put this down to, in her opinion, and from what they said, being ugly. She made a profile, just looking for a relationship, and still got 8 messages in the first day. Mostly looking for sex. This is recreatable, and guaranteed to be provide consistent results, provided a moderate population density area. When it comes down to it, practically every woman will be able to find a sex partner within 10 minutes of entering a club, if she desires. 



> You are making a significant error by using blanket statements in this way. You are falling into the trap of mistaking "common knowledge", something little different than hearsay, as truth.


Have you ever read that article on INTPs, where it says that, when we observe a cause that consistently results in a certain consequence, we have found a truth? 



> 3. "If a woman goes up to a man and offers sex, 9 times out of 10 or more, he will comply. A woman could be having as much sex as she wants, and yet she does not do so, *because the emphasis is on finding a worthy mate, not mating with as many people as possible.*"
> 
> You have proof that this figure of 9 out of 10 is not made up? Are you sure?



It doesn't have to be exact, it's just there to make a point. Even if it were only 5/10, after soliciting two men for sex, a given woman would have a 75% chance of achieving it. Usually it doesn't take two guys. 



> I know this may seem crazy but there are men, hetero men, who don't want to have sex with certain women for various *socialization* issues.


That says nothing. There are men with three nipples. You have to give context to these facts, not just state them in vacuum. Anyway, even socialisation interferes, it still doesn't discount the idea of our desires and motivations, underneath it, being fueled by other sources. For example, personally I have rejected women I find sexually attractive, because of an intellectual ideal I have formed about "love". However, I still masturbate about twice a day. This represents an urge to mate with many and varied partners, even if, intellectually, I decide not to. 


> Or lack of enough sexual attraction.


very rare.


> Or better prospects.


unlikely for a man to have so many prospects that he can't spare a few minutes for a "lesser" one lol. 


> Or any damn reason at all. This isn't even an exception, it happens pretty regularly. At the office, at home (family and adopted family are usually off limits)...


Defensive psychological mechanism to avoid inbreeding. 



> No shortage of men turning women down. Less often but that can be explained by societal pressures to normally let men make the first move. I've made many a first move because I'm not patient enough to wait around and I suck at figuring out the social cues of romantic attraction. So, unless I have a string of bad luck/attraction to gay guys 9 times out of 10 I should be getting laid.


Good, nice to see girls actually approaching for once. 
The rule does not apply in this case, because you would have to be approaching guys at random, rather than those you judge to be only the most attractive, and also you would have to be soliciting them purely for sex, and make that known. They would also have to be single for it to be valid, otherwise they have a pair bond they may not want to break. 





> For our viewers at home @_dizzycactus_ just intimated feminists, not sure if he meant both women and men or only women, are little more than animals. Not capable of reasoning on their own.


They are animals, we all are. We all are motivated by instincts. I never said we couldn't reason. 



> How can you argue the Fi, bro? Look at all those feeling judgments, subjective feeling judgments at that.


Show me a feeling judgement I have made here.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> LOL @_JungyesMBTIno_ the timing of your post is absolutely hilarious.


LOL. Why is that (not to say Jung was talking about every inferior F type possible to the imagination)?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> LOL. Why is that (not to say Jung was talking about every inferior F type possible to the imagination)?


it was a convenient and immature way to insult me or make insinuations about my character. It does, however, rely on me being an inferior F, though. Be nice if they could make up their minds lol.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Haha - I just skimmed the thread and thought that Jung quote would be a good way to change the course of discussion a bit.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Haha - I just skimmed the thread and thought that Jung quote would be a good way to change the course of discussion a bit.


I wouldn't mind moving on... but I just can't stand logical inconsistency and misinformation. Can't help but need to correct everything.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

dizzycactus said:


> I wouldn't mind moving on... but I just can't stand logical inconsistency and misinformation. Can't help but need to correct everything.


Which would be relevant if there was misinformation or that you knew what it was when it was staring you in the face.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> LOL. Why is that (not to say Jung was talking about every inferior F type possible to the imagination)?


Because of the content of it, and that you tried to steer it away as if you were apparently oblivious of what was discussed prior. It seemed like you were sitting on the side all along, still thinking about the OP and then as people discuss other things, you are musing as to what the logical correctness is, and suddenly when the heat of the debate dissiplates, you just spouts, "I GOT IT". 

Kind of. I'm bad at explaining my ideas.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Back on topic here.

I don't think any function set is more prevalent in either gender. There are only two options after all, just Te/Fi and Ti/Fe. 

That being said, speaking as a Ti-dominant woman, I know very few women that think like me. When I do find one, I do a jig of happiness. In the community I was raised in, it was very "traditional", and most women are raised to embody Fe traits. But I wouldn't call Ti a "male" function. Society merely associates Ti-ness to male attributes, which is funny since Ti and Fe are basically opposite sides of the same coin. That doesn't mean that all men actually have those traits.



> what women often lack is mechanical ability, a strong sense of direction, and often spatial sense.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I'm terrible with directions, cars, and what I like to call "playing tetris" (both literally and in the sense that I can never seem to fill up the dishwasher, or a box/car to its limit without wasting space). Ti involves objective problem solving, efficiency, and the ability to look at objects and issues from different angles.


This is a myth, and I think that it is a disservice to everyone to perpetuate them. I'm not bashing on you at all @roastingmallows, just the concept. It's a source of much frustration to me, and has been all my life. I am mechanically minded (mechanic in the more general sense, not referring specifically to machines or tools...I couldn't care less about fixing cars), I have never been lost in my life and have in fact been dubbed a walking GPS. I have a great sense of spatial awareness. This literal and figurative act of "playing Tetris" is as natural to me as breathing. Problem solving, efficiency, and an analytical mind are some of my greatest strengths. So it's very frustrating to me that I often have defend or explain these traits in myself, merely because I am a woman, and because society deems that men are good at these things, and women are not. Am I an anomaly? No, I don't believe I am. But this myth is prevalent enough where it seems like I am. 

How about how frustrating it is for someone like my INFP brother, who has to deal with these same issues, but in reverse? Where he's expected to have many of these supposed "masculine" traits, who is not mechanically minded, who is sensitive and has great emotional awareness, many things that I don't really have? Does it make him less of a man and me less of a woman? 

So, essentially, I don't think of these gender issues are actually connected to the cognitive functions at all. It's social conditioning, and these social mores attach gendered traits to the cognitive functions, not the other way around. Ti is not in essence "male" nor is it in essence "female".


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

(didn't read anything other than a few posts)

yeah, there's not really a masculine/feminine function. i think the only ones that may be carried out in a way that is masculine/feminine are Fe, maybe Fi--and that would be according to cultural acceptance (which all types are susceptible to, even if it causes a person to be more "counter-culture").

i do think that in the u.s. the iconic male persona would be that of a Te-dom though (and some forms of Fe--the heroic, "for the nation" archetype). but Fe is also easily the stereotypical female ideal in the states (even if the values have shifted to a pretty unrecognizable descendant). that could account for the numbers--whether all these people actually are those types or not, it's what they identify with is.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Back on topic here.
> 
> I don't think any function set is more prevalent in either gender. There are only two options after all, just Te/Fi and Ti/Fe.
> 
> ...


Thanks for bringing it back on topic! I really hadn't intended to spark a feminist debate. Blegh. 

Your reply was very useful and interesting to me! I did not mean to imply that Ti using women are less feminine, and I totally envy your Ti!

I think either Ti is simply far more common in men, or perhaps even men without Ti have been kind of conditioned to pretend to have it, whereas females who naturally lack it (like me) have never really needed to do so. 

Anyway, you should be proud of your "mechanical ability". I am super jealous, and I feel like I would be much more independant if I had some. I really hadn't meant this to be offensive, and if anything I meant it to be self disparaging and to poke a little fun at other chicks who are spatially challenged/struggle with math and other left brained activities/can't put things together despite being otherwise intelligent.

On another note, now I'm curious to know if Ti actually manifests itself in spatial ability when the owner uses Ne rather than Se.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

roastingmallows said:


> Thanks for bringing it back on topic! I really hadn't intended to spark a feminist debate. Blegh.


Yeah no problem lol. -_- Blegh indeed. 



> Your reply was very useful and interesting to me! I did not mean to imply that Ti using women are less feminine, and I totally envy your Ti!


You didn't imply that.  It's just that I've never felt very feminine, or comfortable with it. But that's just me personally. I don't know if other IxTP or ExTP women have felt this way. 



> I think either Ti is simply far more common in men, or perhaps even men without Ti have been kind of conditioned to pretend to have it, whereas females who naturally lack it (like me) have never really needed to do so.


I think it's the latter. Definite social conditioning. 



> Anyway, you should be proud of your "mechanical ability". I am super jealous, and I feel like I would be much more independent if I had some. I really hadn't meant this to be offensive, and if anything I meant it to be self disparaging and to poke a little fun at other chicks who are spatially challenged/struggle with math and other left brained activities/can't put things together despite being otherwise intelligent.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended. It's very hard to actually offend me.  Sorry for the clinical tone of the above post...one of the downsides of being Ti dominant. I don't even realize that I'm doing it, haha! 



> On another note, now I'm curious to know if Ti actually manifests itself in spatial ability when the owner uses Ne rather than Se.


Hm, I don't know about that. Is the spatial ability inherent in Ti itself or in the Ti + Se combination? I can't speak for Ne.


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

madhatter said:


> Is the spatial ability inherent in Ti itself or in the Ti + Se combination? I can't speak for Ne.


Now that you mention it, I have been wondering if I should say something but then the off-topic debate got in the way..

The way Ti has been described in the OP and a few other posts here is _very_ Ti + Se, probably because you guys are SPs. Ti with Ne manifests itself quite differently. It is also about putting pieces together and seeing how they interact, what fits together and what doesn't and what triggers what, but the mechanisms are abstract. The puzzle pieces are ideas, not cogs and gears.

It's more like having a natural gift for things like "If (1) some tables can fly and (2) all owels are tables and (3) some spoons are owels, does that mean that all, some or no spoons can or could fly?"

... and now apply that to abstract theories about the influence of burned toast on the price of rice in Jamaica!


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

> You didn't imply that.  It's just that I've never felt very feminine, or comfortable with it. But that's just me personally. I don't know if other IxTP or ExTP women have felt this way.


I've internally felt not very feminine--so I overcompensate by dressing very femininely. For the other female Ti dominants out there, do you find that you overcompensate for your way of thinking like this?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> I've internally felt not very feminine--so I overcompensate by dressing very femininely. For the other female Ti dominants out there, do you find that you overcompensate for your way of thinking like this?


No, I've always desired being more of a tomboy and rather unfeminine. It's only as I grew older that I began to appreciate my feminine traits a bit more so now I actually wear dresses and skirts but that's about it. I can also change the way I dress a bit depending on my mood. Some days I may emphasize that I'm a metalhead, other days just not giving a fuck as I'm just going to the grocery store etc. 

With that said, I also feel that I fall a bit in the queer area. I don't always feel like I'm a woman but I can equally see myself as a man identity wise, so perhaps I'm not the best person to ask about this. I think how we dress ultimately doesn't reflect our thinking as much as it probably does our motivations of how we wish to be seen, and here I think enneagram plays a larger role to be honest.

As a 4 fixer, even if I look ordinary, I'm still going to look my way of ordinary, lol.


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

Ellis Bell said:


> I've internally felt not very feminine--so I overcompensate by dressing very femininely. For the other female Ti dominants out there, do you find that you overcompensate for your way of thinking like this?


I'm a freelance translator and interpreter and normally work from home when I translate. At home and when I just go out to shop some groceries or for a quick trip downtown with or without the boyfriend I wear jeans and a sweater, glasses and no makeup. In those situations I have next to zero awareness of gender. I am a human being first and it is only when I read or hear stupid statements in the media that I get reminded of gender.

When I meet with friends, I normally dress up and often put in my contact lenses. In those cases, I am very aware of the rules society applies to gender. It's probably insecurity. And it's nice to be complimented once in a while.
I used to dress a little too sexy when I was in my early twenties (after being an ugly duckling until I was 21, the first boyfriend awakened my awareness of my own gender and sexuality) and later found out that while the males liked it, many females were gossiping about me behind (how can a serious repectable college girl show cleavage or wear a short skirt?!). So I was forced to develope a sense of what is appropriate in what context.

When I am out of town for work as an interpreter, I have to wear business apparel. Then it is the event I am going to that determines if I feel better in a pant suit or a skirt and blazer. If I am the only woman in a room full of engineers or businessmen, which happens quite often, I prefer to wear a pantsuit and call as little attention as possible to my gender. If it is a more mixed environment, I wear a skirt, simply because it looks better on me and it's a pain in the ass to find a pantsuit that fits (I'm comparatively petite). And I'll always wear contacts and very light makeup (also because I look younger than I am and want to be taken seriously).


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Cocachin said:


> Now that you mention it, I have been wondering if I should say something but then the off-topic debate got in the way..
> 
> The way Ti has been described in the OP and a few other posts here is _very_ Ti + Se, probably because you guys are SPs. Ti with Ne manifests itself quite differently. It is also about putting pieces together and seeing how they interact, what fits together and what doesn't and what triggers what, but the mechanisms are abstract. The puzzle pieces are ideas, not cogs and gears.


Yes, exactly. I use Ti in this way as well. I see Ti's ability to break down these abstract constructs and mechanisms as what makes me good at Linguistics. I think this problem and puzzle solving is something inherent in Ti itself, while the spatial ability is functions working in tandem. I love mental puzzles and real puzzles, and I don't like it when something doesn't have an answer, which is why I stopped taking math after highschool Calculus, only to go into Linguistics, where there seems to be no single right answer to anything. I can appreciate the irony. :laughing:

I do less of the "what if..." questions. I only really do these things if it's in the right context for me. I see Se and Ni working together here, like Ni looking at different angles, such as "What if it were like this..." and Se saying "But it's not like that...this is how it really is". And since reality and accuracy usually have top priority with me, if that's not how it really is, with Ti, I deem it irrelevant. For instance, your logic question example...I know the purpose of the question, and I could figure out the answer if I wanted. But if I were feeling particularly contrary or ornery, I'd look at that question if it were on a test and say, it's irrelevant: tables can't fly, owls aren't tables, and spoons aren't owls. But that would be intentionally missing the point, and I'm working on not being intentionally contrary. XD But it's a good example of how Ti + Ne works, and why I can't speak for Ne lol! As Ti-dominants, we both like to work with the abstract. It's the off-the-wall possibilities that Ne generates or perceives that makes the real difference, haha.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Ellis Bell said:


> I've internally felt not very feminine--so I overcompensate by dressing very femininely. For the other female Ti dominants out there, do you find that you overcompensate for your way of thinking like this?


I went the opposite way. When I was younger, I was a tomboy, and I wore boys' clothes and hats. I refused to wear dresses, and I practically had to be forced into them for special occasions. Other than that, my mom did not force me to dress girly. My mom always bobbed my hair, because she didn't want to fight me on styling it, and she knew I wouldn't take care of it. My sister wanted to paint my nails and other girl things, and I would run away and go ride my bike. 

I didn't grow out my hair to a more feminine length until college...now it's just past my shoulders. I'm starting to dress a little more feminine than I used to, but not much has changed. The only dress I own is the one I wore to my sister's wedding. My basic wardrobe is still jeans and a T-shirt...still men's T-shirts, but only because they fit me in the shoulders better, but at least they are women's jeans now. I still don't wear makeup, I don't have pierced ears, and I'd rather wear my glasses and I refuse to get contacts (but I just know myself well...I know I'd fall asleep with them in, and that's not good). 

I just really don't have time for all of the fuss over my appearance that seems to be a given for women in our culture. I make sure I'm clean and my hair is brushed and my clothes freshly laundered, but that's about it. 




Cocachin said:


> I'm a freelance translator and interpretor and normally work from home when I translate. At home and when I just go out to shop some groceries or for a quick trip downtown with or without the boyfriend I wear jeans and a sweater, glasses and no makeup. In those situations I have next to zero awareness of gender. I am a human being first and it is only when I read or hear stupid statements in the media that I get reminded of gender.


Same here. I intentionally avoid the media like the plague, especially those gossip, celebrity, fashion magazines you see at the drug store. 

(And that's really cool about being a translator and interpreter...which language(s)?)



> When I meet with friends, I normally dress up and often put in my contact lenses. In those cases, I am very aware of the rules society applies to gender. It's probably insecurity. And it's nice to be complimented once in a while.
> I used to dress a little too sexy when I was in my early twenties (after being an ugly duckling until I was 21, the first boyfriend awakened my awareness of my own gender and sexuality) and later found out that while the males liked it, many females were gossiping about me behind (how can a serious repectable college girl show cleavage or wear a short skirt?!). So I was forced to develope a sense of what is appropriate in what context.


Well, when I'm going out, I sometimes dress up a little nicer. But since that means wearing a nicer shirt instead of a T-shirt, it doesn't mean much on my part. 



> When I am out of town for work as an interpreter, I have to wear business apparel. Then it is the event I am going to that determines if I feel better in a pant suit or a skirt and blazer. If I am the only woman in a room full of engineers or businessmen, which happens quite often, I prefer to wear a pantsuit and call as little attention as possible to my gender. If it is a more mixed environment, I wear a skirt, simply because it looks better on me and it's a pain in the ass to find a pantsuit that fits (I'm comparatively petite). And I'll always wear contacts and very light makeup (also because I look younger than I am and want to be taken seriously).


See, this is what I worry about when I enter the business world. I've worked throughout college, but never in a career setting. I dread the day when I have to go out and buy business apparel. But I foresee myself just wearing suits and not even bothering with the skirts.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

Cocachin said:


> Now that you mention it, I have been wondering if I should say something but then the off-topic debate got in the way..
> 
> The way Ti has been described in the OP and a few other posts here is _very_ Ti + Se, probably because you guys are SPs. Ti with Ne manifests itself quite differently. It is also about putting pieces together and seeing how they interact, what fits together and what doesn't and what triggers what, but the mechanisms are abstract. The puzzle pieces are ideas, not cogs and gears.
> 
> ...


Yes, I realized a while ago I was speaking more of XSTPers than XXTPers in general but no one SEEMED to notice. haha 
It was somewhat intentional because all of the males I know that are Ti users (and to reiterate, I can't think of a single female Ti user I know IRL well enough to know what functions they use) are also Se users, so this is the only way I've really seen it manifest. Actually, I take that back. I know one ENTP. He (still a guy) is good with computers, but not so much cars or tools or anything like that. I've always kind of attributed his computer skills to Ti, but now I'm wondering where Ne comes in. 

The way I see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) is this: Ti blesses people with the natural, intrinsic ability to problem solve and look at things from different angles, basically (for XSTP, moreso physical problems involving space, or abstract intellectual problems for XNTP). A Te user can still do the things a Ti user can do, but they look towards common knowledge (external), and they must go out of their way to learn about how things work more so. I still feel that Ti is superior in a way...though perhaps Te can lend someone a bit more ambition. Even my own tertiary Te...It is difficult for me to "think outside the box", at least objectively. For an XNTJ, Ni would compensate for lack of Ti, but I feel that an XSTJ would be as doomed as me when trying to solve a complex problem they've had no prior experience with, despite having strong T. 

Thank you for your insight on Ne+Ti! Your example sounds very much like the sort of thing my ENTP friend would say. XD I can't say I understand much of what he says. 

My dad the ISTP could probably figure out a problem like that, but it would take him a lot longer than an Ne user I'm sure, mostly because he would spend a lot of time arguing that it's irrelevant!


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

roastingmallows said:


> The way I see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) is this: Ti blesses people with the natural, intrinsic ability to problem solve and look at things from different angles, basically (for XSTP, moreso physical problems involving space, or abstract intellectual problems for XNTP).


This is basically on the money. The only thing I would disagree with is that xSTP is mostly concerned with physical problems. While true, it is only one manifestation of it. There are many ISTPs with an intellectual bent.  Although, it is also true that xNTPs are more open to abstract possibilities than myself.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

madhatter said:


> This is basically on the money. The only thing I would disagree with is that xSTP is mostly concerned with physical problems. While true, it is only one manifestation of it. There are many ISTPs with an intellectual bent.  Although, it is also true that xNTPs are more open to abstract possibilities than myself.


Instead of saying physical, would it be more accurate to say "tangible"?


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

i.e., Ti lends itself towards problem solving regardless of the Pe function, but Ti+Se=problem solving+increased spatial awareness and Ti+Ne=problem solving+ increased ability to conceptualize abstractly?


----------



## Cocachin (Jan 19, 2013)

Also, flattering as all of this may be, if I had a specific problem to solve with an extrinsic motivation to get it done (as in there is money or a person's wellbeing involved) and time is precious, I would rather get a Te user's help/advice.

Ti is very good at solving puzzles, but it's usually the process of solving in itself that attracts us more than getting to the solution asap. We are good at finding an elegant solution and enjoy that for what it is rather than cut the chase and right to the simplest, most feasable solution.

There is this old joke about an engineer and a mathematician both noticing a fire in their hotel room which features a fire extinguisher. The engineer gets up, extinguishes the fire and goes back to sleep, happy to have averted a desaster. The mathematician sees the fire, discovers the extinguisher and turns around in his bed to continue sleeping, happy to know that the problem has adefinitive solution.

That, to me, is Te vs Ti in a nutshell


----------



## TiNeSi (Jan 10, 2011)

I've only read the first page, but I lack a sense of direction and spatial sense and I'm very much Ti-dom!


----------



## TiNeSi (Jan 10, 2011)

Damn, I've read the final page and can see that the point has been addressed. Also, *waves at Cocachin*: I'm a freelance translator as well.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

roastingmallows said:


> Instead of saying physical, would it be more accurate to say "tangible"?


Yes, good word...I think 'tangible' is more accurate than physical.  



roastingmallows said:


> i.e., Ti lends itself towards problem solving regardless of the Pe function, but Ti+Se=problem solving+increased spatial awareness and Ti+Ne=problem solving+ *increased ability to conceptualize abstractly*?


I think the ability to conceptualize abstractly is inherent in Ti, and is something that both ISTPs and INTPs possess. But since I don't use Ne that much, I'm having trouble articulating what I'm thinking of, so bear with me.  I see Ne not so much as equaling the abstract (since all introverted functions are abstract), but more as emergent possibilities. Like me and Cocachin talking about speculating on how burnt toast affects the price of rice in Jamaica. I don't see that as abstract at all, but it is typical of Ne. Speculating and perceiving all possibilities grants them a particular flavor of problem solving, but I can't think of a pithy line to sum it up in: Ti + Se = problem solving plus increased spatial awareness (in fact most ISTPs have visual and kinesthetic learning styles), while Ti + Ne = problem solving plus increased...? using their many perceived possibilities to generate new connections???


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> (in fact most ISTPs have visual and kinesthetic learning styles), while Ti + Ne = problem solving plus increased...? using their many perceived possibilities to generate new connections???


I am not sure how much it applies to other INTPs, but I have an auditory learning style although I'm better at intrapersonal intelligence than auditory as in, I'm more likely to think and conceptualize using my own inner voice than I am hearing sounds. It is however easier for me to hear sounds than it is to visualize images unless Ne and Si "gives me" images in my head, which can sometimes happen when I make the weirdest associations. A recent example that I remember is how @aconite and @bearotter were discussing enneagram instincts in our Skype chat, and my brain made me think of aconite lying on top of bearotter in a run down motel bar trying to seduce him because bearotter scored higher on sx than she did on an online test. 

My general impression however, is that a visual learning style is more common regardless of type. I also think it's important to separate a practical "do it" approach and kinaesthetic learning. I'm terrible at kinaesthetic learning as I was made aware when I was 14-15 and had physics class. Our teacher was most likely an ISTP and his method of teaching us the laws of physics was to build these funny robots of all kinds, something I failed terribly at. I had the poorest grade in physics aside when we had to take theoretical tests. Building a robot from scratch however... 

I do however think that my enneagram core can make me approach things in a "do it" style if I feel I understand or grasp the subject good enough, e.g. putting a chair together. It doesn't mean it will go well or be very intuitive as a process though, lol. That's what I got my ESTP cousin for XD


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_LeaT_: LOL, Ne moment regret 


Anyway, my strongest extroverted function is definitely Ne, and essentially it renders my style pretty heavily speculative as I learn; I think LeaT and I both talked about how we tend to read just a portion of the data and generate the rest of the data we're going to Ti through speculation, because that generation is what energizes us.

So sometimes I can end up sort of distorting the data, and rely on an abstract conceptual filter to tell me when it's not looking right, but essentially the speculative nature makes it hard for me to consider information from outside of what my mind itself generates without this sort of mass speculation, followed by Ti-ing to assimilate it into a conceptual system and potentially reject/refine later.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I am not sure how much it applies to other INTPs, but I have an auditory learning style although I'm better at intrapersonal intelligence than auditory as in, I'm more likely to think and conceptualize using my own inner voice than I am hearing sounds. It is however easier for me to hear sounds than it is to visualize images unless Ne and Si "gives me" images in my head, which can sometimes happen when I make the weirdest associations.


I'm not an auditory learner at all. When I'm at work and someone is reading off a name to me or I'm talking on the phone, it's all garbled. And while I'm not hard-of-hearing, my hearing just sucks in general. If I hear something or someone tells me how to do something, it's a 50/50 chance I'll remember it word-for-word. If I see, write, or do it myself, there's a 99.9% chance I'll remember it, because I have a photographic memory.



> My general impression however, is that a visual learning style is more common regardless of type. I also think it's important to separate a practical "do it" approach and kinaesthetic learning. I'm terrible at kinaesthetic learning as I was made aware when I was 14-15 and had physics class. Our teacher was most likely an ISTP and his method of teaching us the laws of physics was to build these funny robots of all kinds, something I failed terribly at. I had the poorest grade in physics aside when we had to take theoretical tests. Building a robot from scratch however...


There was a poll in the ISTP forum, and the two highest results were visual and kinesthetic. Was there a poll like this in the INTP forum? I would be interested in seeing the results. Myself, I was also visual and kinesthetic. And I think it's more than a practical "do it" approach, although that is probably tied to it in some ways. I think it's no coincidence that most ISTPs prefer this "do it" approach as well as kinesthetic learning. I know I'd rather do something than talk about it. 



> I do however think that my enneagram core can make me approach things in a "do it" style if I feel I understand or grasp the subject good enough, e.g. putting a chair together. It doesn't mean it will go well or be very intuitive as a process though, lol. That's what I got my ESTP cousin for XD


What does 5 give you a "do it" style? I've found being a 5 often deters me from that, unless I'm integrating.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

bearotter said:


> Anyway, my strongest extroverted function is definitely Ne, and essentially it renders my style pretty heavily speculative as I learn; I think LeaT and I both talked about how we tend to read just a portion of the data and generate the rest of the data we're going to Ti through speculation, because that generation is what energizes us.
> 
> So sometimes I can end up sort of distorting the data, and rely on an abstract conceptual filter to tell me when it's not looking right, but essentially the speculative nature makes it hard for me to consider information from outside of what my mind itself generates without this sort of mass speculation, followed by Ti-ing to assimilate it into a conceptual system and potentially reject/refine later.


So Ti + Ne = problem solving plus increased speculative awareness. That sounds about right (and I think I found my pithy alliterative phrase!)

When I'm building my conceptual systems, I think the difference is I will gather all the facts at hand first, study them, find IRL examples (say if I'm studying ISTJs, I'll grill my sister and see how she relates to the stuff I'm reading), and then afterwards, I will start speculating and tweaking the model into something that is all my own, disgarding the speculations and hypotheses that proved false, etc. For instance, such and such authors say this is how the tertiary function is or behaves. I studied a lot on different ideas and theories about it, and then from my own understanding of the material and my own experience, decided the tertiary is in fact another auxiliary. Or when I was taking my first Syntax class in college, I didn't like how the copula (for you non-linguists, the copula refers to the verb "to be") was being treated within the system. So after researching several other methods, and finding them all unsatisfactory, I proposed my own theory about the generation of the copula within the already-existing model, one that I think works far better than the others and one that is actually more consistent to model already presented. 

But as a Ti + Ne user, would you say that rather than working within models already existing, is it your natural inclination to rebuild the entire system from the ground up?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> What does 5 give you a "do it" style? I've found being a 5 often deters me from that, unless I'm integrating.


That's what I mean. Integration leads to more of a practical "do it" approach. And I think there was a poll in the INTP forum and most were visual learners.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

madhatter said:


> So Ti + Ne = problem solving plus increased speculative awareness.




Yup that's about how I'd describe myself. Now I do subscribe to the LII model for myself, which is to say Ni-Ti are strong functions, but yes my conscious pattern of picking apart data and analyzing it is Ti-Ne-Si, and it does essentially mean abstract analytical ability together with increased speculative awareness when it comes to observed data.




> But as a Ti + Ne user, would you say that rather than working within models already existing, is it your natural inclination to rebuild the entire system from the ground up?




I tend to do that, exactly. It can make it a little difficult to communicate with other types, because our sensing is abstract/introverted, and our Ne is how we get objective data, which is why I'm more likely to miss facts when I'm picking up on a situation, and more likely to use Pi as a starting point to generate most of the fact, based on what my abstract sensing actually recognizes. I'm unlikely to miss any speculative possibility, but likely to have a much vaguer grounding in absorbing the facts. 

It's why in a way, INTP analyses can be a little out there, and what's holding them together as viable can be a severely introverted system of checks, so it's hard to convey why this seemingly speculative, all over the place model, is actually held together stably and sensibly, to someone who doesn't get Ti very well. 

Which is why despite their preference for the Se-Ni approach, I've found ISTPs tend not to have difficulty getting what I mean, because they are familiar with the sort of glue holding the various bits together in the Ne-ridden analysis, although that said, my style can totally exhaust them (just as Se exhausts me after a certain point).


----------

