# Ti lacks consistency and fairness



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

grumpytiger said:


> I did want to mention when the question was brought up as to why Te is the "fairness function". I don't think it is, I think the need for consistency is just the J.


I still dont understand. Fair can depend on the viewpoint each person has, i could have had experiences in my life and i could have been raised in a way i would see things as fair and try to keep them that way, when it comes to my approaches. That doesnt mean im going to stand up to a random guy on the street to protect a victim of whatever behavior in general, or that im someone a lot intrigued by social justice. I just want my people to be treated well, especially when im the one who makes the decisions. 
Why cant Ti think like this? it kind of makes no sense. Its logic we are talking about here not morals. And with Ti logic can adapt to the person's perceptive. Fi is not necessary for that. Like I always wondered why do you think Fi is required to live by ethics and restrainment? 
To be honest i hate most of the rules (at least all those that dont make any sense to me) but i can see that i can be ethical and protective when it counts or restrain myself if i see that im destroying my world. Why do i need Fi to do all of this? Its how i logically see things. I see that if im stupid im just stupid and get nowhere by being like that. So i just stop.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

You're trying to apply an objective interpretation to subjective, highly variable events, involving human beings. Everybody defines terms like _consistency_ and _fairness_ individually. OK, for instance, your second example. I've worked at jobs that involve metrics and qualities and I never given a shit about my marks. I don't demand fair treatment and that everyone be treated the same or else boo hoo it's unfair. To me that seems immature and childish. _But how come *she* got to do XYZ, what about *me!*_ That is shit that fourth graders say. Do your work, be friendly, be a human, get a paycheck and do the shit you really care about. Unless you're a fucking brain surgeon, it's not important.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> I still dont understand. Fair can depend on the viewpoint each person has, i could have had experiences in my life and i could have been raised in a way i would see things as fair and try to keep them that way, when it comes to my approaches. That doesnt mean im going to stand up to a random guy on the street to protect a victim of whatever behavior in general, or that im someone a lot intrigued by social justice. I just want my people to be treated well, especially when im the one who makes the decisions.
> Why cant Ti think like this? it kind of makes no sense. Its logic we are talking about here not morals. And with Ti logic can adapt to the person's perceptive. Fi is not necessary for that. Like I always wondered why do you think Fi is required to live by ethics and restrainment?
> To be honest i hate most of the rules (at least all those that dont make any sense to me) but i can see that i can be ethical and protective when it counts or restrain myself if i see that im destroying my world. Why do i need Fi to do all of this? Its how i logically see things. I see that if im stupid im just stupid and get nowhere by being like that. So i just stop.


The idea, at least for me, is that without consistency there is no fairness, either, and it seems like OP thinks the same way about that. This is all within realistic limits, your example about stopping at every example of social injustice in the world as if it were all the sole responsibility of you personally isn't realistic (unfortunately - there are still steps you can take against such injustice though).

As for why it would be Fi - I'm not really relating the issue of consistency to Fi, I only relate it to J, and I just described my experiences, which by the way do not match OP's because I don't find all xxTPs are the same when it comes to matters of consistency in fairness.

One more note on that... As for ENTPs I find many of them too random in some situations, so that doesn't help in seeing why they would do some things sometimes. But the stuff I mentioned about abuse of power, it was very clear abuse of it.




Conscience Killer said:


> You're trying to apply an objective interpretation to subjective, highly variable events, involving human beings. Everybody defines terms like _consistency_ and _fairness_ individually. OK, for instance, your second example. I've worked at jobs that involve metrics and qualities and I never given a shit about my marks. I don't demand fair treatment and that everyone be treated the same or else boo hoo it's unfair. To me that seems immature and childish. _But how come *she* got to do XYZ, what about *me!*_ That is shit that fourth graders say. Do your work, be friendly, be a human, get a paycheck and do the shit you really care about. Unless you're a fucking brain surgeon, it's not important.


So when you are treated in an inequal way about something that you DO give a shit about, are you gonna become a fourth grader?

Think of it from the pov of the authority: I will treat person X in a good way, I will treat person Y in a bad way. Why? Just because. To me that's the fourth grader, not person Y, who gets to speak up against the injustice.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

but who in this world is fair and consistent?


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

grumpytiger said:


> The idea, at least for me, is that without consistency there is no fairness, either, and it seems like OP thinks the same way about that. This is all within realistic limits, your example about stopping at every example of social injustice in the world as if it were all the sole responsibility of you personally isn't realistic (unfortunately - there are still steps you can take against such injustice though).
> 
> As for why it would be Fi - I'm not really relating the issue of consistency to Fi, I only relate it to J, and I just described my experiences, which by the way do not match OP's because I don't find all xxTPs are the same when it comes to matters of consistency in fairness.
> 
> One more note on that... As for ENTPs I find many of them too random in some situations, so that doesn't help.


ENTPs in general are random indeed and could be playing with people's minds so you find that to be not consistent probably. I cant say much because outside myself and some members of my family i dont know any strong examples that could be ENTPs. 
Still the way i know it, Ne/Ti believes in every person's abilities (socionics) way more than average as they see too many possibilities for personal growth. 

So ENTPs tend to be annoyed when freedom and equality isnt applied for those possibilities to be noticed and used as opportunities.
Thats the opposite of being unfair. Thats why i believe those examples are just random. An ENTP can be really annoying for a whole lot of other reasons, but being unfair isnt one of them.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> ENTPs in general are random indeed and could be playing with people's minds so you find that to be not consistent probably. I cant say much because outside myself and some members of my family i dont know any strong examples that could be ENTPs.
> Still the way i know it, Ne/Ti believes in every person's abilities (socionics) way more than average as they see too many possibilities for personal growth.
> 
> *So ENTPs tend to be annoyed when freedom and equality isnt applied for those possibilities to be noticed and used as opportunities.*
> Thats the opposite of being unfair. Thats why i beleive those examples are just random. An ENTP can be really annoying for a whole lot of other reasons, but being unfair isnt one of them.


Got an example of the bolded?

As for OP's examples... one thing is common in them as OP herself points out: _"I notice that people with Ti in their stack like to pick when and who to be "fair" with, which really isn't fair at all to me"_.

Of course, we are not speaking of unrealistic (=not implementable) guidelines here. So, would you say that applies at all to you, that you* "pick" like that when the option for treating everyone equally is available in a realistic fashion (implementable)?

*: Or any other TP here. @Conscience Killer apparently indicated this already tho'


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

SirCanSir said:


> ENTPs in general are random indeed and could be playing with people's minds so you find that to be not consistent probably. I cant say much because outside myself and some members of my family i dont know any strong examples that could be ENTPs.
> Still the way i know it, Ne/Ti believes in every person's abilities (socionics) way more than average as they see too many possibilities for personal growth.
> 
> So ENTPs tend to be annoyed when freedom and equality isnt applied for those possibilities to be noticed and used as opportunities.
> Thats the opposite of being unfair. Thats why i believe those examples are just random. An ENTP can be really annoying for a whole lot of other reasons, but being unfair isnt one of them.


 @Geonerd tell us your opinion about this topic since you are experienced in ENTP's behaviors field

Shit i quoted isntead of editing :/


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

grumpytiger said:


> In the first case OP did inquire and got _"He said "that's just how it is" with no explanation"_.


It is called go after class and ask again for an actual answer.



grumpytiger said:


> As for who makes OP judge, jury and executioner... she was not officially appointed as such, but who said that excuses unfairness?


There are always two sides to every story. Lumping all TPs in a category reiterates my remark above.




grumpytiger said:


> I do want to say that I did notice how OP used the word "confront" in the first situation... that might have influenced things, but it doesn't excuse the teacher IMO. A student being annoyed or angry in presentation does not invalidate the content of the argument. It does not magically make the teacher's actions fair or less of an abuse of power.


I am not going to debate about what is more than likely misconceptions in the first place. Do I agree with said situations IF in fact that is what occurred is a different story than know all events and both parts that transpired.

You are speculating as well as I am. Until THEY answer....this is pointless. That is why I asked the OP.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

ENIGMA15 said:


> It is called go after class and ask again for an actual answer.


OP doesn't indicate that she did not do so. What makes you assume this, that she interrupted the entire ongoing class with this? How about you don't assume but you actually do wait for OP on this? (As per the latter part of your post.)

EDIT: actually, I notice now that the other girl did ask in class, but then OP should still have got the same treatment even if asking in class. Actually, especially then.




> There are always two sides to every story. Lumping all TPs in a category reiterates my remark above.


OK, let me ask you the same question as in my above post:

_"As for OP's examples... one thing is common in them as OP herself points out: "I notice that people with Ti in their stack like to pick when and who to be "fair" with, which really isn't fair at all to me".

Of course, we are not speaking of unrealistic (=not implementable) guidelines here. So, would you say that applies at all to you, that you "pick" like that when the option for treating everyone equally is available in a realistic fashion (implementable)?"_

Like an ISTP above already indicated so.




> I am not going to debate about what is more than likely misconceptions in the first place. Do I agree with said situations IF in fact that is what occurred is a different story than know all events and both parts that transpired.
> 
> You are speculating as well as I am. Until THEY answer....this is pointless. That is why I asked the OP.


I wasn't about to start a debate about speculation.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

grumpytiger said:


> Got an example of the bolded?
> 
> As for OP's examples... one thing is common in them as OP herself points out: _"I notice that people with Ti in their stack like to pick when and who to be "fair" with, which really isn't fair at all to me"_.
> 
> ...


https://prnt.sc/jnoqei 
Ive got this one when it comes to theory but you want examples. I already pointed that i dont have any strong ones besides me.
But ive seen it in this community too. If ENTPs dont try to troll or make fun of something and are interested in discussion, then they are as fair as it gets when it comes to knowledge, mistakes ,etc.
I dont understand how are you so sure these people that you describe as unfair are ENTPs in the first place.
Unless they trolled you real hard and they were just playing around.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> https://prnt.sc/jnoqei
> Ive got this one when it comes to theory but you want examples. I already pointed that i dont have any strong ones besides me.
> But ive seen it in this community too. If ENTPs dont try to troll or make fun of something and are interested in discussion, then they are as fair as it gets when it comes to knowledge, mistakes ,etc.
> I dont understand how are you so sure these people that you describe us unfair are ENTPs in the first place.


OK no worries about the examples.

No idea about the type of the people in OP's examples, I was talking about different situations where yes I am sure they were ENTPs (too stereotypical not to be heh).

So you are saying you prefer to treat everyone equally? Or you are saying that somehow the possibilities thing changes that in implementation?




> Unless they trolled you real hard and they were just playing around.


Haha they can troll hard, for sure. (And sorry, but actually it's not always funny... ) But that's not what I meant... I meant examples of clear favouritism and other examples of simply not being bothered to pay attention. Again, I don't want to accuse every ENTP personally of that, I'm just saying what I observed.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

grumpytiger said:


> OK no worries about the examples.
> 
> No idea about the type of the people in OP's examples, I was talking about different situations where yes I am sure they were ENTPs (too stereotypical not to be heh).
> 
> So you are saying you prefer to treat everyone equally? Or you are saying that somehow the possibilities thing changes that in implementation?


I just tend to think from each persons perception each time when talking to them and try to understand their words and actions. That makes me unable to be unfair to them, unless i feel im the one who isnot treated fairly or im heated as i said earlier where i just dont think as much. 
When im in a group my interest can be uncontrollable and that would make me talk more with a person i find more interesting leaving some unsatisfied, but im going to see that somewhat quickly and try to ask others questions so they can contribute. But thats probably something to do with my Sx.so not with me being ENTP. i will try to figure each persons motives before passing judgement. 
Of course i could be bored enough or irritated and keep it simple but thats not a standard behavior. 
Ill mostly try to treat everyone the same.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Actually agree with @SirCanSir ENTPs are not nearly as random as they appear to be. They're perfectly consistent in their beliefs. If you want to look at randomness and weirdness, you should look at ENFPs instead. I've never experienced unfairness from an ENTP. Ironically, the biggest source of unfairness in my life has been from my ISTJ mother. In fact, the whole Delta quadrant has a hard time applying their high standards of others to themselves, in my experience dealing with them. The best ones from the four are INFPs, I think. 

But even then, I'm not going to be presumptuous enough to assume around a quarter of the world population embodies one particular quality.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> I just tend to think from each persons perception each time when talking to them and try to understand their words and actions. That makes me unable to be unfair to them, unless i feel im the one who isnot treated fairly or im heated as i said earlier where i just dont think as much.
> When im in a group my interest can be uncontrollable and that would make me talk more with a person i find more interesting leaving some unsatisfied, but im going to see that somewhat quickly and try to ask others questions so they can contribute. But thats probably something to do with my Sx.so not with me being ENTP. i will try to figure each persons motives before passing judgement.
> Of course i could be bored enough or irritated and keep it simple but thats not a standard behavior.
> Ill mostly try to treat everyone the same.


Oh I didn't mean subjective things like how much you are talking to each person in an informal social situation. BTW I relate to the part with trying to address everyone while some people I will focus on more because they are more interesting (I'm probably sx/so as well), but this is only in informal contexts, not anywhere where this could result in objective unfairness.

OK maybe it was when these ENTPs were heated too much. I know I did notice them get too emotional in some cases. Or bored, or irritated, sure.

If considering these as the usual causes for lack of consistency resulting in inequal and unfair treatment, I would think level of psychological health also matters in terms of improved emotional control with better psychological health. In really bad cases it would result in big abuse of power, the other cases I just find very annoying.

ISTJs do have these quite high standards on consistency though. And that's what I saw as the point of OP, that she doesn't understand why other people can, so to speak, slack off there. And I also have a hard time understanding it. :laughing:


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

Without reading the thread from the beginning to get some context (I am really busy right now and do not have the time to go back and read right now) but here is a quick thought based on 15 year of dealing with an ENTP-ISTJ marriage. My husband is an ISTJ and I suspect this back and forth is more the fact of how our brain process. 

I will tell you, when it comes to fairness ENTPs and ISTJs are about as far apart as you get on this concept, although both are being fair/unfair for different reasons. Trying to have each type understand each other is one of the hardest thing to do, especially if both parties are young and not fully using their cognitive functions well. BTW, it is not Ti but the combo of Ne-Ti as the ISTJ's sense of constant fairness (and judging) comes from Si-Te. 

To an ISTJ, that Si-Te holds people equally up to an almost impossible standard of conduct (including themselves-actually they are worse on themselves than they are to others) regardless of the situation. You follow rules so that the playing field stays "equal". There shouldn't be special considerations so that the "hard work" of each person has the same weight. ISTJs are very much motivated by punishment-reward systems (considering how many more ISTJs and SJs are in the world, it's no wonder that is how most education/military is based on this system). The steps to how you get to the end result is as important as the end result itself. So if you got the same result using a short cut, you shouldn't earn the same reward or accolades. I will say, ISTJs are constantly noticing this balance of "fairness" (and because of the Fi in 3rd position, it often is applied to it being unfair compared to themselves). It is pretty much almost impossible for them to shut it off. To an ISTJ, fairness means the playing field is the exact same for everyone regardless of their individual abilities or situation and the steps to achieve things should be the exact same for everyone.

As anyone who's raised and ENTP (and myself who now is raising an INTP), they do not respond to the standard punishment-reward system. We have to be self motivated to want to do something and we decide not to do something because it makes sense not to do it, not because an authority figure told us not to. We literally cannot remember rules that are arbitrary or do not make sense. Our Ne-Ti sees 15 different ways to do something so why would we care which way someone picks, the end result is what is important. When it comes to grades/certificates/ metals/badges, we are not competing with other people but ourselves and usually the award itself is a side note. I could care less what other people are doing and how they got there. It's only important *I* am growing as a person. Our Ne-Ti recognizes that each person is an individual and it is almost impossible to set the same standards for everyone so it is unfair to hold everyone to the exact same standard. To ENTPs, fairness means that each person is looked at individually and the playing field is set for their own abilities and situations.

The interesting thing is that I have had a similar conversation with my ISTJ husband and he could not even fathom my version of "fairness". To him, there is only one version of the word fairness and that is the exact same playing field for everyone following the exact same rules.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

This is the problem with attempting to isolate behaviours to a single cognitive function. It's not only impossible to do, it also disregards the impacts of function stacking and development.

Go back, go back, go back to function theory. The dominant function drives, the aux function supports, the tert is the relief function when the dominant/aux combo doesn't work or needs a break and the inferior function is in opposition to the dominant function. With this framework in mind why would perceiving function dominants like ENTPs and ESTPs be driven by their aux support functions? Why would INTPs and ISTPs evidence the same, considering how their Ti doms are supported by different aux functions? Also, when using their relief functions, why would they evidence same?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

> So when you are treated in an inequal way about something that you DO give a shit about, are you gonna become a fourth grader? Think of it from the pov of the authority: I will treat person X in a good way, I will treat person Y in a bad way. Why? Just because. To me that's the fourth grader, not person Y, who gets to speak up against the injustice.


 This is the difference between Te and Ti. Not everything is equal. Not everything _matters_ equally. I consider caring about irrelevant bullshit a waste of my time, and I consider it immature. If someone threatens my family, my livelihood, my safety, of course I'm going to give a shit about it. 

But if I'm at a shitty desk job in a call center and my coworker is passing people because she's tired, why is that my problem? I'm not her supervisor. Why should I give her shit and make her feel bad because she's behaving like a person? She's not _failing_ people because she's tired. 

This is not some archetypal _injustice_. It's just freaking life. Relax.



grumpytiger said:


> Or any other TP here. @Conscience Killer apparently indicated this already tho'


I pick realistic, most efficient, least harmful options, in situations where those choices actually matter. In situations where they don't? I don't give a shit. We are all adults. This is the adult world. Life is not a binary sequence of decisions. Life is about people and their dumb, messy responses.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Conscience Killer said:


> This is the difference between Te and Ti. Not everything is equal. Not everything _matters_ equally. I consider caring about irrelevant bullshit a waste of my time, and I consider it immature. If someone threatens my family, my livelihood, my safety, of course I'm going to give a shit about it.
> 
> But if I'm at a shitty desk job in a call center and my coworker is passing people because she's tired, why is that my problem? I'm not her supervisor. Why should I give her shit and make her feel bad because she's behaving like a person? She's not _failing_ people because she's tired.
> 
> ...


I thought the last example was about Fi not Te/Ti. 
As far as Te/Ti goes, if Ti is what i consider to be using right now, ill try to adjust it according to the situation at hand. If the situation is too serious, it could become Te or like Te. So the difference is that Te is probably more abstract while Ti can change according to your mood or your needs and interests.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Geonerd said:


> (...) The interesting thing is that I have had a similar conversation with my ISTJ husband and he could not even fathom my version of "fairness". To him, there is only one version of the word fairness and that is the exact same playing field for everyone following the exact same rules.


You described all this EXTREMELY well. You really get the mindset. And I've read about how ENTPs work, it's just not something I will really ever truly get. :tongue:




> and we decide not to do something because it makes sense not to do it, not because an authority figure told us not to. We literally cannot remember rules that are arbitrary or do not make sense


Actually I can be like this too. Other ISTJs also report this, that they do not follow all the rules "as is", just what makes sense. Some of them described it in detail how they start from the external rules then create their own system to optimize. I am like that myself too btw.

And yeah I can't remember certain little rules that seem too random, arbitrary. But this is only true in certain contexts (not sure why... more likely if it's just one totally standalone little rule?). Still, it can get annoying sometimes. :laughing: Sometimes I can finally make some reasoning to make it logical to be able to remember it in the end...


----------



## SimplyEnigmatic (Aug 19, 2017)

sriracha said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't say for sensor types but Ti does value fairness to a high degree. However this doesn't sound like Ti, because it would mean that I would be treating people the way I don't want to be treated. 

***1*** General use of an explanation. Ti people want to understand the why of things. How things work. "that's just how it is" is not a valid reason, rather it would piss off a Ti dom. Ti can't say an apple falls from a tree that's because it how it is. Ti would explain that gravity makes the apple fall. If Ti doesn't know, Ti will say "I don't know"

***2*** Bad use of framework. Ti has a framework of internal thoughts. It checks for data and compares it to see if it logically sound. Once it is logically sound, it is stored inside the framework forever. To deviate from the logical framework is illogical and therefore a bad use of the Ti dom

***3*** I can't defend Ti here because "recent incident" is quite vague. However, the strict no late penalty doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if Se values rules but Ne does not and will likely rid the no late penalty rule.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> This is very interesting because based on the feedback given in this thread, it seems clear that Ti-users have given you a lot of info to munch on with regards to how they value fairness and none of it seems to point towards the people acting in the way you've suggested in your OP.


Actually, some of it does, at least in terms of scenario 2...


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

grumpytiger said:


> Actually, some of it does, at least in terms of scenario 2...


Interesting. 



> Example 2: I have a coworker whose job includes checking if people thoroughly completed their tasks or not. One time at work she said "Sometimes I'm too tired to check and I just pass them. I am human." Why is this inconsistent? Because she may be strict one time and lenient other times, strict with a few people and let others get by. Not everyone gets the same amount of chance to pass, and it will be unpredictable for people when she goes in because her expectations seem to get more strict or lenient every time.


Where's the Ti?


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Interesting.


Conscience Killer's posts directly point towards it being an okay action.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

grumpytiger said:


> Conscience Killer's posts directly point towards it being an okay action.


Where did _you _see Ti in the scenario when Sriracha posted it as is. 

Conscience Killer agreeing with what's an ok action or not does not mean that the person is the same type. That's a wrong conclusion to draw. I agree with a lot of things a lot of people say are correct .. that has absolutely no bearing on our types. 

I want _you _to tell me where _you _saw Ti from the small paragraph that was written. That's kind of the crux of the issue here where people are asking for more information and it's not being provided.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Where did _you _see Ti in the scenario when Sriracha posted it as is.
> 
> Conscience Killer agreeing with what's an ok action or not does not mean that the person is the same type. That's a wrong conclusion to draw. I agree with a lot of things a lot of people say are correct .. that has absolutely no bearing on our types.
> 
> I want _you _to tell me where _you _saw Ti from the small paragraph that was written. That's kind of the crux of the issue here where people are asking for more information and it's not being provided.


We are talking about two different things then. The point here was, yes, Ti can give reasoning that will agree with scenario 2 and it has been demonstrated in this thread. I don't see your problem, it's simply a fact.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

So is this just a big thread of scenarios where people do the opposite of what I would do in order to convince me that I am like them? lol


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

grumpytiger said:


> We are talking about two different things then. The point here was, yes, Ti can give reasoning that will agree with scenario 2 and it has been demonstrated in this thread. I don't see your problem, it's simply a fact.


Don't avoid answering the question directly. If you don't know something, it's ok to say that you don't know. No need to be embarrassed about it  

We're not talking about two different things. 

When someone raises the issue of someone else's type, it doesn't mean that if somehow their behavior can be pigeon-holed into that type through conjecture without complete information that anything of actual truth has been achieved. 

This is something I've been refraining from saying in this thread, but in order to go from taking 3 scenarios where someone's type is completely ambiguous in the first place to making a claim that Ti can be inconsistent is an leap of logic that glosses over pertinent and required details to learn anything of actual value. 

BTW, here's CK's post: 



Conscience Killer said:


> You're trying to apply an objective interpretation to subjective, highly variable events, involving human beings. Everybody defines terms like _consistency_ and _fairness_ individually. OK, for instance, your second example. I've worked at jobs that involve metrics and qualities and I never given a shit about my marks. I don't demand fair treatment and that everyone be treated the same or else boo hoo it's unfair. To me that seems immature and childish. _But how come *she* got to do XYZ, what about *me!*_ That is shit that fourth graders say. Do your work, be friendly, be a human, get a paycheck and do the shit you really care about. Unless you're a fucking brain surgeon, it's not important.


Well, you completely missed the point of her post._ She was talking about herself where she personally does not care about fairness as it applies to her_ ... not how she would use what she applies to herself to treat _someone else _unfairly. 

You're misrepresenting her point ... or haven't understood what she was saying about herself to assume that the person in scenario 2 is a Ti-user.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> So is this just a big thread of scenarios where people do the opposite of what I would do in order to convince me that I am like them? lol


I did kinda wanted to go down the "potential Fe" route, but I decided not to take it and ask for more information instead. Same as a few other users ITT but none was forthcoming so at this point this is turning into a bit of a pointless drag :laughing:

Yeah .. let's talk about Ti-users and deny us the one thing that allows us to work at our best: More info :dry:


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

dizzycactus said:


> So is this just a big thread of scenarios where people do the opposite of what I would do in order to convince me that I am like them? lol


Are you like the second INTP out of 2 INTPs so far that do not think about it in the same way as the other xxTPs in this thread? Not as situational? But yeah in general, how situational are you about these things? Like the ISTPs for example described etc?




Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Don't avoid answering the question directly. If you don't know something, it's ok to say that you don't know. No need to be embarrassed about it


You have a really bad ability at guessing my motivations. This is nowhere close to the actual situation, I simply clarified we were talking about two completely different things. Talking past each other. I was NEVER stating in the first place that that scenario had to involve an actual xxTP in OP's life, I don't know, maybe the person was xxTP, maybe not, my point was about how yes, it's been demonstrated that Ti is capable of acting this way because of seeing it as alright for whatever reason (which was also given). That's all.


Where you say "none of it seems to *point* towards the people acting in the way you've suggested in your OP."

Read this in a literal logical fashion. This is what I was responding to. If "point towards" wanted to mean something else, feel free to rephrase, but this is what I was discussing.




> We're not talking about two different things.
> 
> When someone raises the issue of someone else's type, it doesn't mean that if somehow their behavior can be pigeon-holed into that type through conjecture without complete information that anything of actual truth has been achieved.


I was most certainly talking about something else. As above.




> This is something I've been refraining from saying in this thread, but in order to go from taking 3 scenarios where someone's type is completely ambiguous in the first place to making a claim that Ti can be inconsistent is an leap of logic that glosses over pertinent and required details to learn anything of actual value.


I was not purely focusing on the OP's post of the 3 scenarios but took facts from the whole thread. And yes, externally inconsistent from the xxTJ point of view.

This too: _"And just as how I react depends on a myriad of individual factors that can prompt an entirely different reaction in almost the same situation, so will my judgement be situational."_ (By Northern Lights)




> BTW, here's CK's post:
> 
> (...)
> 
> Well, you completely missed the point of her post._ She was talking about herself where she personally does not care about fairness as it applies to her_ ... not how she would use what she applies to herself to treat _someone else _unfairly.


She had more posts about this in the thread, and she did state it's fine to act inconsistently in that situation as she saw the situation. Again, I mean externally inconsistently.




> You're misrepresenting her point ... or haven't understood what she was saying about herself to assume that the person in scenario 2 is a Ti-user.


I did not assume or state such. Reread above to see my actual point.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Ftr, I don't relate to the "universal fairness" that's been described to Te here. I'm not the kind of person to make people jump through loops unnecessarily. Neither do I make value based decisions when it comes to people. My idea of adequate authority is that they would try to understand their subordinates and be able to understand everyone's unique needs. I'm not going to treat people all the same, because people by their very nature are different from one another. 

I just don't see how any of this is Ti or why people latch on to this typology bs to justify everything. "How do I get this ENFP to like me?" "How can I deal with my ESFJ mom?" You can start by treating these people as actual _people_ and not MBTI types. 

And no, before anyone starts assuming things, I'm not condoning that anything the OP experienced is justified or pardonable. What I'm saying here is that the OP makes these sweeping generalizations based on nothing. You think you've noticed some kind of trend? Scientific observation takes sample sizes of hundreds to even ten's of thousands of people. Ti doesn't lack fairness just because three people who I think are Ti users, happened to be unfair to some people some of the time. 

Feel free to agree with me, disagree or whatever. This is my biggest issue with the Typology community in general.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

grumpytiger said:


> Are you like the second INTP out of 2 INTPs so far that do not think about it in the same way as the other xxTPs in this thread? Not as situational? But yeah in general, how situational are you about these things? Like the ISTPs for example described etc?


Bit vague, but there are two different types of "fairness" being referred to in this thread. Fairness in terms of deciding which rules to implement is much more value driven - they must ultimately derive from some fundamental i.e. fairly subjective values. So, I can't really objectively judge the fairness of other people's rules, only provide opinions based on my own values. 

The other type of fairness is in the actual implementation of the rules. It is fair that, once a rule is created, it should apply to all people without exception. Exceptions can exist within the rule itself, but shouldn't be invented on a whim during the implementation. Partly it's because I have an individualist value system, but all individuals should be treated equally, which means impartially (some people think "equally" means applying bias wherever you see fit).

However, it should be noted that in some specific circumstances that a consistency in a rule may not necessarily lead to a consistency in behaviour. For example, I might have a rule that the first person to do something nice for me gets a present in return, and it would be logical to not continue this rule past the first person because they'd likely be doing it now in _expectation _of a present, whereas I originally wanted explicitly to reward a selfless action.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Blue Ribbon said:


> Ftr, I don't relate to the "universal fairness" that's been described to Te here. I'm not the kind of person to make people jump through loops unnecessarily. Neither do I make value based decisions when it comes to people. My idea of adequate authority is that they would try to understand their subordinates and be able to understand everyone's unique needs. I'm not going to treat people all the same, because people by their very nature are different from one another.
> 
> I just don't see how any of this is Ti or why people latch on to this typology bs to justify everything. "How do I get this ENFP to like me?" "How can I deal with my ESFJ mom?" You can start by treating these people as actual _people_ and not MBTI types.
> 
> ...


I think it has been elucidated already in this thread that there are clearly additional factors to the issue such as levels of psychological health with amount of emotional control etc, but the note that it also involves some fundamental difference between types is valid. Possibly more than one factor makes up even the type-related part of difference but there is definitely something there.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

grumpytiger said:


> I think it has been elucidated already in this thread that there are clearly additional factors to the issue such as levels of psychological health with amount of emotional control etc, but the note that it also involves some fundamental difference between types is valid. Possibly more than one factor makes up even the type-related part of difference but there is definitely something there.


The issue is far too complex to decide based on the info that the OP has given. As it stands, this discussion is unproductive. And I'm not the only one who has pointed this out.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

dizzycactus said:


> Bit vague, but there are two different types of "fairness" being referred to in this thread.


Do you relate to the situational approach as e.g. described in #49?

My guess is that based on what you say below, you do not relate. Due to the bolded. Other xxTPs (non-INTP) in this thread took issue with the non-situational approach.




> Fairness in terms of deciding which rules to implement is much more value driven - they must ultimately derive from some fundamental i.e. fairly subjective values. So, I can't really objectively judge the fairness of other people's rules, only provide opinions based on my own values.
> 
> The other type of fairness is in the actual implementation of the rules. *It is fair that, once a rule is created, it should apply to all people without exception. Exceptions can exist within the rule itself, but shouldn't be invented on a whim during the implementation. Partly it's because I have an individualist value system, but all individuals should be treated equally, which means impartially (some people think "equally" means applying bias wherever you see fit).*


I agree about the bolded. As far as it's implementable realistically. I find INTPs are quite overly idealistic in that sense heh.

And the underlined is what OP took issue with originally. (And me too)




> However, it should be noted that in some specific circumstances that a consistency in a rule may not necessarily lead to a consistency in behaviour. For example, I might have a rule that the first person to do something nice for me gets a present in return, and it would be logical to not continue this rule past the first person because they'd likely be doing it now in _expectation _of a present, whereas I originally wanted explicitly to reward a selfless action.


This is completely fine. When I talk of consistency, I expect the behaviour is directed by a specific rule that's consistently applied everywhere: "the first person to do something nice for me gets a present in return", sure this will in practice produce an output different for the first person than for the other people afterwards. The rule though better be sensible and not arbitrarily pulled out of one's ass, in this case. It must be explained why the seeming external inconsistency. Your example specifically is not something I'd do btw, because it involves too many assumptions about motivations for my liking but I get what you mean.


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

grumpytiger said:


> I only care about the last part ("everyone") when I see it as relevant, really. I don't go around caring about everyone all the time like that. Even when I do, I don't micromanage the work process down to the last details, as long as the requirements for defined main points for the objectives are met. I don't care how people achieve things between those checkpoints. But yeah otherwise you describe this well. And btw why I don't care as to how people achieve things for the rest of the details... I used to care somewhat more, then, a long time ago actually, I had an epiphany about this one day about why it's ok to care less about certain issues. Yes it can literally hurt my eyes if I look too closely at what others are doing (if there is a problem with it that I see), but many times I decide and know when not to look too closely. lol. I just never wanted to constantly intervene, anyway. I prioritize more than that overall even without the epiphany thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might not care about an ice tray, but I can guarantee there are other things in your life that really bothers you if people do it differently than you would like them to (probably bad enough that it is hard for you to not notice it if it is not done in this way). I might notice something being done differently that I wished they would do it in a different way but it will bother me for the amount of time it takes to actually notice it and think about the annoying thing and then I walk away and I complete forget about it and do not care about it.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Blue Ribbon said:


> The issue is far too complex to decide based on the info that the OP has given. As it stands, this discussion is unproductive. And I'm not the only one who has pointed this out.


As far as I could see, OP got to understand something about the issue, and I did too. I don't know about others. If you personally find it unproductive, then do not engage.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Geonerd said:


> You might not care about an ice tray, but I can guarantee there are other things in your life that really bothers you if people do it differently than you would like them to (probably bad enough that it is hard for you to not notice it if it is not done in this way).


Yes. I explained that I do it mostly in sx and soc areas. (Enneagram instincts)


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

grumpytiger said:


> As far as I could see, OP got to understand something about the issue, and I did too. I don't know about others. If you personally find it unproductive, then do not engage.


I call things out for exactly what they are. I will do as I please. There's no need for you to tell me what to do, tyvm.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Blue Ribbon said:


> I call things out for exactly what they are. I will do as I please. There's no need for you to tell me what to do, tyvm.


You criticized it as unproductive without even verifying if it maybe helped some people, and is your criticism productive? What were you hoping to achieve with it?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

There is a lot to unpack in this post, but I'll just leave a few salient points:

CK's _core _points were:

- Her sense of what is fair and unfair is personalized therefore she doesn't see a lot of things as unfair as other people tend to. 
- She's projecting that outward in that other people should accept that life isn't always fair even from their own personal standpoint (though she used a heck of a lot of words to state that simple truth)
- She's consistently talked about internal consistency and fairness in a way that's personal and subjective to her which is pretty much what you would expect a Ti-user to state. 

Therefore: Consistency is important to a Ti user and the rationale behind the "flip flop" others tend to see is actually internally rationalized. It isn't inconsistent. In fact, it draws from certain key internal ideas and knowledge where the logical flow itself is consistent and the switch is very well and rationally explained. 

_The *PROBLEM *here is that *IF *the individuals in the above scenario are indeed Ti users, then that means that we need to know more about their personal rationale, more information that they had when they made their decisions and why they made sense to them ... and none of that is forth-coming or being offered. 

__You _are extrapolating a false interpretation of someone else's comments first and foremost --- and then extrapolating a false idea to mean that Ti-users aren't fair. You have then further used your flawed interpretation to suggest that the person in scenario 2 is a Ti-user. 

This is the bad logic I'm trying to point out to you which you are failing to see at this point. 



grumpytiger said:


> You have a really bad ability at guessing my motivations. This is nowhere close to the actual situation, I simply clarified we were talking about two completely different things. Talking past each other. I was NEVER stating in the first place that that scenario had to involve an actual xxTP in OP's life, I don't know, maybe the person was xxTP, maybe not, my point was about how yes, it's been demonstrated that Ti is capable of acting this way because of seeing it as alright for whatever reason (which was also given). That's all.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

grumpytiger said:


> You criticized it as unproductive without even verifying if it maybe helped some people, and is your criticism productive? What were you hoping to achieve with it?


It's not helpful if people come to the wrong conclusions about a thing. In that regards, yes my comments are incredibly useful. This conversation we are having however, isn't.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

grumpytiger said:


> As far as it's implementable realistically. I find INTPs are quite overly idealistic in that sense heh.


That's why I don't generally have specific rules. I have a few fundamental principles, then I can kinda "feel" if what I'm doing or saying is consistent with them. If I'm careless and violate the logical consistency of something I said previously, it immediately feels like a disharmonious note in a song. That's why it seems weird to declare that Ti types are inconsistent... consistency is a pretty large part of me, and forms the basis of many of my perspectives. 

Avoiding bias is an example of a general principle which can be interpreted on the spot. In the example with the grading, if the two students presented an otherwise symmetrical situation, then I would treat them the same because to do otherwise would be bias. It wouldn't even make sense, really. On what basis am I treating them differently? Do I just not like one of them? But how well they do shouldn't be dependent on my evaluation of their personality, so I'd rise above that and be impartial. I guess much of it is meta-cognition. Not just forming thoughts and opinions, but having an awareness of the process itself, and seeing it within the context of other people's capacity to do the same.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

dizzycactus said:


> That's why I don't generally have specific rules. I have a few fundamental principles, then I can kinda "feel" if what I'm doing or saying is consistent with them. If I'm careless and violate the logical consistency of something I said previously, it immediately feels like a disharmonious note in a song.


This post is very good, this is true for all thinkers, Ti or Te, I believe.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> (...) Therefore, you are extrapolating a false connection between what is a personal rationalization of what fairness actually is to suggest that Ti-users aren't fair. This is the bad logic I'm trying to point out to you which you are failing to see at this point.


Still talking past each other. Strawman, as well.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Blue Ribbon said:


> It's not helpful if people come to the wrong conclusions about a thing. In that regards, yes my comments are incredibly useful. This conversation we are having however, isn't.


I do not see the usefulness of your general comment. And sure, see ya.




dizzycactus said:


> That's why I don't generally have specific rules. I have a few fundamental principles, then I can kinda "feel" if what I'm doing or saying is consistent with them.


Hmm ok that one thing seems in line with what the ISTPs said for example. I'm more detailed than that, personally.




> If I'm careless and violate the logical consistency of something I said previously, it immediately feels like a disharmonious note in a song. That's why it seems weird to declare that Ti types are inconsistent... consistency is a pretty large part of me, and forms the basis of many of my perspectives.


It's a different kind of consistency, clearly. The version I pay attention to, I tried to call it external consistency in a post above. Though may not be the best phrasing since I can understand a difference in the output for a rule being applied, if it makes sense.




> Avoiding bias is an example of a general principle which can be interpreted on the spot. In the example with the grading, if the two students presented an otherwise symmetrical situation, then I would treat them the same because to do otherwise would be bias. It wouldn't even make sense, really. On what basis am I treating them differently? Do I just not like one of them? But how well they do shouldn't be dependent on my evaluation of their personality, so I'd rise above that and be impartial.


I totally agree here.




> I guess much of it is meta-cognition. Not just forming thoughts and opinions, but having an awareness of the process itself, and seeing it within the context of other people's capacity to do the same.


Oh. Metacognition is interesting to me, but I don't think I do that thing with viewing other people's capacities about it.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

grumpytiger said:


> I do not see the usefulness of your general comment. And sure, see ya.


That's a shortcoming on your part. Okay then 

Edit: Actually yeah, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by others, like AG. I guess I'm the stupid one for thinking that you would actually see my point of view when the two of us are saying the same thing. By all means, skip this comment. I regret that I quoted you.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

sriracha said:


> Thanks for your post. It makes complete sense to me. Maybe it is all just subjectiveness. There's no other explanation. I identify with your second paragraph in that I am after self-preservation.


Reading through the [thread], it seems we are just talking about inconsistency. It frustrates (TJ) when the rules cannot be applied to everyone (externally) in the environment. While such users are less internally analytical; TJ takes logic very seriously. Lol. It ain't good logic if can't apply to everyone. I have to agree. The frustration come(s) from TP having the nerve to utilize a subjective logic in the objective. Like it works. This frustrates TJ, because TJ can immediately spot when something in our world does not belong. TJ knows this subjective logic disrupts the (external algorithmic flow) of their environment, system, (&) et al. I can see the advantage of TP in judging everything individually as it's own internal/special system of logic; but TJ reminds that even "special" systems of logic/frameworks all belong to exact same chalk board. And moving around number(s) on the class chalkboard to appeal to some 'subjective logic' causes effects on all the students that are looking at that chalkboard. Some equations have to move to the side, some have to be erased completely. 

TJ is mindful of that. Personal responsibility, awareness of specimens disturbing the system, making external life hard because of some internal wiring that cannot even work for everyone. Too time consuming; inconsistent, not worth the work.

To Ti-specimen, everyone has their own different logic. Their own special way of doing things. I am like that, as well. But through Fi. I would fail everyone equally, and not give anyone any passes if they did not make the cut "by following the rules of the system" - but I would not judge their characteristics/how they do things. I am not going to impose into someone(s) 'personal decisions' or "force someone to study and be more like the other students", and play mom. Absolutely not. Everyone is allowed to fail how they prefer to fail - but that does not mean they can pass because they chose to bend the rules. That is inconsistent - and also unfair. 

I can see potentiality in specimen(s), too. But it is more narrow. I may focus on one kid with an F in math; and see that he can do much better. I can see what a waste is happening; and what could be happening in the future. It is premonition of direction - not necessarily the possibility of he being a math wiz; and all these things. So I can bare down/push-hard on this one kid; get a little bossy. When in the meantime, this kid may have changed his mind - (&) decided to just drop out. Then I'm like, well then - thought I was helping that little shit lul.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

grumpytiger said:


> Still talking past each other. Strawman, as well.


Seriously dude. The whole point of you to quote me was to show to me that Ti users are capable of acting inconsistently and being unfair. 

How am I strawmanning when I went back and unpacked how you came to that conclusion and determined that you both misinterpreted what someone else was saying and then made a bad logical leap to come to the above stated conclusion. 

Here is what you said exactly after I prodded you more. 



> I don't know, maybe the person was xxTP, maybe not, my point was about how yes, *it's been demonstrated that Ti is capable of acting this way because of seeing it as alright for whatever reason (which was also given). That's all.*


So you clearly said that Ti is capable of acting inconsistently and treat others unfairly based on CK's posts ... you even added that Ti users see unfairness as alright, when she made no such assertion whatsoever. She simply was trying to say that life isn't fair. That doesn't mean that she thinks treating people unfairly is ok. 

So, I went through CK's posts and found that no such conclusion could have been drawn from what she said. 

This is not what a strawman is. Look it up.


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

sriracha said:


> This is a good post about how one part of the ISTJ mind works. An analogy I've thought of is how high school is different compared to university. Generally, many high school teachers expect students to show work and do x amount of work to get credit. In university, the higher you go up, the more percentage grades are based off of quizzes, exams and papers. A person can put in 10 hours of work compared to another person putting in 1 hour of work. It doesn't matter. If they know the material, they get the grade.


That is exactly why I did much better in classes where participation (to show you know the material), pop quizes, and essays were the majority of the grade. I tended to be much worse at classes with tedious homework and following steps were required. I was in honors math through most of my schooling but it was a struggle because I could see what the answer should be but had a very back-assward way to get the answer, so I would get points off for "not showing all the steps". My husband and I laugh because I loved science (I am a scientist now) but I hated chemistry in school because it was a lot of showing your work and following steps. My ISTJ husband was not a big fan of science in general, but loved chemistry because you could follow steps and get one solution. He hates the fact that most science is very fluid and changes as new information and tech comes out to test things and most of science is a bunch of theory. That is exactly why I love it. 

As you described, there is a reason SJs tend to do well in elementary/high school over NTs (specifically NTPs) and that is most of school is set up with getting points for following the correct steps, memorization, and repetitive homework assignments all of which are really hard for NTPs to stay focused and do. We just don't learn that way. I laugh because my daughter who I am almost positive is an ESFJ (she reminds me so much of my ESFJ mom) is getting put in advanced classes while my INTP son was put in average classes when for all intents and purposes, he really is the "smarter" one. His mind is so sharp and his cognitive ability is years ahead of his classmates and always has been. However, he could care less about stars and stickers on his paper, what his teacher thinks about him (especially if he doesn't care for the teacher), doing filler work, and it drives him nuts when teachers say things as facts when there is more behind the fact than they share (most likely this is because it will go over the kids heads). The thing that goes against him that I had an advantage is that many teachers could see I was smarter than my grades showed because I participated in class. My son is pretty introverted and worries he might says something wrong so he tends to rarely participate. My daughter likes clear steps, getting good teacher comments, likes stars/stickers/awards, and participates. I am not saying she is not smart, she is, but I really believe my son is smarter but he just is not set up for the way most education is structured.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Blue Ribbon said:


> That's a shortcoming on your part. Okay then


Look, I didn't try to insult your person. Should I say that it's a shortcoming on your part to not be able to explain in detail your point? I said I do not see the usefulness, if you want, you explain more, if not then not. I did say see ya, because I did not wish to force you to try and explain more. I was fine with leaving it at that, that I do not see it but it does not matter in the long run.




> Edit: Actually yeah, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by others, like AG. I guess I'm the stupid one for thinking that you would actually see my point of view when the two of us are saying the same thing. By all means, skip this comment. I regret that I quoted you.


If you want to ensure people will skip comments, don't add in personal criticism. BTW, I don't think we said the same, I said (some of) the discussion was actually helpful to me. That is, productive... Maybe not to you, that's completely fine too. I don't know how else to explain what I said.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Seriously dude. The whole point of you to quote me was to show to me that Ti users are capable of acting inconsistently and being unfair.
> 
> How am I strawmanning when I went back and unpacked how you came to that conclusion and determined that you both misinterpreted what someone else was saying and then made a bad logical leap to come to the above stated conclusion.
> 
> ...


My question is, if she believes that Ti is capable of being unfair, what percludes other types from being capable of it? If nothing, then how is this a typology issue? Or has this already been addressed and I simply missed it?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

grumpytiger said:


> Oh. Metacognition is interesting to me, but I don't think I do that thing with viewing other people's capacities about it.


It's just stuff like "I can judge what is right, but how can I judge that my judgement is right without relying on my judgement?" i.e. the basis of principles like freedom of speech, which can essentially be summarised as not pre-judging implicit correctness. Someone who lacks the capacity for meta-cognition would simply say "I have already judged what is right, so there is no need for people's capacity to say anything else, because I already know it is wrong".


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Seriously dude. The whole point of you to quote me was to show to me that Ti users are capable of acting inconsistently and being unfair.


This statement is incredibly general. Everyone's capable of making mistakes lol

I was pointing out much more specific mechanisms than this. I did not even attempt to generalize them to all xxTPs alike, and I was strictly basing all of it on observed facts.

And, these specifics were not including any personal judgment against anyone.




> How am I strawmanning when I went back and unpacked how you came to that conclusion and determined that you both misinterpreted what someone else was saying and then made a bad logical leap to come to the above stated conclusion.
> 
> Here is what you said exactly after I prodded you more.


You didn't unpack it successfully. Like I said you have an incredibly bad sense of my motivations, on what I think and why.

You think it's a logical leap where there was none because we are talking past each other for some reason. I do not know how to state it more clearly that I did NOT state such a thing in this general and btw quite vague way.




> So you clearly said that Ti is capable of acting inconsistently and treat others unfairly based on CK's posts.


I was so much more specific than this... Please do not twist my statements into these vague general, unspecified statements.




> So, I went through CK's posts and found that no such conclusion could have been drawn from what she said.
> 
> This is not what a strawman is. Look it up.


Strawman: "to suggest that Ti-users aren't fair". I never claimed this in this incredibly general fashion. No. Stop wasting your time on these strawmans about me please.


PS: this post has points for @Blue Ribbon's note as above, too.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Blue Ribbon said:


> My question is, if she believes that Ti is capable of being unfair, what percludes other types from being capable of it? If nothing, then how is this a typology issue? Or has this already been addressed and I simply missed it?


Probably has. I've basically read half this thread, but I had to go back and re-read everything CK said to make sure what she was saying wasn't being misinterpreted and it seems like she was.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

dizzycactus said:


> It's just stuff like "I can judge what is right, but how can I judge that my judgement is right without relying on my judgement?" i.e. the basis of principles like freedom of speech, which can essentially be summarised as not pre-judging implicit correctness. Someone who lacks the capacity for meta-cognition would simply say "I have already judged what is right, so there is no need for people's capacity to say anything else, because I already know it is wrong".


Oh metacognition to me isn't really about that, good to know you meant something else.

@Blue Ribbon, I want to clarify about my last post addressed to you as this was left ambiguous: fine if you don't see this thread as productive personally, yeah, that's fine, you feel the way you want to feel, no one's gonna stop you from that. But declaring that it must mean it's not productive overall to anyone is not what I see as useful, especially if people explicitly say it's been helpful to them. OK, I clarified enough, done with the topic.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

sriracha said:


> Do you have any examples that display Ti as being logically consistent?
> ​​


I don't have any examples of any cognitive function operating in isolation. That was kind of my point. Human cognition doesn't work that way, and I don't see a way to break it down that way or a reason to do so. 

It's not really Ti that _is_ logically consistent, it's some collection of ideas (wholistically formed in the mind using multiple cognitive functions and potentially affected by other mental factors like motivation, processing speed, maturity, etc.) that is logically consistent. Ti is just a tool that can help a person construct something logically consistent.


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

Blue Ribbon said:


> This post is very good, this is true for all thinkers, Ti or Te, I believe.


That's NTs not all Thinkers. That's the iNtuitive part of us.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Geonerd said:


> That's NTs not all Thinkers. That's the iNtuitive part of us.


Hmm but the ISTPs in this thread also sounded like they have just some fundamental ideas and the rest is more flexible. 

I certainly don't relate, tho', I'm more detail oriented


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

Nookie Monster said:


> Ti is a *cognitive function*.
> 
> xxTPs are *people*. The way people behave is determined by more than a single cognitive function. You are comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> And besides that, logical consistency is not the same thing as fairness.


If you have been reading my posts, I kind of explained that this is exactly how an ISTJ interprets it (based on my experience in an ENTP-ISTJ marriage). This is also the reason why this has been extended into a long winded conversation (with a lot of semi-offended people-funnily enough the xNTPs are more amused than hurt at all) is because to an ISTJ, fairness = consistent rules. To them, fair is when people do things the exact same way to get the same reward. If someone gets the same results with less effort or steps, to them, it is not fair.

For example, I have an ISxJ collegue at work who constantly is watching when people come into the office and leave (he is IT so see can see the badging into the building too). He spends a lot of time complaining about when people come and go (basically saying it is unfair that they are not working 8 hours on any given day). His work day is like clockwork, in at 7:00 am out at 4:00 with an hour lunch. You hear about any overtime he has to do (even 15 minutes) or when he has to deal with the odd after hours issue (literally maybe 3-4 times a year). The thing is, most of the rest of the company are technical staff that is salaried but are evaluated on your hours billable to a project (you get in trouble if you aren't billable enough or that you go overbudget on your projects from overbilling time so you can't really cheat). We have company issued mobile phones and laptops that clients and staff can contact us 24/7. Most of us do not have a 7-4 clockwork day because we are answering emails and working remotely. I might leave early one day, but work a 12 hour day another. In the end, I work at least 40 hours in the week just like him and I do not get any overtime pay so if I work 40 or if I work 50, I get the same pay. This co-worker wants everyone on the same 8 hour day playing field like him, but we all have different positions and situations to make this impossible. It's funny because I hear the same complaints from my husband about his work. I could care less what other people are doing unless that person is doing a project for me and is slacking off. It all seems petty and illogical to worry about that stuff to me.

Our version of logic between an SJ and NTP is very different. I find my husband's logic is always looking for consistency. Once you find an adequate way to do something that is fairly consistent, why would you deviate? For NTPs we are always seeking new solutions to old puzzles. Even driving, I tend to find many different ways to get from point A to point B. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. The SJs in my life tend to find the most consistent paths and always goes that way. The same SJ co-worker above lives less than a mile from my house. He has been working at my company longer than I have (I've been there 6 years). He always takes the same route to and from work. It consistently takes 25-30 minutes in the morning and 40 minutes at night. For the first few years, I played around with routes based on my traffic app and the flow of traffic. I have figured out back routes when certain areas are congested, which route is fastest based on the time of day, etc. I (usually) take the same route as him in the morning because it is generally clear, but I RARELY EVER take that same route home because it sucks. I get home usually in 25-30 minutes (unless an accident happens after I am already on my route). He was actually surprised by my route, it literally never occurred to him to even try to take that way. My husband can be very similar. His concern is for the times that you do try a new way and it doesn't work out. To an NTP, this is just an experiment, "failed" experiments still give good data.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

@Etherea 

Hey i know you probably distanced yourself from this post on purpose and it seems the best to do really, but in case you ve read some of it I just gotta ask.

Do ISTJs as you know them beat around the bush this long to make a point and still accept arguments from both sides? 
Because it would be really funny if a Ti user was actually attacking the other Ti users all this time.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

SirCanSir said:


> @*Etherea*
> 
> Hey i know you probably distanced yourself from this post on purpose and it seems the best to do really, but in case you ve read some of it I just gotta ask.
> 
> ...


If you want to talk to someone about their type I recommend a direct approach.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Etherea said:


> If you want to talk to someone about their type I recommend a direct approach.


I can quote her here but i dont wanna involve you in a possible debate. Besides if she went that far, she wouldnt really take any opinions on the matter easily. 
And i cant make sure of the possibility if dont take the opinion of someone experienced in the field. 
If you dont find it right to do this here you can PM me.
If you believe she is mistyped ill talk to her.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

SirCanSir said:


> I can quote her here but i dont wanna involve you in a possible debate. Besides if she went that far, she wouldnt really take any opinions on the matter easily.
> And i cant make sure of the possibility if dont take the opinion of someone experienced in the field.
> If you dont find it right to do this here you can PM me.
> If you believe she is mistyped ill talk to her.


I don't type others outside of type me threads (and that's still rare). Live and let live.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Etherea said:


> I don't type others. Live and let live.


Ok i guess my approach was wrong (an example of apologising Ti here for what its worth).


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

grumpytiger said:


> Thanks for your fleshing this out. So the consistency is in keeping some really basic principles like you stated here, but the judgments themselves are not consistent (since they are changeable).


Not from your -- or any outside -- perspective, no, I don't think. I could always explain to you my motivation for this or that particular action, and how it's consistent to _me_ (and it really is, most often because of the described reciprocity principle), but I'm pretty sure even if you knew, you wouldn't accept half of it as valid -- simply because it's all personal, with little regard for the "whole".

You saw Geonerd basically said the same;



Geonerd said:


> ... because to an ISTJ, fairness = consistent rules. To them, fair is when people do things the exact same way to get the same reward. If someone gets the same results with less effort or steps, to them, it is not fair. [Etc. pp.]


I agree with basically all of that -- which is, by the way, why I feel far, far closer to INTPs than ISTJs.

To throw around another example, if I for instance skip a line because I'm in a hurry or whatever, then for me that may be perfectly fine. I have legitimate reasons -- meaning, legitimate for myself -- and so it's okay, and what's _fair_ is not that everyone should wait his turn in the line, but that everyone who pushes ahead should accept if someone else pushed past _him_ for legitimate reasons of his own.

Fairness becomes the absence of hypocrisy, if you want to put it that way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but this doesn't come about by a universal standard everyone adheres to all the time, but because everyone does what he wants, and the other respects that. (In other words, a hypothetical, pure Ji society would collapse, I'm pretty sure, because you need universal rules to keep it going.)


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Northern Lights said:


> Not from your -- or any outside -- perspective, no, I don't think. I could always explain to you my motivation for this or that particular action, and how it's consistent to _me_ (and it really is, most often because of the described reciprocity principle), but I'm pretty sure even if you knew, you wouldn't accept half of it as valid -- simply because it's all personal, with little regard for the "whole".
> 
> You saw Geonerd basically said the same;
> 
> ...


You probably just made my deathbed :sad:


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> I can quote her here but i dont wanna involve you in a possible debate. Besides if she went that far, she wouldnt really take any opinions on the matter easily.
> And i cant make sure of the possibility if dont take the opinion of someone experienced in the field.
> If you dont find it right to do this here you can PM me.
> If you believe she is mistyped ill talk to her.


Since you've PM'd me I can see you meant to refer to me. Don't be this passive-aggressive next time. I do not mind opinions, but I do mind passive-agressiveness. Thanks.




Northern Lights said:


> Not from your -- or any outside -- perspective, no, I don't think. I could always explain to you my motivation for this or that particular action, and how it's consistent to _me_ (and it really is, most often because of the described reciprocity principle), but I'm pretty sure even if you knew, you wouldn't accept half of it as valid -- simply because it's all personal, with little regard for the "whole".


It's true I didn't accept Conscience Killer's example as very valid, I admit. The reciprocity principle sounds like you are willing to be accountable in a way, it's all cool by me. I just do not see it workable in the way you put it below but I see we agree there 




> I agree with basically all of that -- which is, by the way, why I feel far, far closer to INTPs than ISTJs.
> 
> To throw around another example, if I for instance skip a line because I'm in a hurry or whatever, then for me that may be perfectly fine. I have legitimate reasons -- meaning, legitimate for myself -- and so it's okay, and what's _fair_ is not that everyone should wait his turn in the line, but that everyone who pushes ahead should accept if someone else pushed past _him_ for legitimate reasons of his own.


I don't see a problem with asking for permission from the person you step in ahead of. At least here where I live that's OK to do.

Your last statement is um, funny for me to imagine somehow. Like it's kind of chaotic lol. Or I don't get the idea, if people who never push ahead don't accept it then what?




> Fairness becomes the absence of hypocrisy, if you want to put it that way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but this doesn't come about by a universal standard everyone adheres to all the time, but because everyone does what he wants, and the other respects that. (In other words, a hypothetical, pure Ji society would collapse, I'm pretty sure, because you need universal rules to keep it going.)


Exactly, that's just... :laughing: How would you expect people to just automatically respect what you want to do? What if you conflict with their interests? Those have to be managed by universal laws, to me.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

grumpytiger said:


> Since you've PM'd me I can see you meant to refer to me. Don't be this passive-aggressive next time. I do not mind opinions, but I do mind passive-agressiveness. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its more like inability for proper expression of my thoughts. I would talk to you either way. I just wanted Etherea's opinion first.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

grumpytiger said:


> I only care about the last part ("everyone") when I see it as relevant, really. I don't go around caring about everyone all the time like that. Even when I do, I don't micromanage the work process down to the last details, as long as the requirements for defined main points for the objectives are met. I don't care how people achieve things between those checkpoints. But yeah otherwise you describe this well. And btw why I don't care as to how people achieve things for the rest of the details... I used to care somewhat more, then, a long time ago actually, I had an epiphany about this one day about why it's ok to care less about certain issues. Yes it can literally hurt my eyes if I look too closely at what others are doing (if there is a problem with it that I see), but many times I decide and know when not to look too closely. lol. I just never wanted to constantly intervene, anyway. I prioritize more than that overall even without the epiphany thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You literally just said that you have no interest in talking to me, or debating in any meaningful way, so why precisely do you believe I would then proceed to take this bait you've laid down in a multi-paragraph rebuttal, for an argument that you are supposedly not invested in?


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

SirCanSir said:


> Its more like inability for proper expression of my thoughts. I would talk to you either way. I just wanted Etherea's opinion first.


You two (or anyone else) can post in my type thread to not go off topic here. I don't mind (it's an old thread but it's okay), but I'm sure in my typing


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Conscience Killer said:


> You literally just said that you have no interest in talking to me, or debating in any meaningful way, so why precisely do you believe I would then proceed to take this bait you've laid down in a multi-paragraph rebuttal, for an argument that you are supposedly not invested in?


If you look closely, I said: _"That is, I'm not really invested in continuing to argue, but otherwise sure if you want to say more on what you think, feel free to."_

This means: 

1. I'm not invested, as in, I'm not terribly set on it, i.e. not gonna insist on any reply or whatever.
2. I am ok with you responding. (I'm just not insisting on it, see 1).)


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> There is a lot to unpack in this post, but I'll just leave a few salient points:
> 
> CK's _core _points were:
> 
> ...


 Thanks for this. That was precisely my point. This guy is saying that my statements mean that I think it's _totally fine to act in whatever manner you want_, but what I was saying is that life isn't fair. Unhealthy Te users expect everyone to act super correctly and fairly all the time, based on some binary code of right-wrong, but literally no one acts like this, so you end up with a lot of petty people irate over someone else's personal failings that have no relevance to them whatsoever, and that could easily just be dismissed. This guy even says something to that effect, that he finds _Ti users are more accepting of chaos_, and that _many aspects of life require discipline_. 

I personally am accepting of a certain amount of chaos, because it's just human nature. If I got butthurt and riled up over every perceived _injustice_ I'd never get shit done. My most salient point, and the one I will repeat again in bold for everybody else, is that *not all situations are equal, and not all situations require an equal amount of outrage.* The situations that OP has described are not worth the emotional investment he has in them, and likely only serve to pave the way for him viewing his colleagues negatively, which undoubtedly gets expressed in some manner in his day to day life, thus creating unnecessary conflict.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

Conscience Killer said:


> Thanks for this. That was precisely my point. This guy is saying that my statements mean that I think it's _totally fine to act in whatever manner you want_, but what I was saying is that life isn't fair. Unhealthy Te users expect everyone to act super correctly and fairly all the time, based on some binary code of right-wrong, but literally no one acts like this, so you end up with a lot of petty people irate over someone else's personal failings that have no relevance to them whatsoever, and that could easily just be dismissed. This guy even says something to that effect, that he finds _Ti users are more accepting of chaos_, and that _many aspects of life require discipline_.


I'm a woman. I don't really see it as *personal failings*, btw. Yes, I find TPs and all Ps more accepting of randomness and chaos. That's just P stuff. I don't imagine you want to argue the discipline issue. I just don't see what you'd see as offensive about that one tho'.




> I personally am accepting of a certain amount of chaos, because it's just human nature. If I got butthurt and riled up over every perceived _injustice_ I'd never get shit done. My most salient point, and the one I will repeat again in bold for everybody else, is that *not all situations are equal, and not all situations require an equal amount of outrage.* The situations that OP has described are not worth the emotional investment he has in them, and likely only serve to pave the way for him viewing his colleagues negatively, which undoubtedly gets expressed in some manner in his day to day life, thus creating unnecessary conflict.


You apparently did not read (?) OP's reply to you in #57 where she explains that the issue affected her directly with the co-worker, etc.

Your bolded point by the way is trivial. It would be rather funny if I was outraged at every issue to the exact same degree (if it's even outrage at all). :tongue:

I do actually agree that it's not the best idea to get annoyed too often, but this is kind of a complex thing.


PS: And I have no personal problem with you. I hope I didn't make you feel that way.


----------



## sriracha (Sep 19, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> Bit vague, but there are two different types of "fairness" being referred to in this thread. Fairness in terms of deciding which rules to implement is much more value driven - they must ultimately derive from some fundamental i.e. fairly subjective values. So, I can't really objectively judge the fairness of other people's rules, only provide opinions based on my own values.
> 
> The other type of fairness is in the actual implementation of the rules. It is fair that, once a rule is created, it should apply to all people without exception. Exceptions can exist within the rule itself, but shouldn't be invented on a whim during the implementation. Partly it's because I have an individualist value system, but all individuals should be treated equally, which means impartially (some people think "equally" means applying bias wherever you see fit).
> 
> However, it should be noted that in some specific circumstances that a consistency in a rule may not necessarily lead to a consistency in behaviour. For example, I might have a rule that the first person to do something nice for me gets a present in return, and it would be logical to not continue this rule past the first person because they'd likely be doing it now in _expectation _of a present, whereas I originally wanted explicitly to reward a selfless action.


Thanks for your comment, this is helpful!



Catwalk said:


> Reading through the [thread], it seems we are just talking about inconsistency. It frustrates (TJ) when the rules cannot be applied to everyone (externally) in the environment. While such users are less internally analytical; TJ takes logic very seriously. Lol. It ain't good logic if can't apply to everyone. I have to agree. The frustration come(s) from TP having the nerve to utilize a subjective logic in the objective. Like it works. This frustrates TJ, because TJ can immediately spot when something in our world does not belong. TJ knows this subjective logic disrupts the (external algorithmic flow) of their environment, system, (&) et al. I can see the advantage of TP in judging everything individually as it's own internal/special system of logic; but TJ reminds that even "special" systems of logic/frameworks all belong to exact same chalk board. And moving around number(s) on the class chalkboard to appeal to some 'subjective logic' causes effects on all the students that are looking at that chalkboard. Some equations have to move to the side, some have to be erased completely.
> 
> TJ is mindful of that. Personal responsibility, awareness of specimens disturbing the system, making external life hard because of some internal wiring that cannot even work for everyone. Too time consuming; inconsistent, not worth the work.
> 
> ...


Hey, thanks for your comments. They are extremely helpful to me, especially because this is coming from someone with Fi/Te.


----------



## sriracha (Sep 19, 2010)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> _The *PROBLEM *here is that *IF *the individuals in the above scenario are indeed Ti users, then that means that we need to know more about their personal rationale, more information that they had when they made their decisions and why they made sense to them ... and none of that is forth-coming or being offered._


I wish I knew more. Like I said, after asking questions I got pretty much nowhere.



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> This is very interesting because based on the feedback given in this thread, it seems clear that Ti-users have given you a lot of info to munch on with regards to how they value fairness and *none of it seems to point towards the people acting in the way you've suggested in your OP. *


*Actually it has.*

The Ti users in this thread have made it very clear that they like to deal with situations and people on an individual basis. So what does that mean? It means I now see the grey lines in what they were thinking.

My teacher probably didn't give me a correction because he thought I didn't need that extra percent compared to the girl behind me. And my other teacher probably thought my classmate could use that extra boost because he know she's having it hard enough with the subject. And my struggling coworker probably thinks she should get a leeway because she's living a tough life. She probably thinks as long as she puts in as much effort as she can (her 100%), then she's good even though it's not up to the expected standard. These are just possibilities, they are not the real explanation.

And obviously, because I am a Te-user valuing Te over Ti, I still do not feel as if this is fair. But it makes sense to me now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I am now closing this thread because I don't have the time and energy to respond to posts, and I do not want my thread to continue to be a place for spam/trolls and conversations that go nowhere.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

So there. The discussion (=thread) was actually productive in terms of helping some people. Even if some of it really went off topic into bs misinterpretations...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

grumpytiger said:


> Yes, I find TPs and all Ps more accepting of randomness and chaos. That's just P stuff.


It's not P stuff, at best only misunderstanding of it.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

sriracha said:


> I wish I knew more. Like I said, after asking questions I got pretty much nowhere.
> 
> 
> *Actually it has.*
> ...


Those two statements are at odds with one another. You have still not determined if in fact anyone was even treated unfairly intentionally (which really thetcrux of the matter here) but you have determined it as such without actually going to find out more and doing the due diligence - so _I_ don't think anything of value was gained at all. 

Just an excuse to continue to consider some sort of unfairness was dished out. 

I can just face palm at this point because of the conclusions you're jumping to. But I guess it's easier to live with reality by making up details from within your own head as opposed to actually finding out the truth. 

But it's really whatever. Can't say I endorse this line of thinking.


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> It's not P stuff, at best only misunderstanding of it.


What's wrong with calling it randomness and chaos? I'm using technical definitions: "randomness is the quality of having no apparent order"; "a total lack of organization or order"

Admit please that you Ps can be like that.  Not caring about external order all that much (compared to the Js), right? This is what this thread was also about a lot.

Anyway yeah maybe I should stop trying to explain what I mean. J/P can really conflict in communication too in some situations... difficult to get it across to a P as to what I mean in those cases and they probably also don't entirely manage it either.

EDIT: And I am not mixing this with the concept of accountability. That's why I said it's technical definitions on cognition. But I possibly am also missing some feely connotation on why that sentence of mine above could sound offensive to some here lol?


@Arrogantly Grateful as an ESTP, how about you regain the focus on concrete facts lol


----------



## grumpytiger (Feb 23, 2016)

sriracha said:


> I wish I knew more. Like I said, after asking questions I got pretty much nowhere.


Let me guess. They got offended maybe not at your confrontation style (if you weren't angry, like you said you weren't), but at feeling like they were being held accountable and not feeling like holding themselves accountable. Yeah, J viewpoint, sure. 

I mean, even when they are not actually being held accountable and I just want an explanation instead, Ps can get to feel like this at my stuff. And then when it's actually about being accountable, I do get annoyed if they just do not feel like it and get silly defensive instead.

I've known some Ps who will try to be accountable as much in J terms as they can, though, and will openly and honestly admit to the fact that they are Ps and can feel caged when being faced with too many J expectations. I respect those Ps.




> My teacher probably didn't give me a correction because he thought I didn't need that extra percent compared to the girl behind me. And my other teacher probably thought my classmate could use that extra boost because he know she's having it hard enough with the subject. And my struggling coworker probably thinks she should get a leeway because she's living a tough life. She probably thinks as long as she puts in as much effort as she can (her 100%), then she's good even though it's not up to the expected standard. These are just possibilities, they are not the real explanation.
> 
> And obviously, because I am a Te-user valuing Te over Ti, I still do not feel as if this is fair. But it makes sense to me now.


Hmm, interesting. I would see the teacher's intention (if actually this is it) as kind of nice, supportive, but why not explain that... eh, whatever. The coworker: I do think that's not a decent attitude, if she thinks it's okay to *expect* such a thing (the leeway). If given, cool, if not don't expect it. That's how I see it anyway.

EDIT: Sorry, I read too fast. First teacher would annoy me actually, in terms of how they'd be deciding I didn't need the extra percent if I worked hard for it. But I get the nice intent, it's just...

I hope you don't mind me commenting, I wanted to before you get the mods close the thread. (I assume you are waiting for the mods on this?)


----------



## Maybe (Sep 10, 2016)

Closed by op request.


----------

