# EIE = Hamlet ?



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Xahhakatar said:


> Apparently, I'm an INTP because I hate everything and I'm very blunt about it.


Those are behavioural traits and not necessarily indicative of cognition. :kitteh:


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Those are behavioural traits and not necessarily indicative of cognition. :kitteh:


People say I use a lot of Ti and Fe.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Xahhakatar said:


> People say I use a lot of Ti and Fe.


People say that, eh?

What else do these 'people' say?

Or _should _I say...

Cyber-alien-usurpers!?

Dundundunnn...

No, but seriously. I think it's probably best for you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. If you go to sociotype.com, and check out the Quadras, the dichotomies, maybe do a bit of extra-curricular digging, I think you'll find it easier to formulate your own conclusions.

I'm not saying you're _not _an INTP, of course. Simply encouraging you to do your own research, beyond what 'people say'. 'Cause _you_ need to say it too, right?


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> People say that, eh?
> 
> What else do these 'people' say?
> 
> ...


I originally thought I was an INTP, and then I began thinking I was an ENFP because some NTs didn't think I was cool enough to be one of them, but then I looked at the functions and decided I was an INTP.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Xahhakatar said:


> I originally thought I was an INTP, and then I began thinking I was an ENFP because some NTs didn't think I was cool enough to be one of them, but then I looked at the functions and decided I was an INTP.


Works for me. :kitteh:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

The thread gone off the rails a bit, so... I'm going to derail it even further.:kitteh:

The nicknames made me wonder about Maximilien Robespierre who is used as a symbolic archetype for LII. 

The first associations that come in conjunction with Robespierre are heavy focus on justice, fighting against corruption, anti-death penalty, anti-slavery, spokesmen for the oppressed and all that jazz about liberty, equality and fraternity. On the surface they seem like Fi-driven sentiments, but, on reflection, they are devoid of humanitarian aspect and resemble more rigid logical structures, vision of how things supposed to be run, putting more emphasis on "ideals" (if I can call them that in this case) without paying much respect to real living people and relationships with/between them. 

So, now I wonder. Could I be confusing Ti for Fi? Particularly, could logical Ti approach to ethics be confused with low Fi? I'm a huge justice junkie and usually approach situations of moral conflicts from the logical viewpoint. I don't really feel personal likes and dislikes that good and don't base ethical choices on them, but instead go with the notions on whether the situation is just or not, whether the individual's rights are trampled, whether the treatment is equal and so on. They are pretty much abstract ideal constructions, like a hardwired universal code of rules. With that I don't really care much for individuals affected by the said situations, but for that this internal structural code were applied, because I simply know that "it" must be "this" and no other way than "that".

Is it something Ti related or is it common for the majority of logical egos?


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

@To_august I was wondering about the same thing at one point (that is, about why Robespierre represent LII's) and I ended up reading his biography. Robespierre was very rigid, strict and logically driven person. As an archetype, he may represent rigid logical structures used for humanitarian purposes, as you nicely put it. Hence, Ti (logic) + Ne (ideas). 
He was the embodiment of Ji dom rigidness, in a sense. Had nickname The Incorruptible. Also very erudite person, etc. I think LII fit him well; if we look closely into his life, apart from general connotations / symbolism, he could be even better representative for LSI's, but that's just my opinion (especially if we think about Beta as quadra of social revolution). Robespierre may represent some Fi sentiments, but his methods and logical rigidness were not Fi, just not. Generally I think that the goal of Robespierre nickname were to correlate LII's with some kind of logical mastermind, person with strong will but "deflated" personal feelings, being able to sentence others to death for the name of abstract concepts.




> So, now I wonder. Could I be confusing Ti for Fi? Particularly, could logical Ti approach to ethics be confused with low Fi? I'm a huge justice junkie and usually approach situations of moral conflicts from the logical viewpoint. I don't really feel personal likes and dislikes that good and don't base ethical choices on them, but instead go with the notions on whether the situation is just or not, whether the individual's rights are trampled, whether the treatment is equal and so on. They are pretty much abstract ideal constructions, like a hardwired universal code of rules. With that I don't really care much for individuals affected by the said situations, but for that this internal structural code were applied, because I simply know that "it" must be "this" and no other way than "that".
> 
> Is it something Ti related or is it common for the majority of logical egos?


I think you are "decoding" feelings by logic because your logical functions are more developed and conscious? Not sure if it has to be Ti specifically related. With that said, personally I often feel likes and dislikes, but dunno if it is caused by my supposed functional stack, or just my personal preferences / my own 'wiring'. I am very bugged by social injustice, but I usually relate to individuals affected by injustice by "putting myself in their shoes". I don't care until I can relate to given person/situation personally. It could be one person or group of milions, doesn't matter. I definitely use logic to understand moral conflicts, for example I often contemplate what caused given situation, what could be done for betterment, is it really unjust or only superficially, etc. but to even start wondering I need to be affected personally by certain situation. Pure intellectual, abstract concept of justice leaves me cold.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> @_To_august_ I was wondering about the same thing at one point (that is, about why Robespierre represent LII's) and I ended up reading his biography. Robespierre was very rigid, strict and logically driven person. As an archetype, he may represent rigid logical structures used for humanitarian purposes, as you nicely put it. Hence, Ti (logic) + Ne (ideas).
> He was the embodiment of Ji dom rigidness, in a sense. Had nickname The Incorruptible. Also very erudite person, etc. I think LII fit him well; if we look closely into his life, apart from general connotations / symbolism, he could be even better representative for LSI's, but that's just my opinion (especially if we think about Beta as quadra of social revolution). Robespierre may represent some Fi sentiments, but his methods and logical rigidness were not Fi, just not. Generally I think that the goal of Robespierre nickname were to correlate LII's with some kind of logical mastermind, person with strong will but "deflated" personal feelings, being able to sentence others to death for the name of abstract concepts.
> I think you are "decoding" feelings by logic because your logical functions are more developed and conscious? Not sure if it has to be Ti specifically related. With that said, personally I often feel likes and dislikes, but dunno if it is caused by my supposed functional stack, or just my personal preferences / my own 'wiring'. I am very bugged by social injustice, but I usually relate to individuals affected by injustice by "putting myself in their shoes". I don't care until I can relate to given person/situation personally. It could be one person or group of milions, doesn't matter. I definitely use logic to understand moral conflicts, for example I often contemplate what caused given situation, what could be done for betterment, is it really unjust or only superficially, etc. but to even start wondering I need to be affected personally by certain situation. Pure intellectual, abstract concept of justice leaves me cold.


I happen to read Robespierre's biography meanwhile and it got me wondering about it too. I found it interesting that what seemed strong moral Fi agenda on the surface appeared to be logical Ti structures upon a closer view. Agreed, he's not Fi at all.

And this is what bugs me. I put far more emphasis on structures than on individuals when pondering solutions and thinking about the problems. Like, when I think about some injustice happening to person or group of people I usually rant on how our laws are poorly written and have deliberate and indeliberate loopholes or that they are ignored completely, which leads to unequal distribution of rights and opportunities. Or that social sphere lacks equality. And I see these things as discrepancies that must be eliminated between how things are logically supposed to be and how they are now. At the same time I don't have much concern that implementation of such logically just system could possibly bring disadvantages on the level of individuals. 

When it comes to movies, films, music I'm good at feeling likes and dislikes, but when it concerns people, it all becomes a blur. Especially, if somebody badgers me with questions about relationships and what I think about "Ann" or what I think about my relationship with "John" and what are these relationship like. Ugh. There's never an obvious answer to value judgement that people seem to frequently need and it irritates the crap out of me.

Eather my feeling functions are very undeveloped and merged at the depth of my psyche or I am misunderstanding something about the functions.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

To_august said:


> And this is what bugs me. I put far more emphasis on structures than on individuals when pondering solutions and thinking about the problems. Like, when I think about some injustice happening to person or group of people I usually rant on how our laws are poorly written and have deliberate and indeliberate loopholes or that they are ignored completely, which leads to unequal distribution of rights and opportunities. Or that social sphere lacks equality. And I see these things as discrepancies that must be eliminated between how things are logically supposed to be and how they are now. At the same time I don't have much concern that implementation of such logically just system could possibly bring disadvantages on the level of individuals.


I depersonalize moral problems too, thinking about possible ways of betterment, with changing the laws or social order included. Once I start to think this way, I don't really put emphasis on individuals either. 
Difference betwees us would be in motivation: you seem to be interested in ethics or societal problems per se, I don't really find it interesting until I can relate personally, so I don't even activate my Te to think about it. It boils down to individual interests or personal preferences, not cognitive differences, imo. 

I wouldn't say it is Ti: operating with existing laws / social order and trying to intellectualy manipulate it, to achieve a desireable outcome in the reality. That is Te. Ti would be more interested in relating everything to broader rule, like "justice"; generally aiming in more abstract and detatched analysis. I imagine that Ti valuer would start with completely new set of rules and laws, in a more revolutionnary way (like Robespierre, who not so much manipulated with existing set of rules, to make it more effective, but wanted to reprogram whole law system to fit into his abstractions), than with analyzing and manipulating reality.




> When it comes to movies, films, music I'm good at feeling likes and dislikes, but when it concerns people, it all becomes a blur. Especially, if somebody badgers me with questions about relationships and what I think about "Ann" or what I think about my relationship with "John" and what are these relationship like. Ugh. There's never an obvious answer to value judgement that people seem to frequently need and it irritates the crap out of me.
> 
> Eather my feeling functions are very undeveloped and merged at the depth of my psyche or I am misunderstanding something about the functions.


I'm like this, plus I can easy feel my relation and sympathy / antipathy towards another person, though I'm sometimes wrong about status of a relationship. I hate expressing my sympathy / antipathy, and any expression of feelings in general. 
I'm probably an ILI - Ni, so if you are a Te subtype it could explain why you use your Te more spontaneously, but have more problems with utilizing Fi traits. Also, I'm in a 5-year relationship with an Fi dom, so it might strengthen my Fi (I'm 27 now).


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

@wolf12345

Thanks for that. It cleared up my mind a bit as to were I'm currently standing. Hands down, I'm driven towards results and bringing about a change, very Te stuff. Pondering on theoretical concepts is interesting and useful, but insofar as it leads to some sort of implementation in reality. Otherwise, not so much. 

More spontaneous use of Te makes sense. I've been wondering lately whether I can be logical base, perhaps Te in particular. But it also has its drawbacks. As usual.


----------

