# A Very Clear and Simple Explanation of Introverted Judgment (Fi/Ti)



## Abraxas

Ti deals primarily with a priori sorts of knowledge, which is why you often read about it equated with things like geometry, pure logic, and philosophical thinking. To give an example of what I mean by the "a priori" form of knowledge, take for instance simple shapes such as triangles, squares, and circles.

There is simply no possible way that these shapes can exist in nature the way that we conceive of them in the mind. If you go up to a triangle and you try to measure it's angles, you will never get a perfect 180 degrees. It will always be slightly off. You could even get really serious and say space itself is curved, so there's _literally_ no way these shapes can exist the way we discuss them in math. They're _purely conceptual_ facts, but they are nevertheless very real things, and they can be derived from experience easily enough, because you can see triangles, squares, and circles all over the place. But how we define them _mathematically_ is simply impossible physically. The pure concepts are merely models of reality - they are _too perfect_ to really exist, you see?

Fi is essentially the same way, but with matters of value and worth. To the Fi-type, let us suppose you have something like the _feeling_ of love for your country, which we call "patriotism." Now we are dealing with a concept of value and worth - the value of your country, the value of service to your country, etc. For a Fi type, there is simply no externalized instance or example of patriotism that could possibly to justice to the romanticized _pure feeling_ of patriotism that a Fi-type feels, do you see? It's the purely _abstract_ content of patriotism that the Fi-type feels, which is a very _deep_ and _subjective_ thing, because it comes from within, and not from particular instances to be found in history, or the news, or what have you. When they resonate with such external instances, it is because those examples come close - they are like triangles with angles that come very very close to 180 degrees - but still... you will never find _true patriotism_ in external circumstances. The Fi feeling of it just _too perfect_ to really exist.


----------



## penny lane

Now this I can understand! Thank you.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

Great post again :happy:

I think this is where I often get into arguments with Ti-doms who have idealized reality too much (I don't mean all ITPs in general ofc) because they have this bias toward doing it and at times forget how gritty the world can actually be. 

On the other hand I often have trouble making people see why my set of values is the most important in a discussion, and the rest of the time Fi just makes me watch tv series I like too much.


----------



## reptilian

So Xe collects the outside data for Fi so Fi can make a unique judgment based on internal subjective value system already established? 
While Xe collect data for Ti to form conclusions based on internalized system of external data which contribute to widening its beliefs in size?

I would not say this explanation is simple, at least not for me. Had to read it a few times. <-- To the OP


----------



## Recede

The best way I can describe my Ti is that it's like seeing the logical "shape" of everything and immediately being able to tell whether certain things fit together coherently, whether the logic is harmonious. 

Sometimes I experience a concept as valid because there is nothing obstructing the logical harmony. Things like this will feel really honest and true. Other times I see people trying to put a square peg in a round hole and it just doesn't work that way. Communication can be frustrating because often words aren't adequate to explain the logical relationships I perceive and why something seems right or not right.

I wouldn't describe it as "a priori" for me. It doesn't seem like I have rules and principles stored in my head (may be different for Ti-Ne?), more like the situation comes first and then I see the logical relationships contained within that situation. These relationships aren't "too perfect to exist" because they do exist.

Ti doesn't focus on the objects themselves so much as the relationships between them. So the fact that it's impossible to get a perfect 180 degree angle in reality is irrelevant to Ti because Ti doesn't care whether something is 180 degrees or not, instead it sees that angle A > angle B. I think it is Te that's more focused on the logical facts of the object itself.


----------



## Mbaruh

Uuuh.. I'm sorry, I don't see how that's clear and simple... may be just me.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Ti deals primarily with a priori sorts of knowledge, which is why you often read about it equated with things like geometry, pure logic, and philosophical thinking. To give an example of what I mean by the "a priori" form of knowledge, take for instance simple shapes such as triangles, squares, and circles.
> 
> There is simply no possible way that these shapes can exist in nature the way that we conceive of them in the mind. If you go up to a triangle and you try to measure it's angles, you will never get a perfect 180 degrees. It will always be slightly off. You could even get really serious and say space itself is curved, so there's _literally_ no way these shapes can exist the way we discuss them in math. They're _purely conceptual_ facts, but they are nevertheless very real things, and they can be derived from experience easily enough, because you can see triangles, squares, and circles all over the place. But how we define them _mathematically_ is simply impossible physically. The pure concepts are merely models of reality - they are _too perfect_ to really exist, you see?
> 
> Fi is essentially the same way, but with matters of value and worth. To the Fi-type, let us suppose you have something like the _feeling_ of love for your country, which we call "patriotism." Now we are dealing with a concept of value and worth - the value of your country, the value of service to your country, etc. For a Fi type, there is simply no externalized instance or example of patriotism that could possibly to justice to the romanticized _pure feeling_ of patriotism that a Fi-type feels, do you see? It's the purely _abstract_ content of patriotism that the Fi-type feels, which is a very _deep_ and _subjective_ thing, because it comes from within, and not from particular instances to be found in history, or the news, or what have you. When they resonate with such external instances, it is because those examples come close - they are like triangles with angles that come very very close to 180 degrees - but still... you will never find _true patriotism_ in external circumstances. The Fi feeling of it just _too perfect_ to really exist.


I think that's a very good simple explanation of Fi. 

Your description of Ti isn't so good however. Ti is an ongoing conscious process, not a body of knowledge, and it really has little to do with abstract shapes, theories etc for their own sake - that's more an "N" thing.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Silveresque said:


> The best way I can describe my Ti is that it's like seeing the logical "shape" of everything and immediately being able to tell whether certain things fit together coherently, whether the logic is harmonious.
> 
> Sometimes I experience a concept as valid because there is nothing obstructing the logical harmony. Things like this will feel really honest and true. Other times I see people trying to put a square peg in a round hole and it just doesn't work that way. Communication can be frustrating because often words aren't adequate to explain the logical relationships I perceive and why something seems right or not right.
> 
> I wouldn't describe it as "a priori" for me. It doesn't seem like I have rules and principles stored in my head (may be different for Ti-Ne?), more like the situation comes first and then I see the logical relationships contained within that situation. These relationships aren't "too perfect to exist" because they do exist.
> 
> Ti doesn't focus on the objects themselves so much as the relationships between them. So the fact that it's impossible to get a perfect 180 degree angle in reality is irrelevant to Ti because Ti doesn't care whether something is 180 degrees or not, instead it sees that angle A > angle B. I think it is Te that's more focused on the logical facts of the object itself.


Hey, now this a good, simple description of how Ti works.  Much better than the OP.

___

Ti is about trying to logically understand the underlying mechanics behind things/ideas/situations, and it does this by taking these things apart (either physically or in the mind - makes no difference), understanding each piece on its own terms and then the interrelationships between the parts, then fixing the logical problems (if they exist) and putting the thing back together again - often in a far more logically efficient way. ITPs will do this kind of thinking just because it's interesting - it sometimes actually interferes with the time they spend on what they "should" be doing (work etc) if it intrigues them enough. 

The actual object (geometric shapes, a scientific theory, an aeroplane engine, a refrigerator, human emotions, law) it's analysing doesn't matter, it always works the same.

The big advantage is that it gives the most precise analysis of all the functions (no function is better at understanding how things work and solving problems about that thing). The big disadvantage is that it takes a very long time to go through every piece of the puzzle, so it takes ages to reach an answer (especially in INTPs, who want to understand how an idea/theory works in ALL possible situations - ISTPs don't have as much of a problem, because they're generally more focused on one specific situation, solve that, then move on).


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Silveresque said:


> The best way I can describe my Ti is that it's like seeing the logical "shape" of everything and immediately being able to tell whether certain things fit together coherently, whether the logic is harmonious.
> 
> Sometimes I experience a concept as valid because there is nothing obstructing the logical harmony. Things like this will feel really honest and true. Other times I see people trying to put a square peg in a round hole and it just doesn't work that way. Communication can be frustrating because often words aren't adequate to explain the logical relationships I perceive and why something seems right or not right.
> 
> I wouldn't describe it as "a priori" for me. It doesn't seem like I have rules and principles stored in my head (may be different for Ti-Ne?), more like the situation comes first and then I see the logical relationships contained within that situation. These relationships aren't "too perfect to exist" because they do exist.
> 
> Ti doesn't focus on the objects themselves so much as the relationships between them. So the fact that it's impossible to get a perfect 180 degree angle in reality is irrelevant to Ti because Ti doesn't care whether something is 180 degrees or not, instead it sees that angle A > angle B. I think it is Te that's more focused on the logical facts of the object itself.


I said before that Ti-Ni starts with a system. Ni-Ti ends with a system. Ti doms start out in a somewhat logical and concrete place. 

Ti dissects things. It deconstructs. It isn't abstract in itself. Or creative. Ti is basically a system. I find Ti doms and Ti aux can be a bit too mechanical for me sometimes. INTP explore more though, because of Ne. ISTP are more streamlined. 

I think the difference between ISTP and INFJ, Ti-Ni vs Ni-Ti, is that ISTP begins with a system. INFJ ends with a system. INFJ begins with a large synthesis. Making many into one. That is abstraction. And then Ti deconstructs/systemizes the Ni-Fe synthesis.

Like some of these Ti dom systems of typing. The descriptions these INTP come up with. They are like architecture. Every room is mapped down to the letter. They have a concrete system in their head. It is more mechanical and logical/structured, like I said. 

I am building a house too, but not like them. They build theirs up to code. The logic is more distinct and defined. This is why I still think Jung may be an INTP. He is actually probably using Ti-Ni. Ni-Ti is more cloudy, like Nietzsche. Anyway, Jung will find the truth in anything. Where others stop examining things, Jung is just getting warmed up. Like alchemy. Some of the greatest minds thought this was a literal thing. Like you mix physical materials to make magic. Jung knew it wasn't about that. But the idea has value, and actually becomes true in another realm, when examined properly. So alchemy actually describes a psychological process. An important one, where magic is created. Even though it sounds absurd on the surface, alchemy being real is a truth. 

Jung will say this idea is not true objectively, but then spend a thousand pages explaining why it is true subjectively. Ti-Fe is good at "sorting" ideas. Like, "this goes here, that goes there."


----------



## Rachel Wood

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said before that Ti-Ni starts with a system. Ni-Ti ends with a system. Ti doms start out in a somewhat logical and concrete place.
> 
> Ti dissects things. It deconstructs. It isn't abstract in itself. Or creative. Ti is basically a system. I find Ti doms and Ti aux can be a bit too mechanical for me sometimes. INTP explore more though, because of Ne. ISTP are more streamlined.
> 
> I think the difference between ISTP and INFJ, Ti-Ni vs Ni-Ti, is that ISTP begins with a system. INFJ ends with a system. INFJ begins with a large synthesis. Making many into one. That is abstraction. And then Ti deconstructs/systemizes the Ni-Fe synthesis.
> 
> Like some of these Ti dom systems of typing. The descriptions these INTP come up with. They are like architecture. Every room is mapped down to the letter. They have a concrete system in their head. It is more mechanical and logical/structured, like I said.
> 
> I am building a house too, but not like them. They build theirs up to code. The logic is more distinct and defined. This is why I still think Jung may be an INTP. He is actually probably using Ti-Ni. Ni-Ti is more cloudy, like Nietzsche. Anyway, Jung will find the truth in anything. Where others stop examining things, Jung is just getting warmed up. Like alchemy. Some of the greatest minds thought this was a literal thing. Like you mix physical materials to make magic. Jung knew it wasn't about that. But the idea has value, and actually becomes true in another realm, when examined properly. So alchemy actually describes a psychological process. An important one, where magic is created. Even though it sounds absurd on the surface, alchemy being real is a truth.
> 
> Jung will say this idea is not true objectively, but then spend a thousand pages explaining why it is true subjectively. Ti-Fe is good at "sorting" ideas. Like, "this goes here, that goes there."


I agree with most of the beginning, where you talk about types.

But Jung wasn't INTP - he never used Ne-Si in his life!  Also, the sheer number of logical/definitional contradictions in his works is staggering (some kind of record maybe?). This, added to the mystical philosophy and EXTREMELY UNCLEAR writing style makes it very unlikely he was Ti dom. I think INFJ.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Rachel Wood said:


> I agree with most of the beginning, where you talk about types.
> 
> But Jung wasn't INTP - he never used Ne-Si in his life!  Also, the sheer number of logical/definitional contradictions in his works is staggering (some kind of record maybe?). This, added to the mystical philosophy and EXTREMELY UNCLEAR writing style makes it very unlikely he was Ti dom. I think INFJ.


An INFJ does not have that patience or clarity of thought. I was discussing this recently with an INTP, Jung does not fit the system. He is Ti and Ni. He may be everything. He is definitely a Ti-Fe user though. 

A case for Ne:

One way of looking at it, is that each type interacts with their first extroverted function. So INFJ and INTJ are both judgers and perceivers. They are "hidden" perceivers. Most of my work is done on the inside. Ne takes its entire thought process and puts it out in front of you. It sees possibilities. It expands. That is basically what Jung did in coming up with these types. INTJ and INFJ write like what they just said is the most obvious thing ever, while INTP act like everyone in the world was born ignorant and start very slowly. 

INTP and INFP write long posts, because of Ne. And introverted judging. INTJ and INFJ are more terse and to the point. INTP wander for a long time. INFJ have a greater sense of closure.

All I'm saying is, if Jung posted on this forum,he would post like an INTP. A very mature one. Which would look a lot like a very mature INFJ too. So who the fuck knows. His expansion could also be Fe too. It just looks more NTP to me. 

Anyway, this is a good real life example of Ti. Probably Ni-Ti. INFJ. But Ti without a doubt. Both INTP and INFJ are allergic to Te. I think INFJ are more attracted to symbolism and meaning, more than structured knowledge. Which again Jung cuts down the middle on.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

Rachel Wood said:


> I think that's a very good simple explanation of Fi.
> 
> Your description of Ti isn't so good however. Ti is an ongoing conscious process, not a body of knowledge, and it really has little to do with abstract shapes, theories etc for their own sake - that's more an "N" thing.


I don't think he means that Ti is about abstract shapes. The whole paragraph was an analogy. Another way of stating this would be to say that Ti _idealizes_ whatever it looks at to get a clear model for using logic in. It's like in physics class when you imagine a ball to be a point particle because that's all you need to calculate its trajectory.


----------



## Rachel Wood

FearAndTrembling said:


> An INFJ does not have that patience or clarity of thought. I was discussing this recently with an INTP, Jung does not fit the system. He is Ti and Ni. He may be everything. He is definitely a Ti-Fe user though.
> 
> A case for Ne:
> 
> One way of looking at it, is that each type interacts with their first extroverted function. So INFJ and INTJ are both judgers and perceivers. They are "hidden" perceivers. Most of my work is done on the inside. Ne takes its entire thought process and puts it out in front of you. It sees possibilities. It expands. That is basically what Jung did in coming up with these types. INTJ and INFJ write like what they just said is the most obvious thing ever, while INTP act like everyone in the world was born ignorant and start very slowly.
> 
> INTP and INFP write long posts, because of Ne. And introverted judging. INTJ and INFJ are more terse and to the point. INTP wander for a long time. INFJ have a greater sense of closure.
> 
> All I'm saying is, if Jung posted on this forum,he would post like an INTP. A very mature one. Which would look a lot like a very mature INFJ too. So who the fuck knows. His expansion could also be Fe too. It just looks more NTP to me.
> 
> Anyway, this is a good real life example of Ti. Probably Ni-Ti. INFJ. But Ti without a doubt. Both INTP and INFJ are allergic to Te. I think INFJ are more attracted to symbolism and meaning, more than structured knowledge. Which again Jung cuts down the middle on.


I started a reply, but don't think this is really the thread for the discussion. We'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## Rachel Wood

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I don't think he means that Ti is about abstract shapes. The whole paragraph was an analogy. Another way of stating this would be to say that Ti _idealizes_ whatever it looks at to get a clear model for using logic in. It's like in physics class when you imagine a ball to be a point particle because that's all you need to calculate its trajectory.


They should have written that then.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

These are HEAVILY influenced by Ni.

If you're familiar with Platos forms, that is what this heavily reminded me of. Its basically the idea of the "perfect" representation of something that can never actually be expressed in reality. So like you said, the perfect circle which can never be duplicated in nature or the 'perfect' idea of patriotism which only exists as an ideal. This is Ni. Having a symbolic representation of something in your mind that isn't fully based on any tangible reality.

So basically this is just your Ni trying to imagine what dom-Ti or dom-Fi would be. And is not an accurate representation of what they actually are.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> I think that's a very good simple explanation of Fi.
> 
> Your description of Ti isn't so good however. Ti is an ongoing conscious process, not a body of knowledge, and it really has little to do with abstract shapes, theories etc for their own sake - that's more an "N" thing.


Perhaps N with T. N is perception, so it doesn't actually generate ideas, it only generates an awareness of ideas that are unconsciously derived from an undifferentiated thinking process. "What something is" is specifically and solely the thinking function, according to Jung at his Tavistock lectures on analytical psychology. Definition is an act of judgment. Thinking simply defines what everything is using either an objective or a subjective standard.

A subjective standard is essentially like saying "does it make sense to me?" Ti gets equated with philosophical thinking because philosophy strives for intense accuracy - especially pure logic. Logicians tend to be INTPs for instance, according to the MBTI Manual Third Edition. An objective standard is something like a measurement. For example, measuring the angles of an object. So you are correct about Te, in that it wouldn't question the very concept of a triangle, it would merely question whether the angles add up to 180 degrees or not. However, Ti would be more interested in the unraveling the idea of a triangle itself, not measuring things to find triangles in nature.

In my OP I said that such a crude measurement would never suffice for introverted thinking. It would need to get at the subjective basis for the shape itself. That would not be something that could be derived from objectivity. It would imply a subjective standard that exists as an idea, specifically (according to Psychological Types) within an _archetype._

Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Perhaps N with T. N is perception, so it doesn't actually generate ideas, it only generates an awareness of ideas that are unconsciously derived from an undifferentiated thinking process. "What something is" is specifically and solely the thinking function, according to Jung at his Tavistock lectures on analytical psychology. Definition is an act of judgment. Thinking simply defines what everything is using either an objective or a subjective standard.
> 
> A subjective standard is essentially like saying "does it make sense to me?" Ti gets equated with philosophical thinking because philosophy strives for intense accuracy - especially pure logic. Logicians tend to be INTPs for instance, according to the MBTI Manual Third Edition. An objective standard is something like a measurement. For example, measuring the angles of an object. So you are correct about Te, in that it wouldn't question the very concept of a triangle, it would merely question whether the angles add up to 180 degrees or not. However, Ti would be more interested in the unraveling the idea of a triangle itself, not measuring things to find triangles in nature.
> 
> In my OP I said that such a crude measurement would never suffice for introverted thinking. It would need to get at the subjective basis for the shape itself. That would not be something that could be derived from objectivity. It would imply a subjective standard that exists as an idea, specifically (according to Psychological Types) within an _archetype._
> 
> Psychological Types - Wikisocion


Well I'm INTP and I couldn't care less about pure logic - it's the most boring subject in the world.


----------



## Abraxas

FearAndTrembling said:


> I still think Jung may be an INTP. He is actually probably using Ti-Ni. Ni-Ti is more cloudy, like Nietzsche. Anyway, Jung will find the truth in anything. Where others stop examining things, Jung is just getting warmed up. Like alchemy. Some of the greatest minds thought this was a literal thing. Like you mix physical materials to make magic. Jung knew it wasn't about that. But the idea has value, and actually becomes true in another realm, when examined properly. So alchemy actually describes a psychological process. An important one, where magic is created. Even though it sounds absurd on the surface, alchemy being real is a truth.
> 
> Jung will say this idea is not true objectively, but then spend a thousand pages explaining why it is true subjectively. Ti-Fe is good at "sorting" ideas. Like, "this goes here, that goes there."





Rachel Wood said:


> But Jung wasn't INTP - he never used Ne-Si in his life!  Also, the sheer number of logical/definitional contradictions in his works is staggering (some kind of record maybe?). This, added to the mystical philosophy and EXTREMELY UNCLEAR writing style makes it very unlikely he was Ti dom. I think INFJ.





FearAndTrembling said:


> An INFJ does not have that patience or clarity of thought. I was discussing this recently with an INTP, Jung does not fit the system. He is Ti and Ni. He may be everything. He is definitely a Ti-Fe user though.


I agree with @FearAndTrembling in that, not only is Jung a Ti-type but his intuition as his auxiliary function is also clearly introverted, i.e., he is an example of dominant thinker (he classified himself as a thinker in a documentary interview once) with auxiliary intuition. The attitude of his intuition function is also introverted, which means he cannot be classified by MBTI because MBTI rigidly rejects analytical psychology's formulation of the psyche and has invented it's own theory which it calls "type dynamics."

In Jung's own terms, he would show inferior feeling, and I believe this is evident in his overall life. Jung had no intention of becoming a psychologist when he was younger, and only found himself ending up as a psychologist when he realized that he wasn't going to be able to pursue his original career choice during his higher education. He never really demonstrated much in the way of what you'd call "feeling" until the later years of his life, when he was much much older and more rounded out as a person.

In my own case, I am either Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni. My type is set to INTJ only because I fall into those dichotomies, and because I show a bit of Te sometimes (generally in my writing it shows). However, I don't agree with MBTI's type dynamics model, and so there are several "out of preference" scores for me along the J/P dichotomy that cause me to test as INTP sometimes. My preference along that dichotomy is unclear. I don't fit "neatly" into any MBTI type and have struggled with typing as INTP, INTJ, and INFJ in the past.

In any case, this thread is not about me, and whatever functions I prefer are not the _cause_ of my interpretation of Ti being faulty or correct. I believe what I asserted in my OP to be correct because it is in line with Jungian psychology, and I can cite every source that I'm using to formulate my ideas. My OP is correct because it is true to the definition of Ti. Here is a bit of Te for you then: just like the extraverted thinker who measures two angles and comes up with "triangle", I have measured the aspects of introverted thinking and feeling and come up with my OP.

If it does not meet with your _subjective idea_ of introverted thinking, then by all means, let us hear your take on it. But bear in mind, it is only useful as an indicator of how your mind works (which is useful in that it shows us how introverted thinking works), because your opinion is subjective, unless you are claiming your take to be _objective_, in which case you're in Te land now and had better play by Te rules by showing us how your opinion is actually a _fact_.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> Well I'm INTP and I couldn't care less about pure logic - it's the most boring subject in the world.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


Oh please... you are joking right?


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> I agree with @FearAndTrembling in that, not only is Jung a Ti-type but his intuition as his auxiliary function is also clearly introverted, i.e., he is an example of dominant thinker (he classified himself as a thinker in a documentary interview once) with auxiliary intuition. The attitude of his intuition function is also introverted, which means he cannot be classified by MBTI because MBTI rigidly rejects analytical psychology's formulation of the psyche and has invented it's own theory which it calls "type dynamics."
> 
> In Jung's own terms, he would show inferior feeling, and I believe this is evident in his overall life. Jung had no intention of becoming a psychologist when he was younger, and only found himself ending up as a psychologist when he realized that he wasn't going to be able to pursue his original career choice during his higher education. He never really demonstrated much in the way of what you'd call "feeling" until the later years of his life, when he was much much older and more rounded out as a person.
> 
> In my own case, I am either Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni. My type is set to INTJ only because I fall into those dichotomies, and because I show a bit of Te sometimes (generally in my writing it shows). However, I don't agree with MBTI's type dynamics model, and so there are several "out of preference" scores for me along the J/P dichotomy that cause me to test as INTP sometimes. My preference along that dichotomy is unclear. I don't fit "neatly" into any MBTI type and have struggled with typing as INTP, INTJ, and INFJ in the past.
> 
> In any case, this thread is not about me, and whatever functions I prefer are not the _cause_ of my interpretation of Ti being faulty or correct. I believe what I asserted in my OP to be correct because it is in line with Jungian psychology, and I can cite every source that I'm using to formulate my ideas. My OP is correct because it is true to the definition of Ti. Here is a bit of Te for you then: just like the extraverted thinker who measures two angles and comes up with "triangle", I have measured the aspects of introverted thinking and feeling and come up with my OP.
> 
> If it does not meet with your _subjective idea_ of introverted thinking, then by all means, let us hear your take on it. But bear in mind, it is only useful as an indicator of how your mind works (which is useful in that it shows us how introverted thinking works), because your opinion is subjective, unless you are claiming your take to be _objective_, in which case you're in Te land now and had better play by Te rules by showing us how your opinion is actually a _fact_.


Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no interest in fighting about this.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have no interest in fighting about this.


Nor do I. But it's a shame you see it as a debate/fight. A debate/fight implies that someone is trying to "win". I'm not trying to win - I asked for your take on it because I wanted to discuss it with you. If I was trying to win, then I'd do everything in my power to get you to shut up and leave, so that only my voice was heard and people would just agree with me.

I'm questioning you, criticizing your statements, and logically analyzing them in order to put them to the test of reason. This is a necessary part of the process of inquiry. However, if you just don't find the topic interesting enough to continue on, that's fine. You seem very intelligent though, I hope you decide to return to the discussion later. Maybe just take a break?


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Nor do I. But it's a shame you see it as a debate/fight. A debate/fight implies that someone is trying to "win". I'm not trying to win - I asked for your take on it because I wanted to discuss it with you. If I was trying to win, then I'd do everything in my power to get you to shut up and leave, so that only my voice was heard and people would just agree with me.
> 
> I'm questioning you, criticizing your statements, and logically analyzing them in order to put them to the test of reason. This is a necessary part of the process of inquiry. However, if you just don't find the topic interesting enough to continue on, that's fine. You seem very intelligent though, I hope you decide to return to the discussion later. Maybe just take a break?


It sounded that way to me, with all the "I have all the facts" stuff. 

If you really want to know my take on Ti and Te, read this long boring article I wrote last year:

The Mechanics of Te and Ti | CelebrityTypes

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter, and it's boring to repeat myself.


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It's just that the degree to which it can be generalized is unknown without further testing. 

Also, consider this type of case:

Claim: "All introverts are shy."
Anecdote: "I'm an introvert and I'm not shy."
Conclusion: The claim must be rejected if the anecdote is true.

Depending on the logical "shape" of the claim you make, the value of an anecdote varies. It is not enough to merely learn rules of logic.

For the record, I don't like the subject of logic either. Studying it is pointless for me because I have my own built-in logic compass already. I once took a course in logic and it was like learning a lengthy mathematical procedure for calculating what color something is. I didn't learn a thing from it.

But I am not sure if you ever even claimed Ti-doms like the subject of logic anyways.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> It sounded that way to me, with all the "I have all the facts" stuff.
> 
> If you really want to know my take on Ti and Te, read this long boring article I wrote last year:
> 
> The Mechanics of Te and Ti | CelebrityTypes
> 
> That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter, and it's boring to repeat myself.


Unfortunately it won't let me read the whole article, and I can't afford to sign up.


In the part it does let me read, you say it's a problem that people "relate thinking with logic".

So you don't endorse the research that validates the MBTI Step II™ facets?

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...riptions-mbti-step-ii-facets.html#post6261338

"Logical" is literally the _core facet_ of "thinking" in MBTI. Did you know that?


----------



## Abraxas

Silveresque said:


> Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It's just that the degree to which it can be generalized is unknown without further testing.
> 
> Also, consider this type of case:
> 
> Claim: "All introverts are shy."
> Anecdote: "I'm an introvert and I'm not shy."
> Conclusion: The claim must be rejected if the anecdote is true.
> 
> Depending on the logical "shape" of the claim you make, the value of an anecdote varies. It is not enough to merely learn rules of logic.
> 
> For the record, I don't like the subject of logic either. Studying it is pointless for me because I have my own built-in logic compass already. I once took a course in logic and it was like learning a lengthy mathematical procedure for calculating what color something is. I didn't learn a thing from it.
> 
> But I am not sure if you ever even claimed Ti-doms like the subject of logic anyways.


It doesn't matter.

Personal experiences can't be accepted as absolute _proof_ of a claim about anything besides the subject's personal experiences, especially when it's being used to invalidate statistics, as it was meant to do in this discussion.

And yes, although it is not strictly _my claim alone_ that Ti-doms like logic. You can look that fact up in the MBTI Manual Third Edition.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Unfortunately it won't let me read the whole article, and I can't afford to sign up.
> 
> 
> In the part it does let me read, you say it's a problem that people "relate thinking with logic".
> 
> So you don't endorse the research that validates the MBTI Step II™ facets?
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...riptions-mbti-step-ii-facets.html#post6261338
> 
> "Logical" is literally the _core facet_ of "thinking" in MBTI. Did you know that?


I'm not writing about MBTI. I'm writing about functions based typology, which is a large part of where we disagree I think. The four dichotomies approach has far more in common with the Five Factor Model (which is more scientifically measurable, but doesn't have as much power to explain the psyche). Both approaches are fine, I just find the function approach far more interesting and nuanced personally.

Logic does not equal the Thinking function. Emotion does not equal the Feeling function. Both those things are tools the function uses to reach a conclusion, not the functions themselves.

If your main functions are Ni and Ti, then you are either INFJ or ISTP, not INTJ.


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> It doesn't matter.
> 
> Personal experiences can't be accepted as absolute _proof_ of a claim about anything besides the subject's personal experiences, especially when it's being used to invalidate statistics, as it was meant to do in this discussion.


In other words, you're not interested in the definitional essence of Ti (what _all _Ti has in common) but rather in statistical generalizations (what _most _Ti has in common)? Anecdotes are important in the former but not the latter.

And where are these statistics? How do you intend to gain absolute proof?


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> And yes, although it is not strictly _my claim alone_ that Ti-doms like logic. You can look that fact up in the MBTI Manual Third Edition.


I am not interested in generalizations, only what is absolutely essential.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Silveresque said:


> Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It's just that the degree to which it can be generalized is unknown without further testing.
> 
> Also, consider this type of case:
> 
> Claim: "All introverts are shy."
> Anecdote: "I'm an introvert and I'm not shy."
> Conclusion: The claim must be rejected if the anecdote is true.
> 
> Depending on the logical "shape" of the claim you make, the value of an anecdote varies. It is not enough to merely learn rules of logic.
> 
> For the record, I don't like the subject of logic either. Studying it is pointless for me because I have my own built-in logic compass already. I once took a course in logic and it was like learning a lengthy mathematical procedure for calculating what color something is. I didn't learn a thing from it.
> 
> But I am not sure if you ever even claimed Ti-doms like the subject of logic anyways.


Firstly, my response about logic being boring was obviously me voicing my own opinion. Only an idiot would suggest anything was OBJECTIVELY boring. Which is why I asked if @Abraxas was joking.

Secondly, I agree that Anecdotal Evidence gets a bad reputation - as I wrote about in part four of THIS article haha:

On the Dubious Use of Fallacies | CelebrityTypes


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> I'm not writing about MBTI. I'm writing about functions based typology, which is a large part of where we disagree I think. The four dichotomies approach has far more in common with the Five Factor Model (which is more scientifically measurable, but doesn't have as much power to explain the psyche). Both approaches are fine, I just find the function approach far more interesting and nuanced personally.
> 
> Logic does not equal the Thinking function. Emotion does not equal the Feeling function. Both those things are tools the function uses to reach a conclusion, not the functions themselves.
> 
> If your main functions are Ni and Ti, then you are either INFJ or ISTP, not INTJ.


I agree, I think the function approach is far more interesting. I prefer Jungian analysis myself, and while I think MBTI Step II is the way forward for a scientific theory of personality, I think analytical psychology is more inspiring and I can see far ranging implications for it that go way beyond the scope of MBTI (or the philosophy of science for that matter).

I think type dynamics is bogus, as I've already stated. However, as you've made it clear you're talking about the thinking function and not the thinking dichotomy, I think we're on the same page and I agree with you there. Thinking as a function is not equatable to just "logic", Jung was never that precise in his definition of it. I just had to be sure where you were coming from.

Strictly speaking, if my main functions are Intuition and Thinking in that order, then I would be either an ENTP or an INTJ according to MBTI. As I identify more strongly with introversion than extraversion, that would make INTJ my "best fit" type. My J/P dichotomy is unclear, because I don't fit neatly into either one. The only other type I could see myself as is INTP, however I think INTJ is a better fit for me.


----------



## Abraxas

Silveresque said:


> In other words, you're not interested in the definitional essence of Ti (what _all _Ti has in common) but rather in statistical generalizations (what _most _Ti has in common)? Anecdotes are important in the former but not the latter.
> 
> And where are these statistics? How do you intend to gain absolute proof?


I agree that anecdotes are important in the former. That's why I asked @Rachel Woods for her subjective input.

But note that I made the distinction between a personal take on the matter, and someone making a statement about the objective world as if it were a matter of fact. In the latter case, you need to provide something better than an anecdote to prove that the whole world is congruent with your personal experience.

The statistics about INTP career and educational preferences are in the MBTI Manual Third Edition.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> I agree that anecdotes are important in the former. That's why I asked @Rachel Woods for her subjective input.
> 
> But note that I made the distinction between a personal take on the matter, and someone making a statement about the objective world as if it were a matter of fact. In the latter case, you need to provide something better than an anecdote to prove that the whole world is congruent with your personal experience.
> 
> The statistics about INTP career and educational preferences are in the MBTI Manual Third Edition.


There's no such thing as a purely objective "fact", so you set a high barrier. There's just different shades of "subjectivity".


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> There's no such thing as a purely objective "fact", so you set a high barrier. There's just different shades of "subjectivity".


Now it's my turn. :wink:

Surely you're joking?


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Now it's my turn. :wink:
> 
> Surely you're joking?


Nope. Give me a purely objective fact, if you can.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> Nope. Give me a purely objective fact, if you can.


As interesting as I think it would be for us to continue in the direction you're suggesting (and believe me, I LOVE philosophical discussions about epistemology and ontology), I actually noticed a new post listed at the bottom of the webpage that I think does a much better job than my OP at describing introverted thinking and I'd like to link to it here for your review to see if you approve and we can find a common ground for further analysis.

http://personalitycafe.com/intp-for...ion-introverted-thinking-ti.html#post17444562

EDIT: okay, I couldn't resist.

_If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition "truth is subjective" is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition "truth is objective" can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition "truth is objective" can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition "truth is objective", which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn't necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn't necessarily true._

I'm personally on the side of the argument that holds that only _a priori_ arguments (such as the one above this paragraph) can be objectively true and therefore constitute "objective facts". Mathematical arguments of the sort like 7 + 5 = 12, are for example, objective facts, because they don't require confirmation of any sort and therefore are devoid of even the possibility of subjectivity. But there are people who would argue that number theory wouldn't exist unless there was the physical world from which to derive it - I don't agree with that proposition. I don't believe, for example, that thinkers are a prerequisite for thoughts. In that sense I disagree with Descarte's assertion "_je pense, donc je suis" _or "cogito ergo sum"; what he proves is that thoughts necessarily imply their own existence, but he is making an intuitive leap in assuming that thoughts imply the existence of thinkers. Strictly speaking, they do not.

There's a bit of my Ti for you.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> As interesting as I think it would be for us to continue in the direction you're suggesting (and believe me, I LOVE philosophical discussions about epistemology and ontology), I actually noticed a new post listed at the bottom of the webpage that I think does a much better job than my OP at describing introverted thinking and I'd like to link to it here for your review to see if you approve and we can find a common ground for further analysis.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/intp-for...ion-introverted-thinking-ti.html#post17444562
> 
> EDIT: okay, I couldn't resist.
> 
> _If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition "truth is subjective" is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition "truth is objective" can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition "truth is objective" can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition "truth is objective", which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn't necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn't necessarily true._
> 
> I'm personally on the side of the argument that holds that only _a priori_ arguments (such as the one above this paragraph) can be objectively true and therefore constitute "objective facts". Mathematical arguments of the sort like 7 + 5 = 12, are for example, objective facts, because they don't require confirmation of any sort and therefore are devoid of even the possibility of subjectivity. But there are people who would argue that number theory wouldn't exist unless there was the physical world from which to derive it - I don't agree with that proposition. I don't believe, for example, that thinkers are a prerequisite for thoughts. In that sense I disagree with Descarte's assertion "_je pense, donc je suis" _or "cogito ergo sum"; what he proves is that thoughts necessarily imply their own existence, but he is making an intuitive leap in assuming that thoughts imply the existence of thinkers. Strictly speaking, they do not.
> 
> There's a bit of my Ti for you.


Yeah. The big problem with your argument for objective truth is that it relies on logic - and logic already ASSUMES the existence of truth and falsehood. It wouldn't work otherwise. So using logic, it's obvious you're going to end up with that conclusion. But because of its reliance on truth, logic can't even prove its own existence, never mind anything else, without circular reasoning.

As for the idea that shapes, numbers etc. are completely objective and floating around in a strange netherworld independently of human minds... you'll have a hard time convincing me of that.  Why are you under the impression that 7+5=12 (etc) requires no externally oriented validation or learning?


----------



## Dao

Rachel Wood said:


> Yeah. The big problem with your argument for objective truth is that it relies on logic - and logic already ASSUMES the existence of truth and falsehood. It wouldn't work otherwise. So using logic, it's obvious you're going to end up with that conclusion. But because of its reliance on truth, logic can't even prove its own existence, never mind anything else, without circular reasoning.


Logic also presupposes some reasoning is superior to others, including circular reasoning. How can you explain your conclusion then?


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> Yeah. The big problem with your argument for objective truth is that it relies on logic - and logic already ASSUMES the existence of truth and falsehood. It wouldn't work otherwise. So using logic, it's obvious you're going to end up with that conclusion. But because of its reliance on truth, logic can't even prove its own existence, never mind anything else, without circular reasoning.


Logic, strictly speaking, deals with validity, not truth. Truth is part of validity, but it's not the main event so to speak. Consider the following:

If blue is a color, then iron is a mineral.
Blue is a color.
Therefore, iron is a mineral.

Again, strictly speaking, the above is perfectly sound logic. But the problem is one of _entailment_, not logic.



Rachel Wood said:


> As for the idea that shapes, numbers etc. are completely objective and floating around in a strange netherworld independently of human minds... you'll have a hard time convincing me of that.  Why are you under the impression that 7+5=12 (etc) requires no externally oriented validation or learning?


I don't see how it needs to be confirmed in order to be "proven". It is still going to be a fact and be true even if nobody ever conceived of it. It doesn't depend upon human beings or external circumstances to be true, therefore there is no possible way it could ever be subjective.

_EDIT: sorry, I meant "entailment" not "inherence"._


----------



## Ixim

Silveresque said:


> The best way I can describe my Ti is that it's like seeing the logical "shape" of everything and immediately being able to tell whether certain things fit together coherently, whether the logic is harmonious.
> 
> Sometimes I experience a concept as valid because there is nothing obstructing the logical harmony. Things like this will feel really honest and true. Other times I see people trying to put a square peg in a round hole and it just doesn't work that way. Communication can be frustrating because often words aren't adequate to explain the logical relationships I perceive and why something seems right or not right.
> 
> I wouldn't describe it as "a priori" for me. It doesn't seem like I have rules and principles stored in my head (may be different for Ti-Ne?), more like the situation comes first and then I see the logical relationships contained within that situation. These relationships aren't "too perfect to exist" because they do exist.
> 
> Ti doesn't focus on the objects themselves so much as the relationships between them. So the fact that it's impossible to get a perfect 180 degree angle in reality is irrelevant to Ti because Ti doesn't care whether something is 180 degrees or not, instead it sees that angle A > angle B. I think it is Te that's more focused on the logical facts of the object itself.


Ti should be concrete, static facts. But what do I know? If I were to cut Ti and Fi down to own line it'd be:

Ti: Don't try to put a square peg into a round hole
Fi: Don't try to act in a church like you'd in a disco

They are inherently similar, see? it's just that one deals with anima(Fi) while the other deals with inanima(Ti). Now, that's simplicity!


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Logic, strictly speaking, deals with validity, not truth. Truth is part of validity, but it's not the main event so to speak. Consider the following:
> 
> If blue is a color, then iron is a mineral.
> Blue is a color.
> Therefore, iron is a mineral.
> 
> Again, strictly speaking, the above is perfectly sound logic. But the problem is one of _entailment_, not logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it needs to be confirmed in order to be "proven". It is still going to be a fact and be true even if nobody ever conceived of it. It doesn't depend upon human beings or external circumstances to be true, therefore there is no possible way it could ever be subjective.
> 
> _EDIT: sorry, I meant "entailment" not "inherence"._


I'm arguing against the use of logic in a vacuum. By itself, logic cannot solve anything, and so it cannot be used as the foundation for a philosophy. Otherwise, you end up like Descartes.

How can you go from logic in a vacuum to content about things which exist -apparently - in the external world (blueness/minerals/iron etc) without the use of sensory information? How can we formulate any meaningful arguments without premises?

Well my perspective is that these abstract forms you mention have no existence outside the mind. There's absolutely no reason they should. Our minds are just abstracting general patterns from vast amounts of specific data in order to understand it. That doesn't mean that therefore the ideas exist independently of our mind, that we are observing true forms, though our human biases might make it appear that way to us.

Anyway, it's a pointless discussion, and irrelevant to the thread, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## Rachel Wood

reckful said:


> I would direct your attention to the Forum Rules, and specifically paragraph 3 ("No Advertising").
> 
> You say you're not inclined to "repeat" your take on Ti here because it would be "boring." Well, as you know, that article you linked to is behind a paywall at Celebrity Types, and I'd be surprised if more than two or three of the participants in this thread (not to mention the non-posting readers) are paid CT members. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if _none_ of the thread's readers are among CT's paid members. In any case, it's certainly true that, for the vast majority of this thread's readers, hearing your take on Ti wouldn't be boringly "repetitious," since they don't have access to your linked article.
> 
> As for how boring it would be for _you_, that sounds a bit dubious, given the fact that you've already done the writing and would pretty much just have to cut and paste the relevant paragraphs here, and the fact that you'd be sharing your views with an essentially new audience.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with putting your views on typology behind a paywall, but if you want to _also_ be a forum participant, then it seems to me that you need to make a choice. On any issue where you're not really willing to explain your "take" on the subject under discussion because it's _something people are supposed to pay for_, I think you ought to consider yourself honor-bound — and probably forum-rule-bound, in any case — not to go into a forum thread and, in effect, post a "teaser" post or two, followed by, hey, "if you really want to know my take" (your words), you need to go become a Celebrity Types subscriber.


To be honest I didn't know it was in the members only section. I completely agree with you - there's no reason anyone should have to pay just to read my personal opinions about two functions.

The article isn't very good anyway; it was published mainly because I'm good friends with the admins, not because I had any genius original perspective.

I just posted the link because another user asked for an in-depth description of my views.


----------



## Rachel Wood

reckful said:


> You're not writing about "functions based typology" generally. If your position is that "Ni" and "Ti" correspond to INFJ or ISTP, you're subscribing to a very specific version of "type dynamics" that is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and has no respectable body of evidence behind it.
> 
> And in fact, as I've explained in a number of posts here at PerC — including three I recently linked you to in another thread (one, two and three — I think it's fair to say that at this point, based on the stunning absence of evidence for that version of type dynamics in _over fifty years_ of MBTI data pools, the Harold Grant function stack is past the point of being able to respectably claim "_not yet proven_" status, and should really be considered _disproven_ by anyone who likes to think of themselves as reality-oriented.
> 
> Somebody doing "function based" type analysis based on the notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si" might as well be talking about the fact that that particular INFP is a Pisces.
> 
> After I linked you to those posts in that other thread, you gave me the same "we'll just have to agree to disagree" non-reply that you gave @Abraxas earlier in this thread. But when it comes to things that reasonable people can disagree about, there's an important distinction to be made between matters of _opinion_ and matters of _fact_.
> 
> The Harold Grant function stack says that an INFP uses four "cognitive functions" (Fi-Ne-Si-Te), and that INFPs have multiple significant aspects of personality in common with their _dichometrically opposite type_ (ESTJs) that they _don't_ share with INFJs — because ESTJs, like INFPs are "Fi/Te types" and "Ne/Si" types, whereas INFJs have "Fe/Ti" and "Ni/Se" as their corresponding "function axes."
> 
> It's a matter of _fact_, not opinion, that the Harold Grant function stack is inconsistent with Jung. There's arguably room for disagreement over the attitude Jung assigned to the auxiliary function — although, as explained in this post, I think the notion that Jung viewed the auxiliary as having the opposite attitude to the dominant is all but insupportable — but I've never heard anybody respectable claim that Jung didn't believe that (in the typical case) the tertiary function had the _opposite_ attitude to the dominant. There are plenty of issues in Jung's writings that are ambiguous to one degree or other, but that isn't one of them.
> 
> And it's a matter of _fact_, not opinion, that the Harold Grant function stack is also inconsistent with Myers, whose function stack for an Fi-dom with an N-aux was Fi-Ne-Se-Te.
> 
> And it's a matter of _fact_, not opinion, that today — over 30 years after Myers' death — the official MBTI folks are continuing to refuse to subscribe to the so-called "function axes." And that's because it's a matter of _fact_, not opinion, that the way typological categories establish their validity in the field of personality psychology is by showing up in the form of statistically significant correlations in a respectable body of data pools. And it's a matter of _fact_, not opinion, that — in stark contrast to the dichotomies, whose validity has been found to be more or less on a par with the Big Five factors — the correlational patterns predicted by the "function axes" _virtually never show up_ in MBTI-based studies. If being an "Fe/Ti" type or an "Fi/Te" type has any significant influence that puts INFPs and ESTJs on one side of the spectrum with respect to certain aspects of personality and INFJs and ESTPs on the other side of the spectrum, those aspects of personality have remained just as stubbornly invisible to the psychologists conducting MBTI studies as the similarly invisible aspects of personality that purportedly correspond to being a Pisces or a Libra or a Scorpio.
> 
> So... with all due respect, it may be time for you to stop hiding behind "we're just going to have to agree to disagree" and wake up to the facts.


As I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You say there's not as much evidence for the dynamics model? Well, I completely agree - but seeing as the dynamics model is more focused on workings of the mind than on measurable behaviour, I don't see how you can expect it to be different.

I subscribe to "A" mental dynamics model actually - to me it seems the right way to go. So did Jung - the strength of the dominant function pulls you further from your inferior function. So Jung took a dynamic perspective at least as far as Dom-Inf functions go. I don't think Jung really differentiated between extroverted and introverted aux-ter functions (though I did notice him do that sometimes), but he used a mental dynamics model there too - the strength of the aux correlates with the weakness of the ter. So I don't really see what you're talking about.

The only difference is that the "modern" model says Fi-Ne-Si-Te while Jung may have said Fi-N-S-Te or Fi-Ni-Se-Te or Fi-Ni-Si-Te or Fi-Ne-Se-Te - or whatever, depending on Jung's mood when he was writing that day.

I think the aux and tertiary functions really are opposite orientations (Ne-Si rather than Ne-Se etc). It just fits better with the symmetry of the dom-inf axis. But I wouldn't say the order was always strictly IEIE or EIEI - I see no reason why IIEE and EEII are impossible. So yes, I think there may well be some Fi-Si-Ne-Te INFPs.

But as I said, we just have to agree to disagree. It's a useless debate and nobody is "right", because we're talking about completely different approaches.


----------



## ferroequinologist

reckful said:


> You say you're not inclined to "repeat" your take on Ti here because it would be "boring." Well, as you know, that article you linked to is behind a paywall at Celebrity Types, and I'd be surprised if more than two or three of the participants in this thread (not to mention the non-posting readers) are paid CT members.


I can say I'm a paying member. I can also add that I have not-too-infrequently posted links to articles behind the paywall, because it's easy for me to forget what's behind the paywall or not.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> I actually agree with this completely.
> 
> But at the same time, I don't think it's an excuse not to try. In fact it sounds a bit like how someone with thinking as an inferior function would feel about thinking in general. To contrast, I only view what you just said as a never-ending challenge and a mechanism by which I can _infinitely_ improve myself.


Did I ever say we should or shouldn't try? You're arguing against something I never said.


----------



## Rachel Wood

ferroequinologist said:


> I can say I'm a paying member. I can also add that I have not-too-infrequently posted links to articles behind the paywall, because it's easy for me to forget what's behind the paywall or not.


This.


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> I'm arguing against the use of logic in a vacuum. By itself, logic cannot solve anything, and so it cannot be used as the foundation for a philosophy. Otherwise, you end up like Descartes.


I just don't agree with you at all. I think logic can be used to solve a great many things, perhaps even everything. That's probably why I identify as a dominant rational thinker.

And Descarte was a great man. "End up" as him? Lol, are you kidding me?

I could only hope to be as brilliant and immortalized as Descarte, or to contribute such a powerful work in my lifetime as he did. He is one of the greatest thinkers the human species has ever recorded, despite whatever he may or may not have gotten right or wrong. He is still a role-model for any person, and an inspiration for generations to come.

I suppose you would probably say the same thing about Immanuel Kant right? Because he was content to produce his Critique of Pure Reason. I mean, what use was that to building bridges and castles and moats and tools for the villagers? None at all, so I guess his contribution can't be used as the foundation of philosophy. Into the trash it goes!



Rachel Wood said:


> Well my perspective is that these abstract forms you mention have no existence outside the mind. There's absolutely no reason they should.


If you don't think anything can exist outside the mind, then congratulations, you're a solipsist. Well done in that achievement of a self-refuting "perspective". On the contrary, things certainly do exist outside of our minds, and most people call those things "objects" which make up the "objective" world. The other side of that coin is the presupposition that _ideas_ can be the same way, which goes all the way back to Plato's forms. But hey, I guess PLATO isn't a foundation for philosophy either, right?



Rachel Wood said:


> Our minds are just abstracting general patterns from vast amounts of specific data in order to understand it. That doesn't mean that therefore the ideas exist independently of our mind, that we are observing true forms, though our human biases might make it appear that way to us.


Nor does it imply the reverse, which you are apparently taking for granted. Which is quite ironic, considering your earlier statement in this very same thread:

"None of us can meaningfully explain our full reasons for believing anything. That's my point. Anybody who believes they can is deluded." - Rachel Wood.



Rachel Wood said:


> Anyway, it's a pointless discussion, and irrelevant to the thread, so I'll leave it there.


Lol, it most certainly is a pointless discussion, and please do. It's starting to get offensive.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> I just don't agree with you at all. I think logic can be used to solve a great many things, perhaps even everything. That's probably why I identify as a dominant rational thinker.
> 
> And Descarte was a great man. "End up" as him? Lol, are you kidding me?
> 
> I could only hope to be as brilliant and immortalized as Descarte, or to contribute such a powerful work in my lifetime as he did. He is one of the greatest thinkers the human species has ever recorded, despite whatever he may or may not have gotten right or wrong. He is still a role-model for any person, and an inspiration for generations to come.
> 
> I suppose you would probably say the same thing about Immanuel Kant right? Because he was content to produce his Critique of Pure Reason. I mean, what use was that to building bridges and castles and moats and tools for the villagers? None at all, so I guess his contribution can't be used as the foundation of philosophy. Into the trash it goes!
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think anything can exist outside the mind, then congratulations, you're a solipsist. Well done in that achievement of a self-refuting "perspective". On the contrary, things certainly do exist outside of our minds, and most people call those things "objects" which make up the "objective" world. The other side of that coin is the presupposition that _ideas_ can be the same way, which goes all the way back to Plato's forms. But hey, I guess PLATO isn't a foundation for philosophy either, right?
> 
> Nor does it imply the reverse, which you are apparently taking for granted. Which is quite ironic, considering your earlier statement in this very same thread:
> 
> "None of us can meaningfully explain our full reasons for believing anything. That's my point. Anybody who believes they can is deluded." - Rachel Wood.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, it most certainly is a pointless discussion, and please do. It's starting to get offensive.


I don't know whether you're intentionally misinterpreting me or making genuine errors in understanding.

Either way, as always, we'll have to agree to disagree, and move on with our lives.


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> Your model allows for exceptions that cast your definitions into doubt. E.g., I may, by way of introverted judgment, make the determination that I ought to affect my environment. If the primary factor in my making that determination is subjective, i.e., I did not try to eliminate any subjectivity from my conclusion, but rather, I not only allowed for it, I actively sought it out, then my judgment is introverted. Yet, I am still the "subject/boss" and I am "toying" with my environment. According to your definitions, that would be extraverted.
> 
> Your definitions can't account for the above example, therefore they are invalid.
> 
> As for me, I'm not Ni-Te. I'm either Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni - probably Ti-Ni, in case it isn't obvious to you how meticulous and critical my thinking can be from this thread. As a point-of-fact, I think type dynamics is false and misleading. The only reason my type code on this website is set to INTJ is because those are the dichotomies and Step II facets I identify with as my "best fit". I do not identify with my proposed "stack" of functions. I don't even identify with the majority of type descriptions of INTJs.


Fair enough, but let's then get down and dirty and gritty:

Speaking of logic, MBTI itself(neither modern neither Jungian) makes any sense. So, let's use an example of a Fe lead. So, the lead function is Fe-a judging function of the F type with an outer orientation. Fine. From here Jung tells that a following principle must be adhered to: "Second function will be at odds with the primary functions at every level". So, in our example a Fe user would have a second function of perceptive/information gathering nature and of introverted, that is inner orientation. But, here's the question: "Without prior testing and knowing that person, WHICH INTROVERTED PERCEPTIVE FUNCTION WILL IT BE? Si? Ni?"

As you can see, they both fit...so how do we solve this conundrum? Answer: we can't without cheating(testing, prior knowledge etc). So:

This theory is inconclussive as well(at the very best) and its results are, let's call them, shady. Hm?


----------



## Abraxas

Rachel Wood said:


> I don't know whether you're intentionally misinterpreting me or making genuine errors in understanding.


I don't know why you keep using the pronoun "you" to deflect taking responsibility for your half of the equation. Wouldn't you agree that the more mature and intelligent thing to say is, "we seem to have failed at communicating with each other effectively. If neither of us sees a reason to continue, we might as well disengage." You know, a mutual admission of fault, since, the bottom line is, there's no need to place _blame._ It's obvious I'm just as at fault for "misinterpreting you" and that I don't understand you, but that's because _you don't make any sense_.

Your attempt to save face with robotic responses is your hubris showing itself. It's quite obvious that you were trying to weasel your way out of meeting me halfway from your very first post, and hence why I said it's starting to get offensive. Your lack of self-awareness is positively astounding. You don't respect rational thinking, as much as I don't respect irrational thinking, especially the kind that tries to deflate the importance of logic and reason on a website dealing with a subject as interpretive as personality psychology.



Rachel Wood said:


> Either way, as always, we'll have to agree to disagree, and move on with our lives.


Then do it already, christ. Goodbye, Rachel - nice meeting you! I wish you luck on your spirit journey, medicine woman.


----------



## Abraxas

Ixim said:


> Fair enough, but let's then get down and dirty and gritty:
> 
> Speaking of logic, MBTI itself(neither modern neither Jungian) makes any sense. So, let's use an example of a Fe lead. So, the lead function is Fe-a judging function of the F type with an outer orientation. Fine. From here Jung tells that a following principle must be adhered to: "Second function will be at odds with the primary functions at every level". So, in our example a Fe user would have a second function of perceptive/information gathering nature and of introverted, that is inner orientation. But, here's the question: "Without prior testing and knowing that person, WHICH INTROVERTED PERCEPTIVE FUNCTION WILL IT BE? Si? Ni?"
> 
> As you can see, they both fit...so how do we solve this conundrum? Answer: we can't without cheating(testing, prior knowledge etc). So:
> 
> This theory is inconclussive as well(at the very best) and its results are, let's call them, shady. Hm?


I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying... at all.

Your conclusion is "the theory is inconclusive and shady"... and your premise for this claim is "because we need to cheat (by testing or prior knowledge) to determine what a person's auxiliary perceiving function would be in the case of a Fe-type"

... Dude, what?

Inb4 "oh you must not be a Ti-type because a Ti-type would totally get me and agree".

...

Man, I think I need a break from this thread for today. What is even happening anymore. :frustrating:


----------



## ferroequinologist

Rachel Wood said:


> I don't know whether you're intentionally misinterpreting me or making genuine errors in understanding.
> 
> Either way, as always, we'll have to agree to disagree, and move on with our lives.


Are you kidding me? I'm loving this! It's a Te-Ti battle extraordinaire! It's the sort of thing that everybody complains about when Fe and Fi types go at it, but it's Ti vs Te! Fascinating! :-D


----------



## Abraxas

ferroequinologist said:


> Are you kidding me? I'm loving this! It's a Te-Ti battle extraordinaire! It's the sort of thing that everybody complains about when Fe and Fi types go at it, but it's Ti vs Te! Fascinating! :-D


Why does it have to be Te vs Ti?

What if we just came to different conclusions and don't agree?

Although, in reckful's case, that's pretty Te. Even I feel intimidated when he drops the hammer. Yeesh. Dem facts tho. "It's not an opinion, it's a _fact_." Gaddamn.


----------



## Rachel Wood

ferroequinologist said:


> Are you kidding me? I'm loving this! It's a Te-Ti battle extraordinaire! It's the sort of thing that everybody complains about when Fe and Fi types go at it, but it's Ti vs Te! Fascinating! :-D


Well I'm definitely not the Te type haha. Thank god.

"Logic exists because it just does. And look I can prove it using logic - if logic didn't exist that wouldn't make logical sense. Duh! So it must exist."

That's essentially the argument.


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying... at all.
> 
> Your conclusion is "the theory is inconclusive and shady"... and your premise for this claim is "because we need to cheat (by testing or prior knowledge) to determine what a person's auxiliary perceiving function would be in the case of a Fe-type"
> 
> ... Dude, what?
> 
> Inb4 "oh you must not be a Ti-type because a Ti-type would totally get me and agree".
> 
> ...
> 
> Man, I think I need a break from this thread for today. What is even happening anymore. :frustrating:


Yes, just that!

Theory is not finished. In the theory of resistivity, you know everything you need to infer conclussions. Even without practical example. And don't make me pull maths, log.algebra, math.analysis etc.


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> Why does it have to be Te vs Ti?
> 
> What if we just came to different conclusions and don't agree?
> 
> Although, in reckful's case, that's pretty Te. Even I feel intimidated when he drops the hammer. Yeesh. Dem facts tho. "It's not an opinion, it's a _fact_." Gaddamn.


I completely agree. But you have to admit the Ti vs Te BATTLE is a much more interesting way of looking at it. It gives what's actually been a fairly low key, respectful discussion a kind of grand, violent Good vs Evil significance. Good old Fi types.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Abraxas said:


> Why does it have to be Te vs Ti?
> 
> What if we just came to different conclusions and don't agree?
> 
> Although, in reckful's case, that's pretty Te. Even I feel intimidated when he drops the hammer. Yeesh. Dem facts tho. "It's not an opinion, it's a _fact_." Gaddamn.


The key to this battle, however, is how you two are responding, and you are perceiving what is important, and even what reality is. You are arguing for cold, hard facts and reality, while Ti is borderline solipsistic (as observed). If I could be so bold as to add that the inferior functions are coming to play. The inferior Fe tends to say "you", and like you observed, seems to be placing all the blame on you. You retort with a more Fi, "to each his own" emotional space. You are not offended directly by the conflict, while she is. But you are frustrated by her being offended and backing off. I've lived this sort of thing with my INTP wife for years, except I'm inferior Te. In any case, it's not so simple as just coming to different conclusions--it's _why_ you can't communicate and come to any kind of constructive ending--it won't happen. It can't happen, because Te-Ti. Oh, I've also gone through these same sorts of things with my ISFJ friend. 

Here's a hint to the Te-Ti issue. To Ti, facts must follow theory. To Te, theory must follow facts. On that basis alone, this conversation could go nowhere.


----------



## Rachel Wood

ferroequinologist said:


> The key to this battle, however, is how you two are responding, and you are perceiving what is important, and even what reality is. You are arguing for cold, hard facts and reality, while Ti is borderline solipsistic (as observed). If I could be so bold as to add that the inferior functions are coming to play. The inferior Fe tends to say "you", and like you observed, seems to be placing all the blame on you. You retort with a more Fi, "to each his own" emotional space. You are not offended directly by the conflict, while she is. But you are frustrated by her being offended and backing off. I've lived this sort of thing with my INTP wife for years, except I'm inferior Te. In any case, it's not so simple as just coming to different conclusions--it's _why_ you can't communicate and come to any kind of constructive ending--it won't happen. It can't happen, because Te-Ti. Oh, I've also gone through these same sorts of things with my ISFJ friend.
> 
> Here's a hint to the Te-Ti issue. To Ti, facts must follow theory. To Te, theory must follow facts. On that basis alone, this conversation could go nowhere.


Well I disagree, because I'm not a solipsist at all. I'm saying that to take pure logic by itself, and say it's capable of solving anything, will lead to absurd conclusions. But that's only one small part of my worldview.

My argument is really that we need to get rid of this weird bias towards pure logic, and instead build our worldviews using an integrated mix of mental processes and sensory information (which is exactly what we do anyway - I just think philosophy needs to reflect this, and it doesn't).

But nobody asked for clarification on this, and just assumed I was a solipsist because of my argument about logic in a vacuum. @Abraxas and I probably have pretty similar views, but reach them in very different ways.

As for me being offended, I have no idea where you get that from...


----------



## Abraxas

ferroequinologist said:


> The key to this battle, however, is how you two are responding, and you are perceiving what is important, and even what reality is. You are arguing for cold, hard facts and reality, while Ti is borderline solipsistic (as observed).


I suppose. But, in my defense, I actually tend not to make those kinds of concessions when I discuss things privately with my friends, or face-to-face, or outside of a public venue. When I'm under the scrutiny of the public eye, the tendency is to try as much as possible to give lip-service to the extraverted way of thinking, because, as you've probably noticed, it's trending right now (and has been for several hundred years).

The honest truth is that I've struggled with solipsism all my life. I still do. But my way of transcending the problem of solipsism _without_ giving up my own conviction in dualism was to assert that Plato's forms and Aristotle's essences had an eternally valid and true _a priori_ nature completely independent of empirical, falsifiable, objectively determined _a posteriori_ things.

So naturally, you can imagine my elation when I come across Jung and he starts talking about 'archetypes' that exist on the one side of reality, the subjective side of it, and "objects" that exist on the other side of reality, the objective side of it, and the psyche is just where we meet in the middle, with the ego at the center of consciousness. I mean WOW, right? Holy shit. That's fantastic. I immediately get what he's saying and it just fits perfectly.

And then along comes MBTI, and here's all this science, and man functions are BULLSHIT because of FACTS. And I'm like "no, fuck that." It's like if someone came along and said, "HEY BRO! NUMBERS AREN'T REAL BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE FALSIFIED EMPIRICALLY, THEREFORE MATH IS BULLSHIT. CHECKMATE RATIONALISTS."



ferroequinologist said:


> If I could be so bold as to add that the inferior functions are coming to play. The inferior Fe tends to say "you", and like you observed, seems to be placing all the blame on you. You retort with a more Fi, "to each his own" emotional space. You are not offended directly by the conflict, while she is. But you are frustrated by her being offended and backing off.


Well I mean, I don't know if it's really Fi or Fe, but the bottom line is that my ego is invested into my opinions, and her ego is invested into her opinions, and so when someone starts to try to undermine my opinions, it's like trying to undermine me, as a person, you see? And, well look, of course that's quite immature, yes of course it is. But you can at least see how it works and understand why a Ti-dom feels that way about it? It's like if you worked really damn hard and for a really long time on making this really nice sandcastle, and then someone comes along and goes, "IT'S WRONG."

So in her defense, I understand her frustration (if there is any) with me being very defensive of my theories, and I hope she understands why I lashed out at the end there as well, because she's being very defensive of hers as well, and really the bottom line is just that I put a lot more emphasis into being logical than she does apparently, but that's a far shot from calling her completely illogical _all the time_, she just doesn't make sense _to me_ because I've got a head full of philosophy and have a really high personal standard.

To a point-of-fact, I imagine if she actually _has_ gone out and studied a shitload of epistemology and ontology and read all the "big books" and even taken a few introductory courses on philosophy - specifically _critical thinking_ - she'd probably be on the level and have really strong refutations or arguments to make that would make sense to me (assuming I wasn't letting my feelings get in the way) and put me on the spot. But even then, even if she _could_, the question is, _why would she?_ She's probably not caught in the grip of her inferior feeling as much as I am, which is why I push myself way harder to develop my thinking. Because ultimately she's probably more at peace, and I'm the tormented little kid clutching his philosophy books with the nerdy glasses who is like, "PLEASE NOTICE ME SEMPAI. PLEASE TELL ME I'M GOOD."

She's just not as pressured by her inferior function as I am I think. Mine really fucks me up, that's for sure. But the benefit of having that task-master cracking the whip on my back all the time is that my thinking function is incredibly well developed. And that's why, whenever I see someone else who doesn't meet that standard, I'm inclined to project my own feelings of inferiority onto them, and be like "WTF BRO? IF YOU CANT STAND THE HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."


----------



## Rachel Wood

Abraxas said:


> I suppose. But, in my defense, I actually tend not to make those kinds of concessions when I discuss things privately with my friends, or face-to-face, or outside of a public venue. When I'm under the scrutiny of the public eye, the tendency is to try as much as possible to give lip-service to the extraverted way of thinking, because, as you've probably noticed, it's trending right now (and has been for several hundred years).
> 
> The honest truth is that I've struggled with solipsism all my life. I still do. But my way of transcending the problem of solipsism _without_ giving up my own conviction in dualism was to assert that Plato's forms and Aristotle's essences had an eternally valid and true _a priori_ nature completely independent of empirical, falsifiable, objectively determined _a posteriori_ things.
> 
> So naturally, you can imagine my elation when I come across Jung and he starts talking about 'archetypes' that exist on the one side of reality, the subjective side of it, and "objects" that exist on the other side of reality, the objective side of it, and the psyche is just where we meet in the middle, with the ego at the center of consciousness. I mean WOW, right? Holy shit. That's fantastic. I immediately get what he's saying and it just fits perfectly.
> 
> And then along comes MBTI, and here's all this science, and man functions are BULLSHIT because of FACTS. And I'm like "no, fuck that." It's like if someone came along and said, "HEY BRO! NUMBERS AREN'T REAL BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE FALSIFIED EMPIRICALLY, THEREFORE MATH IS BULLSHIT. CHECKMATE RATIONALISTS."
> 
> 
> 
> Well I mean, I don't know if it's really Fi or Fe, but the bottom line is that my ego is invested into my opinions, and her ego is invested into her opinions, and so when someone starts to try to undermine my opinions, it's like trying to undermine me, as a person, you see? And, well look, of course that's quite immature, yes of course it is. But you can at least see how it works and understand why a Ti-dom feels that way about it? It's like if you worked really damn hard and for a really long time on making this really nice sandcastle, and then someone comes along and goes, "IT'S WRONG."
> 
> So in her defense, I understand her frustration (if there is any) with me being very defensive of my theories, and I hope she understands why I lashed out at the end there as well, because she's being very defensive of hers as well, and really the bottom line is just that I put a lot more emphasis into being logical than she does apparently, but that's a far shot from calling her completely illogical _all the time_, she just doesn't make sense _to me_ because I've got a head full of philosophy and have a really high personal standard.
> 
> To a point-of-fact, I imagine if she actually _has_ gone out and studied a shitload of epistemology and ontology and read all the "big books" and even taken a few introductory courses on philosophy - specifically _critical thinking_ - she'd probably be on the level and have really strong refutations or arguments to make that would make sense to me (assuming I wasn't letting my feelings get in the way) and put me on the spot. But even then, even if she _could_, the question is, _why would she?_ She's probably not caught in the grip of her inferior feeling as much as I am, which is why I push myself way harder to develop my thinking. Because ultimately she's probably more at peace, and I'm the tormented little kid clutching his philosophy books with the nerdy glasses who is like, "PLEASE NOTICE ME SEMPAI. PLEASE TELL ME I'M GOOD."
> 
> She's just not as pressured by her inferior function as I am I think. Mine really fucks me up, that's for sure. But the benefit of having that task-master cracking the whip on my back all the time is that my thinking function is incredibly well developed. And that's why, whenever I see someone else who doesn't meet that standard, I'm inclined to project my own feelings of inferiority onto them, and be like "WTF BRO? IF YOU CANT STAND THE HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN."


I quite enjoyed this post. It's interesting to learn why you want to believe in the things you do. Good post.  

Can you point out some places I've been illogical in this thread? I think I missed them.


----------



## PaladinX

Silveresque said:


> The best way I can describe my Ti is that it's like seeing the logical "shape" of everything and immediately being able to tell whether certain things fit together coherently, whether the logic is harmonious.
> 
> Sometimes I experience a concept as valid because there is nothing obstructing the logical harmony. Things like this will feel really honest and true. Other times I see people trying to put a square peg in a round hole and it just doesn't work that way. Communication can be frustrating because often words aren't adequate to explain the logical relationships I perceive and why something seems right or not right.
> 
> I wouldn't describe it as "a priori" for me. It doesn't seem like I have rules and principles stored in my head (may be different for Ti-Ne?), more like the situation comes first and then I see the logical relationships contained within that situation. These relationships aren't "too perfect to exist" because they do exist.
> 
> Ti doesn't focus on the objects themselves so much as the relationships between them. So the fact that it's impossible to get a perfect 180 degree angle in reality is irrelevant to Ti because Ti doesn't care whether something is 180 degrees or not, instead it sees that angle A > angle B. I think it is Te that's more focused on the logical facts of the object itself.


Sounds "a priori" to me. Or were the "logical relationships contained within that situation" given a posteriori?


----------



## PaladinX

ferroequinologist said:


> According to Jungian terminology, this is not what subjective means. Subjective is an orientation toward the subject. So, Fi and Ti are judgments that are directed toward the subject, not the object. A super-summary might sound like this:
> 
> Te-bringing order to things.
> Ti-bringing order to concepts
> Fe-bringing order to others
> Fi-bringing order to self.
> 
> it's an over-simplification, but I think it cuts the concept of subjective vs. objective to its very essence. What is being judged, or rather to what is the judgment applied.
> 
> I think your first post was tapping into something that Jung considered very important. I certainly stand to be corrected here, but I got the impression that you were dancing around the concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious.


The problem I have with this kind of thing is that Thinking in general is the function that arranges conscious contents by means of a concept. This is irrelevant to e or i. The other problem is that this kind of description makes Ti sound like what most people conceive general thinking to be and Te is some kind of organization function. I see other types "bringing order to others" or all of the types "bringing order to self." They all seem like general j-dom attributes or just behaviours to me.

I'm not sure where you got these kind of ideas from Jung. If you ever do recall where, please point them out to me because I'd be interested to know.

From what I understand, a judgment function is based upon some kind of criteria/standard that are determined by internal or external factors in order to arrange conscious contents or representations. I get it from this line from Jung _"Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions" _and _"just as thinking marshals the conscious contents under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value"

_What do you think about that?


----------



## Recede

PaladinX said:


> Sounds "a priori" to me. Or were the "logical relationships contained within that situation" given a posteriori?





> *a priori*
> adjective 1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation.


It's not a priori for me because I don't walk around with general laws and principles floating around in my head waiting to applied to situations. Instead, there's nothing until a situation comes up, and then I see the logical relationships that are being expressed within the situation. I see whether the logic in that instance is valid or flawed, and though my understanding seems to come from nowhere external, the logical relationships to me exist within (and _only _within) that particular external situation.

Not to say that two situations can't have the same type of logical relationships. But I rarely hold on to general principles as far as I'm aware, so I tend to see logic as tied to actual situations.


----------



## PaladinX

Silveresque said:


> It's not a priori for me because I don't walk around with general laws and principles floating around in my head waiting to applied to situations. Instead, there's nothing until a situation comes up, and then I see the logical relationships that are being expressed within the situation. I see whether the logic in that instance is valid or flawed, and though my understanding seems to come from nowhere external, the logical relationships to me exist within (and _only _within) that particular external situation.
> 
> Not to say that two situations can't have the same type of logical relationships. But I rarely hold on to general principles as far as I'm aware, so I tend to see logic as tied to actual situations.


Why do you need general laws and principles floating in your head?

If judgment always presupposes a criterion and if said criterion in this case is determined from an external source, what makes your example one of Ti and not Te?

Can you provide an example of a time when you determined "logical harmony" using the "logical relationships" contained only within that "particular external situation?"


----------



## ferroequinologist

ferroequinologist said:


> I think everything he said was his own, private jargon sometimes. ;-) As to the determining factor, and it not concerning what or where the judgment was directed. I'm not entirely sure that he didn't discuss that. I know that the whole concept of my four descriptions came while reading Jung directly. I wish I could now point to what he said, but I know that reading him, I got a clear understanding that what really mattered was not just some determining factor. I guess I would put it this way. A judging function is not just a static state--a feel or a think. It is moving, dynamic. It is either directed inwardly or outwardly. If directed inwardly, then the primary motive is the subject. I like what @_angelfish_ said above: "internal systemic validity". Did I write that my wife seeks to come to a state of knowing--and knowing that something is valid? It is something that seeks fulfillment--that desire to "know". For myself, I could say that too, but it's not quite there yet. angelfish settled for me what it is I seek--validation. To know that what I'm thinking or rather how I'm feeling is validated or real or complete. I really struggle to find the proper words, but that word validation is as close as I've seen. Of course, part of the problem here is that nothing is ever well and truly settled. Even some of my most settled thoughts get a periodic revisit. I exist in a state of constant desire for some sort of closure (validation) but never really achieve it. I know my wife is the same. She is never able to say with determination that she's solved a problem. She recently wrote a book, but has waited ten years to write it because she always felt that there was more she needed to know, and to be sure that there wasn't something she was missing or overlooking or something. She had a certain assurance that she was right, but couldn't bring herself to well and truly commit to it in writing by publishing. Nothing I have is worth putting in writing, and I doubt I could if I tried--and I have tried a couple times--but I can certainly agree with this to a large extent. bleh. I'm rambling... The only point I was trying to make is that there is a need to satisfy--an itch to scratch, and at the end, that's all that matters. That's why I say that the Ji function is aimed at the subject. I dunno. It would be ironic if my assessment were purely a subjective impression of Jung's writings, and not at all what he meant. ;-)
> 
> I was going to contrast the Ji functions to Je, but I shan't as I can see I've rambled too much as it is... Maybe I'll summarize. To Je, the objective world is not just the determining factor, but the raison d'être of Je. (again, that may be a subjective impression as a frequent, and resistant "object" of Je...)





PaladinX said:


> The problem I have with this kind of thing is that Thinking in general is the function that arranges conscious contents by means of a concept. This is irrelevant to e or i. The other problem is that this kind of description makes Ti sound like what most people conceive general thinking to be and Te is some kind of organization function. I see other types "bringing order to others" or all of the types "bringing order to self." They all seem like general j-dom attributes or just behaviours to me.
> 
> I'm not sure where you got these kind of ideas from Jung. If you ever do recall where, please point them out to me because I'd be interested to know.
> 
> From what I understand, a judgment function is based upon some kind of criteria/standard that are determined by internal or external factors in order to arrange conscious contents or representations. I get it from this line from Jung _"Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions" _and _"just as thinking marshals the conscious contents under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value"
> 
> _What do you think about that?


I actually struggle with accepting the concept that extraverting judging the "determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions". Why is that? Well, think about it this way. If we are extraverted judgers, then we are introverted perceivers. If we take in information subjectively (or process it, maybe I should say), then where does the judging function get its information? It must get it from the introverted perception, i.e. it must be based on subjective criteria, not objective. On the other hand, the extraverting judging _does_ act upon, or seek to act upon the objective or external world. 

edit: I forgot to add... Part of my reason for struggling with this idea of objective criteria for extraverted judging is ths, hen I deal with extraverting judging types, I frequently get this super strong impression that their actions are based, not on objective reality, but their subjective ideas of 1. what reality is, and 2. what they think reality should look like, so they are trying to force a subjective perspective on me that doesn't match with what I see around me. And I've seen this from both extraverted and intraverted people, i.e. EXJs and IXJs. 



In any case, above your quote, I quoted myself from a later post where I explain myself a little bit more (but I don't know if it's more clearly or not). Maybe it'll give you more ammo to work with. ;-)


----------



## Recede

PaladinX said:


> Why do you need general laws and principles floating in your head?


I'm not sure why you are asking this. It's because I don't have them that my thinking doesn't fit the definition of a priori.



PaladinX said:


> If judgment always presupposes a criterion and if said criterion in this case is determined from an external source, what makes your example one of Ti and not Te?


My criterion are never determined by an external source. Read more closely:



Silveresque said:


> I see whether the logic in that instance is valid or flawed, and though *my understanding seems to come from nowhere external*, the logical relationships to me exist within (and _only _within) that particular external situation.


My understanding of what makes something logical or illogical never comes from anywhere external. And in that sense one might consider it a priori, but it doesn't appear that way for me overall because my Ti doesn't exist until it has something specific to think about. While there are internal criteria, I'm not aware of them outside of specific situations. The situation comes first for me and so I don't consider it a priori. 

I don't know how accurate this theory is, but Socionics has a +/- theory which states that ISTPs have +Ti, meaning their Ti is applied to specific situations rather than more globally. xNTPs have -Ti which has a more broad and general focus. I wouldn't use this in typing but it does seem relevant to what I'm describing. (More here: Signs of functions | School of System Socionics)



PaladinX said:


> Can you provide an example of a time when you determined "logical harmony" using the "logical relationships" contained only within that "particular external situation?"


This post: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/455450-what-way-ne-extraverted-2.html#post14556866


----------



## PaladinX

ferroequinologist said:


> I actually struggle with accepting the concept that extraverting judging the "determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions". Why is that? Well, think about it this way. If we are extraverted judgers, then we are introverted perceivers. If we take in information subjectively (or process it, maybe I should say), then where does the judging function get its information? It must get it from the introverted perception, i.e. it must be based on subjective criteria, not objective. On the other hand, the extraverting judging _does_ act upon, or seek to act upon the objective or external world.


Well there is the idea that the auxiliary is the same attitude as the dominant. But setting that aside and operating from the AxBy scenario, here is the preceeding line to my earlier quote from Jung:



Jung on Extraverted Thinking said:


> Thinking in general is fed on the one hand from subjective and in the last resort unconscious sources, and on the other hand from objective data transmitted by sense-perception. Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by the latter than by the former.


This seems to contradict the notion that the thinking in a Te-dom takes in "information subjectively." The question, "where does the judging function get its information?" is answered by "data transmitted by sense-perception."

Otherwise, how you describe it sounds like an IJ type where the judging function is bent to the will of the dominant perceiving function. It sounds like an auxiliary function.

Furthermore, I still don't get where the idea that Je is about acting upon the external world. It is a lens/filter/mindset/attitude. Every type (and person for that matter) acts upon the external world. Is the Je person more likely to try and influence the external world, I think so, but I'd say the same is true for all extraverts than Je specificially.


----------



## Abraxas

@_PaladinX_

If I'm not mistaken, I think I actually follow @_Silveresque_ on Ti.

At least for a moment, I had the epiphany that we might be on the same page when she said, "My understanding of what makes something logical or illogical never comes from anywhere external."

This is precisely it, and why I tend to get into disagreements with extraverted thinkers quite often. In those moments I begin to differentiate my own thinking as being quite introverted in contrast to their strongly _empirical_ form of argumentation that is grounded in shared sense experience. This very distinction came up at the end of this thread in which I had the clear revelation of what was happening, and made my last post pointing it out for clarity.

Essentially, when I analyze the "truth" of something, that truth is not something that I base off of people's shared experience of whatever "reality" is supposed to be. For me, the only thing that matters is that the way something is presented is _internally consistent_ - i.e., if you give me a premise that I can _at least imagine_ being true _even if it is only true for you_, and you make an inference based on that premise, and the conclusion seems to follow _necessarily_ from the stated premise, then I have absolutely no problem with whatever it is you are saying to me, _irregardless_ of whether it is _objectively_ true. All I require is that you be reasonable. Objectivity never enters the equation.


----------



## PaladinX

Abraxas said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, I think I actually follow @_Silveresque_ on Ti.
> 
> At least for a moment, I had the epiphany that we might be on the same page when she said, "My understanding of what makes something logical or illogical never comes from anywhere external."
> 
> This is precisely it, and why I tend to get into disagreements with extraverted thinkers quite often. In those moments I begin to differentiate my own thinking as being quite introverted in contrast to their strongly _empirical_ form of argumentation that is grounded in shared sense experience. This very distinction came up at the end of this thread in which I had the clear revelation of what was happening, and made my last post pointing it out for clarity.
> 
> Essentially, when I analyze the "truth" of something, that truth is not something that I base off of people's shared experience of whatever "reality" is supposed to be. For me, the only thing that matters is that the way something is presented is _internally consistent_ - i.e., if you give me a premise that I can _at least imagine_ being true _even if it is only true for you_, and you make an inference based on that premise, and the conclusion seems to follow _necessarily_ from the stated premise, then I have absolutely no problem with whatever it is you are saying to me, _irregardless_ of whether it is _objectively_ true. All I require is that you be reasonable. Objectivity never enters the equation.


To be clear, the point was not to prove that she is using Te, but this:



Silveresque said:


> *My understanding of what makes something logical or illogical never comes from anywhere external.* And in that sense one might consider it a priori, but it doesn't appear that way for me overall because my Ti doesn't exist until it has something specific to think about. While there are internal criteria, I'm not aware of them outside of specific situations. The situation comes first for me and so I don't consider it a priori.


The knowledge that allows her to determine the "logical harmony" is a priori in my opinion, even though it is triggered by an external event. It kind of reminds me of Leibniz' analogy of the veined block of marble in a way.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The problem is that Jung does not actually describe a single type in his book. Like when he talks about an "introverted intuitive type", what is he referring to exactly?

Like Paladin and Shadow Logic, both ENTP, as far as I am concerned they are Te users. I don't think they are literally Te users, but they mimic Te. Like you said about Reckful. Everything comes down to concrete definitions and objective standards. Jung. They put the object first. That is not necessarily Te, but it is some kind of extroversion. Ne and Ti appear to actually turn into Te. As they both are essentially objective thinking.


----------



## ae1905

Abraxas said:


> Ti deals primarily with a priori sorts of knowledge, which is why you often read about it equated with things like geometry, pure logic, and philosophical thinking. To give an example of what I mean by the "a priori" form of knowledge, take for instance simple shapes such as triangles, squares, and circles.
> 
> There is simply no possible way that these shapes can exist in nature the way that we conceive of them in the mind. If you go up to a triangle and you try to measure it's angles, you will never get a perfect 180 degrees. It will always be slightly off. You could even get really serious and say space itself is curved, so there's _literally_ no way these shapes can exist the way we discuss them in math. They're _purely conceptual_ facts, but they are nevertheless very real things, and they can be derived from experience easily enough, because you can see triangles, squares, and circles all over the place. But how we define them _mathematically_ is simply impossible physically. The pure concepts are merely models of reality - they are _too perfect_ to really exist, you see?


What you're describing is _abstraction._ Ti abstracts from perception and from ideas what it thinks are the important _forms _(or essence) of those perceptions and ideas. To take your example, if Ti wanted to understand some problem that involved triangular objects and the particular facts of these objects--like their color and size and what they are made of--were not important, it would ignore these facts and think of these objects as geometric triangles, only. That's Ti abstraction. It reduces things to their simplest forms in order to understand what they are and how they are related. 

Einstein put it simply when he said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

But Ti is not the only function that abstracts. N perceives things in their abstract forms, too. And as you point out, so too, maybe, does Fi.

Also, to say Ti "deals primarily with _a priori _sorts of knowledge" suggests Ti is only interested in _a priori _sorts of knowledge. This is not the case. Not all, or even most, Ti-doms are mathematicians or philosophers, or are even interested in these subjects. Most Ti-doms I would hazard to say are interested in understanding the world around them. They just happen to believe that the best way to do this is to simplify the world w/o making it too simple. The example of the problem involving triangular objects could be used as an illustration. It isn't triangles, per se, a Ti-dom would be interested in. It's the problem. Triangles are just the best way to understand and solve that problem. 

Simple w/o being too simple.


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, I think I actually follow @_Silveresque_ on Ti.
> 
> At least for a moment, I had the epiphany that we might be on the same page when she said, "My understanding of what makes something logical or illogical never comes from anywhere external."
> 
> This is precisely it, and why I tend to get into disagreements with extraverted thinkers quite often. In those moments I begin to differentiate my own thinking as being quite introverted in contrast to their strongly _empirical_ form of argumentation that is grounded in shared sense experience. This very distinction came up at the end of this thread in which I had the clear revelation of what was happening, and made my last post pointing it out for clarity.
> 
> Essentially, when I analyze the "truth" of something, that truth is not something that I base off of people's shared experience of whatever "reality" is supposed to be. For me, the only thing that matters is that the way something is presented is _internally consistent_ - i.e., if you give me a premise that I can _at least imagine_ being true _even if it is only true for you_, and you make an inference based on that premise, and the conclusion seems to follow _necessarily_ from the stated premise, then I have absolutely no problem with whatever it is you are saying to me, _irregardless_ of whether it is _objectively_ true. All I require is that you be reasonable. Objectivity never enters the equation.


Truth for me is interchangeable with reality. If you find out how things actually are in external reality, what actually exists, then you have found the truth. Sometimes finding the truth for me involves peeling away the layers of abstraction to reveal what things actually translate to in reality to see whether there is any real substance to them. 

Anyone can make a theoretical claim such as "All introverts are shy," but if the claim isn't necessarily true by definition, then it's unlikely to be true at all because it only takes one instance to prove it wrong. In this type of case, evidence would be very powerful in proving the claim wrong.

I often use actual evidence because it's often an effective strategy, and I suppose in that sense I could be considered empirical. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that introspection is useless in determining what is true (actually most of what I know and understand came apparently from within), but if it doesn't match external reality then there is a problem.

So I think it's not necessarily the case that Te will always be empirical and Ti will always use internal logic only. In my case I seem to combine the two. Knowledge isn't limited to Thinking, it can come via Perception. So in your case, not being empirical doesn't by itself imply Ti, as that could simply come from Ni dominance.

But it depends on what you even mean by "empirical".


----------



## Abraxas

PaladinX said:


> To be clear, the point was not to prove that she is using Te.
> 
> The knowledge that allows her to determine the "logical harmony" is a priori in my opinion, even though it is triggered by an external event. It kind of reminds me of Leibniz' analogy of the veined block of marble in a way.


Right. I wasn't trying to prove she was using Te either. I saw it as a perfect example of Ti " a priori" ways of knowing that operate independently of external factors.


----------



## ae1905

Abraxas said:


> I believe what I asserted in my OP to be* correct because it is in line with Jungian psychology*,* and I can cite every source that I'm using to formulate my ideas. My OP is correct because it is true to the definition of Ti.* Here is a bit of Te for you then: just like the extraverted thinker who measures two angles and comes up with "triangle", I have measured the aspects of introverted thinking and feeling and come up with my OP.


This is Te but you are wrong to assert you are "correct" _because _your conclusions agree with Jung and you used many "sources". You are only correct if your conclusions agree with _reality_, with how Ti users _use _Ti, assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as Ti.



> If it does not meet with your _subjective idea_ of introverted thinking, then by all means, let us hear your take on it. But bear in mind, it is only useful as an indicator of how your mind works (which is useful in that it shows us how introverted thinking works), because your opinion is subjective, unless you are claiming your take to be _objective_, in which case you're in Te land now and had better play by Te rules by showing us how your opinion is actually a _fact_.


You haven't shown that your idea of Ti is objectively true. So it is just your opinion and is also subjective like the explanations Ti users give, only maybe even moreso, since the Ti users, at least, have the advantage that they are describing Ti _itself_, and not what some so-called "experts" think Ti is.


----------



## ae1905

Abraxas said:


> Perhaps N with T. N is perception, so it doesn't actually generate ideas, it only generates an awareness of ideas that are unconsciously derived from an undifferentiated thinking process. "What something is" is specifically and solely the thinking function, according to Jung at his Tavistock lectures on analytical psychology. Definition is an act of judgment. Thinking simply defines what everything is using either an objective or a subjective standard.
> 
> A subjective standard is essentially like saying "does it make sense to me?" Ti gets equated with philosophical thinking because philosophy strives for intense accuracy - especially pure logic. Logicians tend to be INTPs for instance, according to the MBTI Manual Third Edition. An objective standard is something like a measurement. For example, measuring the angles of an object. So you are correct about Te, in that it wouldn't question the very concept of a triangle, it would merely question whether the angles add up to 180 degrees or not. However, Ti would be more interested in the unraveling the idea of a triangle itself, not measuring things to find triangles in nature.
> 
> In my OP I said that such a crude measurement would never suffice for introverted thinking.* It would need to get at the subjective basis for the shape itself.* *That would not be something that could be derived from objectivity. *It would imply a subjective standard that exists as an idea, specifically (according to Psychological Types) within an _archetype._
> 
> Psychological Types - Wikisocion


This is the other point you made in your OP and I have to disagree with it. Why couldn't you measure several triangular objects and infer from these measurements that the angles add up to 180 degrees? Errors would be scattered randomly around 180 which would fall within the margin of error? At the very least, such empirical evidence could be used to undertake a theoretical examination of triangles. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the perception of real triangles that lead to the discovery of this fact. And this process happens all the time in science where empirical observations motivate the development of abstract theories.

Jung was wrong to think Ti receives its inspiration from the unconscious. Ti receives its inspiration from the world N/S perceives and uses abstraction only to understand that world. The collective unconscious has nothing to do with this process.


----------



## Peter

Abraxas said:


> Ti deals primarily with a priori sorts of knowledge, which is why you often read about it equated with things like geometry, pure logic, and philosophical thinking. To give an example of what I mean by the "a priori" form of knowledge, take for instance simple shapes such as triangles, squares, and circles.
> 
> There is simply no possible way that these shapes can exist in nature the way that we conceive of them in the mind. If you go up to a triangle and you try to measure it's angles, you will never get a perfect 180 degrees. It will always be slightly off. You could even get really serious and say space itself is curved, so there's _literally_ no way these shapes can exist the way we discuss them in math. They're _purely conceptual_ facts, but they are nevertheless very real things, and they can be derived from experience easily enough, because you can see triangles, squares, and circles all over the place. But how we define them _mathematically_ is simply impossible physically. The pure concepts are merely models of reality - they are _too perfect_ to really exist, you see?
> 
> Fi is essentially the same way, but with matters of value and worth. To the Fi-type, let us suppose you have something like the _feeling_ of love for your country, which we call "patriotism." Now we are dealing with a concept of value and worth - the value of your country, the value of service to your country, etc. For a Fi type, there is simply no externalized instance or example of patriotism that could possibly to justice to the romanticized _pure feeling_ of patriotism that a Fi-type feels, do you see? It's the purely _abstract_ content of patriotism that the Fi-type feels, which is a very _deep_ and _subjective_ thing, because it comes from within, and not from particular instances to be found in history, or the news, or what have you. When they resonate with such external instances, it is because those examples come close - they are like triangles with angles that come very very close to 180 degrees - but still... you will never find _true patriotism_ in external circumstances. The Fi feeling of it just _too perfect_ to really exist.


Clear and Simple?

An Explanation???


----------



## ae1905

Abraxas said:


> In my OP I said that such a crude measurement would never suffice for introverted thinking. It would need to get at the* subjective basis for the shape itself*. That would not be something that could be derived from objectivity. It would imply a subjective standard that exists as an idea, specifically (according to Psychological Types) within an _archetype._
> 
> Psychological Types - Wikisocion


Elsewhere, you said that you think mathematics is one of the only places you can find "objective facts". How can you get objective facts from "subjective forms", like triangles?


----------



## Abraxas

Silveresque said:


> Truth for me is interchangeable with reality. If you find out how things actually are in external reality, what actually exists, then you have found the truth. Sometimes finding the truth for me involves peeling away the layers of abstraction to reveal what things actually translate to in reality to see whether there is any real substance to them.
> 
> Anyone can make a theoretical claim such as "All introverts are shy," but if the claim isn't necessarily true by definition, then it's unlikely to be true at all because it only takes one instance to prove it wrong. In this type of case, evidence would be very powerful in proving the claim wrong.
> 
> I often use actual evidence because it's often an effective strategy, and I suppose in that sense I could be considered empirical. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that introspection is useless in determining what is true (actually most of what I know and understand came apparently from within), but if it doesn't match external reality then there is a problem.
> 
> So I think it's not necessarily the case that Te will always be empirical and Ti will always use internal logic only. In my case I seem to combine the two. Knowledge isn't limited to Thinking, it can come via Perception. So in your case, not being empirical doesn't by itself imply Ti, as that could simply come from Ni dominance.
> 
> But it depends on what you even mean by "empirical".


Empiricism is "knowledge derived from sense experience." _A posteriori_ knowledge.

Obviously a posteriori isn't mutually exclusive with a priori, the two _necessarily_ overlap. But whereas pure reason can depart quite a bit from anything grounded in sense experience, all empirical arguments must never do so as a rule. Someone who prefers Te over Ti won't always be empirical - but _Te_ is _defined_ as being based on objectivity. Therefore, in any case where someone is making a subjective argument, they are under the influence of the subjective factor - either due to a subjective perception or a subjective judgment of some sort - despite whatever their ordinary preference is.

Te just is "trying to be objective," and Ti just is "trying to be subjective," but _people_ are both, and often get mixed up as a result.

Also, while I agree that all knowledge, one way or another, began as a perception, perception alone is insufficient for knowledge. Knowledge doesn't equate to pure experience - it must be a justified, true, belief. I.e., it must be rational. And while I agree with Jung that feeling valuation is an acceptable basis for a claim to knowledge (because valuation can be used as a justification for a belief that happens to be true), and is therefore rational, I don't agree that knowledge is _ever_ irrational. Thus, perception alone is insufficient for claims to knowledge. This was actually a point of contention that @BlackCoffee had with me in my thread about deconstructing Jung, about which him and I actually agree. He took me to be saying that something like intuition _by itself_ was equivalent to "knowing", but I don't believe that at all. Intuition, like sensation, must be brought into congruence with reason.

So even on that point, his Te and my Ti are _in agreement._ There can be no form of "knowing" absent rationality.

Knowledge _must_ be rational, or else we're not talking about "knowledge" - another word other than the word "knowledge" would apply. This is just how _language works_. Words act as symbols for the subjective, and they must have a fixed meaning otherwise we can't communicate _even internally_. Consider, even if you had some kind of subjective "code" that only you knew that you used to organize your own concepts and assign them meaning, every code has a _cipher_, which is the root of the meaning, without which the code has _no meaning_ because it would be _indecipherable_. And what is a cipher? A cipher is used to _translate_ one set of information into another set of information.

See also: The Private Language Argument by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

If you just want to define a word to mean _whatever_, then we can't communicate because I have no clue if my subjective idea is the same as yours. We _need_ objective ideas to have a meaningful discussion. There must be some set of information that acts as a point of translation between you and me, i.e., we speak the same _public_ language. So while you and I can let Ti lead us around and around inside our own private thoughts, _where the rubber meets the road_, if you want to get any of that _outside of your own mind_, you need to employ a _cipher_ to _decipher it_ into some other set of information that we all have unanimous access to, e.g., _English_, or German, or perhaps _mathematics_, or something - which is to say, you need _objective ideas_.

But again, that's only if you care about explaining yourself to other people. Hence why Jung wrote this:

When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account...

... In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness


----------



## Abraxas

ae1905 said:


> This is Te but you are wrong to assert you are "correct" _because _your conclusions agree with Jung and you used many "sources". You are only correct if your conclusions agree with _reality_, with how Ti users _use _Ti, assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as Ti.


It is not Te at all, nor is it not wrong to assert that my definition is _congruent_ with the formulation of Jung. I am not making any claim to _reality_, I am demonstrating a conceptual form. "A is like B." You are confusing "A" for _people_, I am not. I am talking about _Ti_ as defined by Jung. Not as defined by people.

Ti as defined by _people_, as you aptly pointed out, _might not even exist_. And that is a can of worms beyond the scope of this thread.





ae1905 said:


> You haven't shown that your idea of Ti is objectively true. So it is just your opinion and is also subjective like the explanations Ti users give, only maybe even moreso, since the Ti users, at least, have the advantage that they are describing Ti _itself_, and not what some so-called "experts" think Ti is.


Ti _itself_ IS what Jung defined it to be, because it came out of his mind. You are making a categorical mistake by arguing that there is only "one true definition" which must necessarily be derived from empirical observation. To the contrary, I can show that "P -> Q. Q -> S" and so forth, using pure logic by simply _assuming_ that Jung's definition is correct, and proceeding _as if_ it were true, to make inferences based on those assumptions.


----------



## Abraxas

ae1905 said:


> Not all, or even most, Ti-doms are mathematicians or philosophers, or are even interested in these subjects. Most Ti-doms I would hazard to say are interested in understanding the world around them.


If we assume the premise "INTPs are Ti-doms" to be true, then according to the MBTI Manual Third Edition, it can be shown to be statistically true that _most Ti-doms favor mathematics and philosophy, and are interested in those subjects._

Therefore you are wrong as a point of fact.

Furthermore, I'm going to hazard to say that _you haven't met "most Ti-doms."_ Period.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ae1905 said:


> You're right that it would be of no use, but not because I disagree with Jung. You need empirical evidence to show this is true. (I won't bother asking for theoretical justification since there is no accepted theory of any of this.)


As said before, without empirical proof of cognitive functions it would be impossible to present you empirical proof of specific types doing specific things. The most we can do is take definitions and abstract their logical consequences and interrelations between each other. 

My question to you is, knowing that cognitive functions of purely theoretical why do you make such demands of presenting empirical proof when that would be an impossibility.




> How do you know this? Did you have probes inside their heads measuring their reactions?
> 
> You are just choosing the interpretaion that suits your argument.


Because my friend and I knew it to be an animal once we saw the animal, while the others ran immediately because of their thought that it was something other than an animal. To see an animal is to perceive it, and to assume it wasn't an animal but something else such as a ghost would be to judge it. Their reactions to run before clear perception of the object means their judgement of the potential object superseded their perception of the object, whereas my friend and I derived our reactions from perceiving clearly what it was first before deciding how to adjust to it.

Really it's simple deduction based on the facts of the situation, and the relation between the difference of reactions. No need to have a probe to enter their heads which even if you did have would only let you see.their brain, not read their thoughts.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ae1905 said:


> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you prove this "fact" before you stated it? You didn't. You assumed it to be true, then went on to claim the "proof" followed from your _*assumption.*_


You're right that's what I wrote, but that only proves that I offered my conclusion before my reasoning, please stop insinuating things based on your subjective conclusions that were derived without facts. I could prove you wrong on this point in a multitude of ways, such as the fact that I already showed you were I derived my conclusion, or I can simply show you the countless threads and posts from me on this specific site logically proving the relationship between existence and non-existence, way before this thread was ever created. Thus I came to my conclusion a while ago, and there are many threads and posts where I show my reasoning, the same reasoning I explained to you in my posts.





> Would that you followed your own advice!
> 
> We can't proceed any further because you have stepped over into pure speculation land.


Speculation? I show you a logical analysis using proofing of the consequences derived from analyzing the relationship between concepts, and you call that a speculation? I guess our language or process of reasoning is too incompatible.



> I just have one question? What exactly do you get by believing this? Is it a feeling? What is that feeling?


Nothing really, things continue to proceed whether I believe in things or not, nor do my beliefs, conclusions, and/or interpretations affect my direct physical life in any way. You asked me questions, and I have answered them, that's all this is. As I have no logical reason or facts to disprove my conclusions wrong at the moment then I see no point in changing my conclusions, so all I can do is explain to you where they come from and why I have them.


----------



## ae1905

Atrium Strutionum said:


> You're write that's what I wrote, but that only proves that I offered my conclusion before my reasoning, please stop insinuating things based on your subjective conclusions that were derived without facts. I could prove you wrong on this point in a multitude of ways, such as the fact that I already showed you were I derived my conclusion, or I can simply show you the countless threads and posts from me on this specific site logically proving the relationship between existence and non-existence, way before this thread was ever created. Thus I came to my conclusion a while ago, and there are many threads and posts where I show my reasoning, the same reasoning I explained to you in my posts..


One more time, you wrote:



> Now we're getting into more abstract territory, but the answer to your question *derives from the fact that existence as a whole has always existed*,and.


Notice "derive" _from _the "fact"? So the "fact" came first in your derivation.

But for the sake of argument let's say you put the conclusion first. Then your argument is



> ...non-existence being the *absence of existence *can never *exist *or else *it wouldn't be nonexistent *but instead it *would be existent *and part of existence as a whole. Therefore since non-existence can't exist then existence must be infinite and has always existed


So "non-existence is the absense of existence" means "nothing exists". You use "exist" in the first line to mean "true". So the first part of your argument reads, "non-existence which means _nothing exists _can never be true". The next part of your argument says, "if it was true it wouldn't be non-existent but instead it would exist". "if it was true" means "if nothing existed". "it would exist" means "things would exist". So, putting the whole argument together, it reads, 

"non-existence which means _nothing exists _can never be true, since, if nothing existed, then things would exist"!!!

Do you see a problem here?


----------



## Abraxas

reckful said:


> You're free to be as solipsistic as you like, but _as a factual matter_ (there I go again :tongue, it would be wrong to suggest — and maybe you're not really suggesting this — that _Jung_ viewed his typology as a set of pure concepts, independent of the pesky facts.


I'm not making a solipsistic argument here (I have no idea where you pulled that from), or arguing that Jung's concepts are based purely on axioms and not upon empirical observations. What I'm saying is that Jung defined a set of concepts, and I'm making inferences based on those concepts. Jung may have been wrong, but I'm not, because I'm not making claims about the natural world, I'm making claims about the concepts themselves, _as stated_.

It's like if someone named Jung counted up how many hens there were in the hen house (5), and then he counted up how many eggs they had laid (7), and he then stated "there are 12 objects in the hen house." And then I come along and explain why 5 + 7 = 12. And someone else, such as yourself and others, come along and point out that Jung might've been wrong.

About what, exactly? Is he wrong that 5 + 7 = 12? No, of course not. But he might have miscounted. Sure.

I'm not interested in exploring the possibility of a miscount in this thread. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and making inferences based on the concepts _as stated_, and if anyone then wants to go farther than that and see if such a thing as "Ti" or "Te" actually exists, then godspeed in your endeavour to further the agenda of science. I'm merely attempting to give an accurate description of Jungian functions, because if we can't even get the _language_ straight, then any attempt to go about trying to prove or disprove the existence of any function is a complete waste of time, as very few seem to know what Jung was even _talking about_.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ae1905 said:


> you still don't get it, do you?
> 
> if you believe there are ghosts, prove it
> 
> it isn't my job to sit here and disprove one crazy idea after another, though one might easily think it was if they only read this thread
> 
> *the reason people don't believe in ghosts is because there is no reliable evidence to believe they exist
> 
> duh!
> *


He's throwing your own logic back in your face and you don't even get it. You are the one constantly making claims with no evidence, and challenging people to prove you wrong. I already went through this dance with you, and you didn't get it then either.


----------



## ae1905

The problem here is that consciousness is a mystery, and not just as a scientific object of study, but as an experience. And the universe is a mystery, in both the same ways. So it is natural to conflate the two feelings of mystery and want to ascribe causal connections between them. But there are no apparent causal connections. Just metaphors about "energy" and "concepts". 

The closest I would come to postulating a connection is that we are made of the same stuff, the same energy as the universe. And in our deepest awareness, our deepest feelings, we sense that energy that made us. That's why it feels the way it does. But this doesn't mean that the universe is conscious, not in the same way. It just means that we are conscious of the universe in a way that is different than sensory perception alone. You might say we are aware that the universe is alive with the same energy that animates us. And that awareness makes us feel closer to and maybe even at one with that energy, with the universe.

But notice I said nothing about the "collective unconscious"?


----------



## Abraxas

Silveresque said:


> I have always understood language as being different for everyone, in the sense that everyone has their own individual associations and mental arrangements of concepts. The ideal of having a truly objective means of communication in which every word is understood the same by everyone is unachievable in reality.
> 
> Your interpretation of the word "knowledge" as necessarily including a rational component is an acceptable way of defining it. But I don't know where you got the idea that this is the most correct and objective definition. Who decides such a thing? Are there objective criteria for determining the exact conceptual boundaries of each word?
> 
> But I agree that we also can't define a word as whatever we want, because that would impair our ability to communicate with others.
> 
> I would argue that language can be neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective, so definitions and communication are always a balancing act with some degree of translation involved.


I agree that a truly objective language is more like a goal and not a reality. I see it as being the same as striving for an objective empiricism, only, you're aiming for objective rationalism. "Perfect language", you might say, is like the "perfect experience" - you can't refute it without falling into extreme skepticism, but then, you can't have it both ways either - if you have objectivity, then you have subjectivity along with it. It's a paradoxically circular argument against solipsism, and solipsism itself is paradoxically circular in the reverse. Basically, either you have "not-self" or you don't, but either way, it's a circular argument (which Rachel actually aptly pointed out earlier when she said that all logic is, in a sense, circular somehow.)

I also agree that the definition of knowledge isn't a matter of authority. I think it is rather a matter of consensus. We collectively agree to an "objective" definition of an idea because our minds appear to work the same way. In that way, language mirrors sense experience, in that it takes on the appearance of objectivity by way of repetition. Also, I agree as well that there isn't a clear boundary between every word and every concept (for instance, subject/object). I think with some words/concepts there may be, and some there may not. For determining the exact conceptual/linguistic boundaries, I would argue, we use logic. But again, I agree that logic is not always enough. There are always things like paradoxes, or ambiguity.

Essentially I completely agree with you. Insofar as a claim to knowledge can be made - it must be congruent with logic, which must be congruent with things (either ideas or objects), and since language acts as the intermediary between ideas and things, all three must line up somehow. If there is ambiguity in the evidence, or the logic is faulty, then necessarily the language is subjective, and there will be miscommunication. But, if the language is ambiguous, then we also don't know what evidence is being pointed at, or what the logic even is, and so it easily turns into a vicious circle.

It's that vicious circle that I see undermining every rational discussion I've ever come across. Eventually it gets frustrating, people start projecting that frustration, and further progress in the discussion becomes impossible. (For example, I have to take frequent breaks from PerC whenever I start to notice myself losing patience.)


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ae1905 said:


> One more time, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice "derive" _from _the "fact"? So the "fact" came first in your derivation.


Nope, the answer to your question is derived from a conclusion based on the reasoning I presented you.



> But for the sake of argument let's say you put the conclusion first. Then your argument is
> 
> 
> 
> So "non-existence is the absense of existence" means "nothing exists". You use "exist" in the first line to mean "true". So the first part of your argument reads, "non-existence which means _nothing exists _can never be true". The next part of your argument says, "if it was true it wouldn't be non-existent but instead it would exist". "if it was true" means "if nothing existed". "it would exist" means "things would exist". So, putting the whole argument together, it reads,
> 
> "non-existence which means _nothing exists _can never be true, since, if nothing existed, then things would exist"!!!
> 
> Do you see a problem here?


Now you're twisting my words, non-existence does not mean that nothing exists, instead it's the existence of non-existence which would mean that nothing exists. If nothing exists, then no thing is existent where non-existence is by definition applicable. Therefore if non-existence is existent, then it falls within the concept of existence, making it a product of existence rather than an opposing force of existence, therefore negates it's own definition which by doing so negates it's whole meaning and the validity of its nature. 

It's not as complicated as you're making it seem, either there is or there isn't non-existence, which is the absence of existence or the absence of all things, and if the absence of existence happened to exist then it would be existent which contradicts it's nature of being the absence of existence, therefore no longer making it nonexistent but now existent. So even if non-existence exists or does not exist, existence would still be infinite because if non-existence existed then it is a subset of existence and no longer opposes it, giving existence the property of being the sum of all things including this existent nonexistent property. If non-existence doesn't exist then existence is still not affected and still contains the property of being the sum of all of existence.


----------



## ae1905

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Nope, the answer to your question is derived from a conclusion based on the reasoning I presented you.
> 
> Now you're twisting my words, non-existence does not mean that nothing exists, instead it's the existence of non-existence which would mean that nothing exists. If nothing exists, then no thing is existent where non-existence is by definition applicable. Therefore if non-existence is existent, then it falls within the concept of existence, making it a product of existence rather than an opposing force of existence, therefore negates it's own definition which by doing so negates it's whole meaning and the validity of its nature.
> 
> It's not as complicated as you're making it seem, either there is or there isn't non-existence, which is the absence of existence or the absence of all things, and *if the absence of existence happened to exist then it would be existent which contradicts it's nature of being the absence of existence, therefore no longer making it nonexistent but now existent. *So even if non-existence exists or does not exist, existence would still be infinite because if non-existence existed then it is a subset of existence and no longer opposes it, giving existence the property of being the sum of all things including this existent nonexistent property. If non-existence doesn't exist then existence is still not affected and still contains the property of being the sum of all of existence.


You are confusing the concepts of _existence _with the concept of _true_, and referring inconsistently to existence _itself _and the _concept _of existence.

"_if the absence of existence happened to exist_" means if non-existence was _true._ 

"then it would be existent" means the _concept _of existence would _exist_. 

You can't mix the senses of these words in that way and still make sense.

This is actually a well-known logical fallacy, I believe the ontological fallacy since are trying to infer the existence of something from a quality it possesses.


----------



## ae1905

ae1905 said:


> The problem here is that consciousness is a mystery, and not just as a scientific object of study, but as an experience. And the universe is a mystery, in both the same ways. So it is natural to conflate the two feelings of mystery and want to ascribe causal connections between them. But there are no apparent causal connections. Just metaphors about "energy" and "concepts".
> 
> The closest I would come to postulating a connection is that we are made of the same stuff, the same energy as the universe. And in our deepest awareness, our deepest feelings, we sense that energy that made us. That's why it feels the way it does. But this doesn't mean that the universe is conscious, not in the same way. It just means that we are conscious of the universe in a way that is different than sensory perception alone. You might say we are aware that the universe is alive with the same energy that animates us. And that awareness makes us feel closer to and maybe even at one with that energy, with the universe.
> 
> But notice I said nothing about the "collective unconscious"?


An idea that lends some support to this view is "flow", the idea that we can enter "zones" of consciousness where we become highly attuned to our thoughts and actions and perform them effortlessly and near-flawlessly. People who are in the "flow" are said to feel "alive" and most true to themselves, like they are doing what they were meant to do. So "flow" contains the ideas of energy, being alive, being attuned not just to yourself but to your purpose, what the universe "made you for".

There is research suggesting this state of "flow" bears many resemblances to the state people enter in meditation, that many of the same brain regions become active. I don't have to tell you what meditation is commonly associted with.

So there is some sense in which the heightened energy that we feel and that animates us when we "flow" is like the transcendent experience some people who meditate speak of.


----------



## PaladinX

Not to drudge up the discussion about Jung's type again, I just came across this and wanted to throw it out there:



Jung said:


> That is the book about types. I saw first the introverted and extraverted attitudes, then the functional aspects, then which of the four functions is predominant. Now mind you, these four functions were not a scheme I had invented and applied to psychology. On the contrary, *it took me quite **a long time to discover that there is another type than the **thinking type, as I thought my type to be* — of course, that is human. It is not. There are other people who decide the same problems I have to decide, but in an entirely different way. They look at things in an entirely different light, they have entirely different values. There are, for instance, feeling types. And after a while I discovered that there are intuitive types. They gave me much trouble. It took me over a year to become a bit clearer about the existence of intuitive types. And the last, and the most unexpected, was the sensation type. And only later I saw that these are naturally the four aspects of conscious orientation.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ae1905 said:


> You are confusing the concepts of _existence _with the concept of _true_, and referring inconsistently to existence _itself _and the _concept _of existence.
> 
> *"if the absence of existence happened to exist" means if non-existence was true.
> 
> "then it would be existent" means the concept of existence would exist. *
> 
> You can't mix the senses of these words in that way and still make sense.
> 
> This is actually a well-known logical fallacy, I believe the ontological fallacy since are trying to infer the existence of something from a quality it possesses.


Nope, still not a fallacy, especially since I'm not changing the definition of existence to the concept of true. You may interpret it that way, but I assure you it's wrong. The concept of existence is the sum of all things, the concept of true/truth is what is valid. I'm actually making it very clear for you to understand the concept of existence is the sum of all things, now if you add a negative prefix to it then the definition eradicates itself by being opposed to the original definition of the original concept, therefore non-existence in every aspect is the opposite of the sum of all things, therefore leading it to be equivalent to the concept of nothing. Nothing either does or does not exist, if it exists then it is a thing, contradicting it's nonexistent nature and proving that it is not a valid concept, but if it doesn't exist then it proves that the sum of all things has infinitely existed since the sum of all things has nothing to oppose or eradicate it, meaning that the sum of all things can never be nonexistent because non-existence doesn't exist. Out of all that I said, the only thing to have anything to do with the concept of truth is the proof that non-existence is not valid by its own definition, therefore since it's not valid it can not be true. Other than that the concept of truth is not applicable or representative of anything else including other terms. I do love how you keep trying to insert words into my reasoning that have nothing to do with my actual reasoning process.

The bold is accurate and proves to yourself the point that I've been making, that point being that non-existence is not a truth due to its invalid nature.

Also you are confused as to what the ontology fallacy is, and for some reason you don't realize the contradictory nature of your last statement. First an ontology fallacy is the mistake of assuming that because a concept exists that what it represents must objectively exist also. My argument in no way shape or form does this.

Second it's not a fallacy to infer the existence of something from a quality that it possesses, but instead is the process of deduction, the same process that mathematical analysis/logical proofing is built upon. So it's quite intriguing that you believe deduction to be a fallacy of logic even though it's the foundation of the very subject that proves the validity or truthfulness of a thing.

What really bothers me though is that this is the second time I had to correct your use of accusing myself of using a fallacy. Now if you haven't realized throughout this conversation that I'm well-versed in the logic then I'm letting you know, I'm extremely well versed in logic, and mathematical analysis to such a degree that I would call it my specialty. If you're going to accuse myself, or anyone for that matter, of using a logical fallacy then it would behoove you to make sure that you're correct in your accusation, and that you have the right fallacy.


----------



## ae1905

And something else that baffles me is what archetypes have to do with the nature of the universe? Archetypes was an idea Jung invented when studying his patients' dreams. What do dreams have to do with the universe? What do they have to do with the mystical experiences people who _meditate_ sometimes report? Is dreaming like meditation? I've never heard anyone claim he saw archetypes in his meditation. Isn't Jung taking an idea that was intended to apply to one area (dreams) and misapplying it to another area (mysticism) that it wasn't invented to explain?


----------



## ae1905

Atrium Strutionum said:


> Nope, still not a fallacy, especially since I'm not changing the definition of existence to the concept of true. You may interpret it that way, but I assure you it's wrong. The concept of existence is the sum of all things, the concept of true/truth is what is valid. I'm actually making it very clear for you to understand the concept of existence is the sum of all things, now if you add a negative prefix to it then the definition eradicates itself by being opposed to the original definition of the original concept, therefore non-existence in every aspect is the opposite of the sum of all things, therefore leading it to be equivalent to the concept of nothing. *Nothing either does or does not exist, if it exists then it is a thing*, contradicting it's nonexistent nature and proving that it is not a valid concept, but if it doesn't exist then it proves that the sum of all things has infinitely existed since the sum of all things has nothing to oppose or eradicate it, meaning that the sum of all things can never be nonexistent because non-existence doesn't exist. Out of all that I said, the only thing to have anything to do with the concept of truth is the proof that non-existence is not valid by its own definition, therefore since it's not valid it can not be true. Other than that the concept of truth is not applicable or representative of anything else including other terms. I do love how you keep trying to insert words into my reasoning that have nothing to do with my actual reasoning process.
> 
> The bold is accurate and proves to yourself the point that I've been making, that point being that non-existence is not a truth due to its invalid nature.
> 
> Also you are confused as to what the ontology fallacy is, and for some reason you don't realize the contradictory nature of your last statement. First an ontology fallacy is the mistake of assuming that because a concept exists that what it represents must objectively exist also. My argument in no way shape or form does this.
> 
> Second it's not a fallacy to infer the existence of something from a quality that it possesses, but instead is the process of deduction, the same process that mathematical analysis/logical proofing is built upon. So it's quite intriguing that you believe deduction to be a fallacy of logic even though it's the foundation of the very subject that proves the validity or truthfulness of a thing.
> 
> What really bothers me though is that this is the second time I had to correct your use of accusing myself of using a fallacy. Now if you haven't realized throughout this conversation that I'm well-versed in the logic then I'm letting you know, I'm extremely well versed in logic, and mathematical analysis to such a degree that I would call it my specialty. If you're going to accuse myself, or anyone for that matter, of using a logical fallacy then it would behoove you to make sure that you're correct in your accusation, and that you have the right fallacy.


If nothing exists, what kind of "thing" is "nothing"?


----------



## Abraxas

@PaladinX

Where was that passage taken from?


----------



## PaladinX

Abraxas said:


> @_PaladinX_
> 
> Where was that passage taken from?


I've compiled a list of excerpts from Jung on his own type:

http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/13952-carl-jung-10.html#post18263178

Sources included.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Formulation of logic of theories is a certain function, and people have all of them.

You would have to go into a biography to type him, not look just at his works. Out of Jung and Freud, Jung is the one that was described as empathetic and easily connecting to and being loved by others. He spent his life on psychology. The case leans towards INFJ, trying to use a lesser personal function, which is why his ability to ever come up with a concise, coherent principle left most of his works open-ended.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ae1905 said:


> If nothing exists, what kind of "thing" is "nothing"?


If nothing existed then it wouldn't be nothing because a property of "nothing" is being nonexistent, therefore making an "existent nothing" a contradictory statement that turns "nothing" into "something", and I think it's pretty obvious that "something" can not be "nothing". Thus leading to the same point I've been presenting to you, that there can never be an "existent nothing" because of its contradictory nature that disproves it's own validity. 

So to answer your question, there is no thing that is "nothing", hence why "nothing" is nonexistent.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

PaladinX said:


> Not to drudge up the discussion about Jung's type again, I just came across this and wanted to throw it out there:


Can you get the year that it was written, and was it written before or after the video of him stating that he was an introverted thinker in the 50s?


----------



## ae1905

Atrium Strutionum said:


> If nothing existed then it wouldn't_* be*_ *nothing *because a *property of "nothing" *is being nonexistent,


You are treating "nothing" as a "thing" with "properties", and arguing that because it is a thing it must exist, but its existence contradicts its meaning, "therefore" "nothing" cannot exist.

But "nothing" itself is not a thing with properties. The concept "nothing" has a meaning and you are mistaking this meaning of the concept for the "properties" of a thing. But nothing itself means no things, including the concept of "nothing" and can have no properties.

Especially "non-existence". Existence and non-exstence are not properties of things. This is the ontological fallacy. Things either exist or they don't. It is fallacious to try and argue that because they have a property of existing, they must exist.

The classic example of this fallacy is the argument for God's existence where it was claimed that a property God must have was perfection, and God could not be perfect w/o also existing.

Well, I can imagine a unicorn that is the most perfect unicorn imaginable. I can argue that no unicorn would be perfect without also existing. But I would be wrong, wouldn't I?


The problem you are having is that you are trying to understand and imagine "nothing" from your pov in which there can only _be _things. Even your idea and picture of "nothing" entails _some thing _like a concept or an empty space with no matter. But "nothing" includes no such concepts or spaces. It means _nothing at all._

Zilch. Nada. Even less because there wouldn't even be words or concepts to describe it.


----------



## Abraxas

@_Entropic_ and @_Kintsugi_

Interestingly, I've always found it odd that people assume their thoughts are private. The truth is, the only thing private about your mind is the way you experience it, your perception of it. Your mind is actually entirely public apart from your experiences - i.e., every thought you've ever had since the moment you started experiencing your own thoughts, was public. What people tend to do is confuse their own perception of their thoughts for the thoughts themselves.

Take for example, the classical nonsensical question, "what am I thinking right now?"

The question itself contains a subtle misconception, because you're not really asking what it is you are thinking, you're asking me to describe your _experience_ of your own thoughts. How can I possibly do that? I have no epistemic access to the contents of your experiences. People are confusing their experience, their -perception- of their own thoughts, for the act of judgment itself - the act of thinking itself - but the two are completely different.

So what you are actually asking is, "what am I perceiving?" And how could I ever know that? You're right, I can't. But again, that's because people don't "think" their experiences up, they think _about_ them. "What am I thinking" is just a phrase that actually means "what words describe my experience right now?" - it doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean at first glance because it's a misconception of what the act of thinking a thought really entails.

To bring this back home again, now that we have sorted out what thinking actually is, then if you asked me "what am I thinking right now" the answer is, "you are thinking about your own experience of thinking, and you are thinking about the properties of that experience, and so on." And that would be correct _every time_. That would be literally what you were doing, and the objectively correct answer.

The knee-jerk reaction people have to this who still don't seem to understand what thinking is, is to say, "that's not really answering the question." But they're wrong. It is actually the _only_ correct answer to the question _given what thinking actually is._ What _they_ are confused about, is the fact that they really weren't asking me to describe their thoughts in the first place. That was never even the question to begin with. They were asking me to describe their perception of their thoughts, not their _thinking itself_.

The final pitch I want to make here is this: it is not even possible to conceive of "to ask another person what someone is thinking" properly. That is not an idea that even makes sense. It is categorically self-contradictory, and thus a meaningless thing to ask someone to do. It is not that nobody can do it, because again, I can tell you perfectly well "what" you are _"thinking"_, but I can't _possibly_ have access to the contents of your _experiences_, so I could never guess that, unless I was just lucky.

I find this to be a useful exercise for really wrapping your mind around the distinction between perception and judgment.

TL;DR, so yes, I do relate to you Entropic, on having insight into people's minds. To me the mind is quite obvious and not mysterious, it's really a very mechanical thing in my opinion, even if it does have layers and is very modular and can adapt and change its own configuration. Maybe the better analogy here is to say, it's like an organ. It just works a certain way, and being organic it's complicated, but not so complicated that we can't summarize it sufficiently enough to make it predictable and talk about it as such.

I've even written along similar lines in other threads, where I don't relate to a lot of INTJs who post that they consider human beings and their behavior some kind of enigma. I don't see human behavior as enigmatic whatsoever. It's quite obvious what motivates people, and when you combine an understanding of neuroscience with an understanding of intellectual context (i.e., the meaning of the language we use to frame our experiences and explain them to each other), people becomes amazingly simple and predictable creatures, so much so that I would even call them boring most of the time because they almost _never deviate_ from their programming.


----------



## ferroequinologist

crashbandicoot said:


> so, Ji deals with "ideals" and Je with reality ?
> 
> btw, I've read most of (34 pages) the thread yet I still think I'm both Fe+Te. Can someone fix my thinking process ? Thanks


I don't think anybody did... so I'll try.

I've noticed this from a couple of ISXJs I know. I suspect that what is really happening is that their Si, being the dominant function, sort of dictates more to you about things like how to properly respond and react to things than your weaker judging functions. Don't want to get too deep, but all introverted functions have to deal with a sense of ideals or perfect or assumed ways of being--Jung called them archetypes and the collective unconscious. I don't know how far I'd take these things, but there is something to this that as we grow, our introverted side does build a database of things, and for Si types, their database is _very_ concrete as well as very personal. I've discussed in another thread that if I could apply one key word to Si, it would be the word "should". What should we do. How should we behave? What should be the proper response to this, etc. So, this informs whatever judging function you have. Since your conscious judging function is an extraverted one, your introverted one will be less obvious to you, and may, thanks to the strong "should" character of Si, be more silent--the silent partner. If you are Te, then Fi will most likely appear to you as something private. Deep down inside, regardless of what you are doing on the outside, you may or may not agree, and there is a tiny bit of something bugging you about it that it's wrong. If it's Ti, I suspect that you will conform, but a tiny bit will tell you that it's illogical or makes no logical sense. Curious which describes you more.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

ferroequinologist said:


> I don't think anybody did... so I'll try.
> 
> I've noticed this from a couple of ISXJs I know. I suspect that what is really happening is that their Si, being the dominant function, sort of dictates more to you about things like how to properly respond and react to things than your weaker judging functions. Don't want to get too deep, but all introverted functions have to deal with a sense of ideals or perfect or assumed ways of being--Jung called them archetypes and the collective unconscious. I don't know how far I'd take these things, but there is something to this that as we grow, our introverted side does build a database of things, and for Si types, their database is _very_ concrete as well as very personal. I've discussed in another thread that if I could apply one key word to Si, it would be the word "should". What should we do. How should we behave? What should be the proper response to this, etc. So, this informs whatever judging function you have. Since your conscious judging function is an extraverted one, your introverted one will be less obvious to you, and may, thanks to the strong "should" character of Si, be more silent--the silent partner. If you are Te, then Fi will most likely appear to you as something private. Deep down inside, regardless of what you are doing on the outside, you may or may not agree, and there is a tiny bit of something bugging you about it that it's wrong. If it's Ti, I suspect that you will conform, but a tiny bit will tell you that it's illogical or makes no logical sense. Curious which describes you more.


Haha, actually ... You thought I was tert Fi but well i like the longer response anyway 

I understand what you mean Si looking like Je, as it tries to create the atmosphere it has been used to but in my case I'm actually pretty straight forward, I wouldnt do things that may bug me deep down or if I did stuff it wouldnt bug me later. Especially not with ethical concerns, hmm example, last night we have been chatting and a friend said he started texting his ex gf (who now has a bf) and i was like oh ok, well, how did she respond etc. while another friend just went Fi and critisized how immoral that was. I didnt even think about that, not at that moment, thats why I think my feeling judgements are more situationary being extraverted.

I can kinda understand how tert Ti can disturb me but I'm not really sure. I cant think of any examples right now


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I can see how Si can look like Je, or a creative process. That definition of Si that @Blue Flare posted a while ago, really opened my eyes on made a lot of sense. No matter what type I am, I have no Si. Because Si, is "creating atmosphere". That is Si to me from now on. It is a creative process. 

I have known this ISTJ woman forever. She has always been kind of a black sheep. Nothing bad, but she is untraditional. Which made me think she was an ISTP. And also because she seems obviously a thinker and not a feeler. She is like a hippy party girl, and her older ESFJ sister is prom queen. This ISTJ woman is actually extremely meek and seems to have no feeling. lol. Anyway. She is actually good at creating atmosphere though. It just isn't the vulgar display of power that an ESFJ has. Or an ISFJ either.

ISTJ guys are similar. Like if I had a daughter, and she brought home a date to meet the family, I don't know what to say to this fuckin guy. An ISTJ would. I cannot create atmosphere whatsoever, anywhere.


----------



## Abraxas

@FearAndTrembling

I always conceptualize Si-leads as being "farmer joe" types. I don't know how to explain it. Like, wake up, greet the sun, do your daily routine. Everything is routine, relaxing, familiar. They're so in tune with the fine nuances of experience, everything has to be just a certain way, the coffee just a certain temperature, the eggs cooked just right, you know what I mean? They want life to be like that. Every single aspect of their lives has to be a certain way that appeals to their personal aesthetic sense.

It's actually easy to distinguish them from their extraverted counterparts, the ESJ types, who lead with extraverted judgment. In those types of people, you see the same need for consistency with some type of aesthetic, but it's always subordinated to some objective goal that has nothing to do with beauty. Instead of just being for it's own sake, like in the Si type, who just does it for the immense pleasure of satisfaction, the extravert with Si auxiliary is always doing it for some agenda - the disruption to the atmosphere is just a detriment to their plans and processes, it's not about beauty, it's about efficiency and procedure (in Te leads) or about socially expected behavior (in Fe types). That's why they do it - to meet those ends. Aesthetic sense is just a means to an ends for them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Abraxas said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> I always conceptualize Si-leads as being "farmer joe" types. I don't know how to explain it. Like, wake up, greet the sun, do your daily routine. Everything is routine, relaxing, familiar. They're so in tune with the fine nuances of experience, everything has to be just a certain way, the coffee just a certain temperature, the eggs cooked just right, you know what I mean? They want life to be like that. Every single aspect of their lives has to be a certain way that appeals to their personal aesthetic sense.
> 
> It's actually easy to distinguish them from their extraverted counterparts, the ESJ types, who lead with extraverted judgment. In those types of people, you see the same need for consistency with some type of aesthetic, but it's always subordinated to some objective goal that has nothing to do with beauty. Instead of just being for it's own sake, like in the Si type, who just does it for the immense pleasure of satisfaction, the extravert with Si auxiliary is always doing it for some agenda - the disruption to the atmosphere is just a detriment to their plans and processes, it's not about beauty, it's about efficiency and procedure (in Te leads) or about socially expected behavior (in Fe types). That's why they do it - to meet those ends. Aesthetic sense is just a means to an ends for them.


That is precisely what it is. I have referred to Si as dreary. It is like an itchy wool sweater. Get it off of me. It is like standing in line at the DMV or bank. I was saying this is how there is a massive difference between ISFJ and INFJ. ISFJ males are probably the most "feely" type there is in the colloquial sense of the word. They are so soft. So disarming. Si is like fabric softener, it breaks the fall of things and leaves a fresh scent. The last thing I am is fabric softener. This is why Hitler is clearly not a Ni dom. lol. And how ESTJ and ISTJ can appear to have more feeling than an INFJ, or even ENFJ. Because they can create atmosphere. Specifically because they can relate to those farmer joe types. lol. I can relate to people at distance, or small groups.

Si IS work. Hitler is the kind of guy, who the longer you are around him, he is gonna make you do something. Like Edison said that most people miss opportunity because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. That is me.


----------

