User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 94

Thread: Fe and Te?

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    the way i look at it is that ENTPs do less deductive work -- they spend way MORE time on inductive jumps than INTPs. they'll connect two things (extroverted intuition), send that to Ti to analyze, and then before they're even done, they've moved on to the next connection.

    Ti doms make way fewer connections than Ne doms, they just analyze those connections to death.

    (someone else back me up on this?)
    We're really getting into semantic territory here, and I apologise for that.

    Undoubtedly, part of the process of correctly formulating precise explanatory principles is a test against the real-world data, and yes, that is deductive, but (speaking for myself here) it's hardly the primary concern. That, to me, is properly assigned to Te, which INTPs seem to regard more as a necessary evil than anything else.

    So I essentially agree with you, but the sticking point is that I still think the bulk of the analysis of those connections is inductive.

    plus, seeing the specific in terms of a larger picture cannot be thought of as either introverted or extroverted, as it's the primary purpose of both Ni and Ne. the difference between introversion and extroversion here is that Ni sees the present specifics in the context of an abstract picture of the past, and Ne is less concerned with an encompassing abstract picture of the world -- it just cares about making as many connections with the things it sees as possible, even if they go against any kind of overall picture.
    This is where I'm going to sound like a complete nutjob, so bear with me...

    The common line of thought is that, yes, S = concrete and N = abstract, and in one sense that's correct, but in another sense I tend to disagree.

    Take any ENTJ, for example. ESTJs tend to be a lot more literal-minded, but both are very "concrete" in that they're both results-oriented -- this is the Te at work. Meanwhile, even Si is "abstract" in the sense that it unifies sensory experience, linking the present to the past (hence the orientation towards stability and permanence).

    You've now piqued my curiosity, because your description of Ni sounds like my idea of Si. It's the first time I've ever heard "Ni" and "past" in the same sentence. (This may be better in another thread.)

  2. #62
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The WhimWham View Post
    We're really getting into semantic territory here, and I apologise for that.

    Undoubtedly, part of the process of correctly formulating precise explanatory principles is a test against the real-world data, and yes, that is deductive, but (speaking for myself here) it's hardly the primary concern. That, to me, is properly assigned to Te, which INTPs seem to regard more as a necessary evil than anything else.
    i dunno, to me it seems like inductive reasoning is almost all deductive, except for the first step. i'd assign the first step to an N function and the latter steps to any judgment function. f for truth about values, t just for truth.


    This is where I'm going to sound like a complete nutjob, so bear with me...

    The common line of thought is that, yes, S = concrete and N = abstract, and in one sense that's correct, but in another sense I tend to disagree.

    Take any ENTJ, for example. ESTJs tend to be a lot more literal-minded, but both are very "concrete" in that they're both results-oriented -- this is the Te at work. Meanwhile, even Si is "abstract" in the sense that it unifies sensory experience, linking the present to the past (hence the orientation towards stability and permanence).

    You've now piqued my curiosity, because your description of Ni sounds like my idea of Si. It's the first time I've ever heard "Ni" and "past" in the same sentence. (This may be better in another thread.)
    i agree that Te is going to be concrete no matter what. any judging function is essentially concrete. it starts with premises, and analyzes them. there can't be any mystery or abstraction or else the judging function wont know what to do. judging functions get information in the form of premises from perceiving functions.

    anyways, my idea of Si and Ni is this: they're both about experience, Ni is about abstract ideas, Si is about concrete information.

    Ni, from my understanding, is like a giant multi-demensional web of concepts with pointers stuck all over the place. the entire web can be thought of as an Ni users view of the world. when Ni takes in new information, it sees it in the context of where it fits in that giant web.

    Si is more like a list of experiences, with similar experiences linked to each other. a new piece of information is fit in with past experiences that are linked together, and becomes a new part of the linked list.

    Si isn't concerned with a hierarchy of concepts and Ni isn't concerned with a list of experiences.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    i dunno, to me it seems like inductive reasoning is almost all deductive, except for the first step. i'd assign the first step to an N function and the latter steps to any judgment function. f for truth about values, t just for truth.
    Doesn't the statement that "inductive reasoning is almost all deductive" strike you as being at least slightly contradictory?

    i agree that Te is going to be concrete no matter what. any judging function is essentially concrete. it starts with premises, and analyzes them. there can't be any mystery or abstraction or else the judging function wont know what to do. judging functions get information in the form of premises from perceiving functions.
    Let me give you a slightly silly example of how I see Te vs. Ti:

    When using a computer, some people have a real "need-to-know basis" mentality. They'll either memorise or write down the precise steps to achieve each individual task. This is how Te works, IMHO: sequential and contextual in its creation of rules.

    Other people won't be satisfied with a list of "if-then" cases -- they want to get to the heart of it in order to liberate themselves from particular contexts. In other words, they want to figure out the underlying principles apart from any specific cases in order to be able to act outside of such a restrictive framework. This is Ti.

    So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)".

    Like I said, it's a silly example, but it kind of paints a picture: Te is tied to specifics in its creation of rules, whereas Ti generalises principles free from any specifics.

    I'll have to ponder your Ni/Si ideas further. Ni, to me, is a kind of tapping into the underlying archetypes in a very focused way. (David Lynch has a very interesting way of describing this, actually.) But this is all for another thread.

  4. #64
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    No.

    Ti prefers to analyze/dissect information whereas Te prefers to apply/connect information.

    Ti exhibits depth in details, and Te exhibits depth in scope.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  5. #65
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The WhimWham View Post
    Doesn't the statement that "inductive reasoning is almost all deductive" strike you as being at least slightly contradictory?
    heh, yeah. but i thought you'd know what i meant. i mean that what you've been labeling inductive reasoning isn't really all inductive.

    the induction is coming up with the premises. the rest is deduction.

    Let me give you a slightly silly example of how I see Te vs. Ti:

    When using a computer, some people have a real "need-to-know basis" mentality. They'll either memorise or write down the precise steps to achieve each individual task. This is how Te works, IMHO: sequential and contextual in its creation of rules.

    Other people won't be satisfied with a list of "if-then" cases -- they want to get to the heart of it in order to liberate themselves from particular contexts. In other words, they want to figure out the underlying principles apart from any specific cases in order to be able to act outside of such a restrictive framework. This is Ti.

    So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)".

    Like I said, it's a silly example, but it kind of paints a picture: Te is tied to specifics in its creation of rules, whereas Ti generalises principles free from any specifics.

    I'll have to ponder your Ni/Si ideas further. Ni, to me, is a kind of tapping into the underlying archetypes in a very focused way. (David Lynch has a very interesting way of describing this, actually.) But this is all for another thread.
    coming up with underlying principles takes an N function as well as a T function. i just don't think Ti can do that alone. it takes an intuitive leap to guess how something works. Ti then checks that work.

    and i agree with your description of Ni. Ni is a giant conceptual structure, so new data isn't just what it is...it's but an example of a long-term pattern.

    anyways, yeah, maybe this stuff belongs in another thread. i think you get what i'm claiming already, though.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    No.

    Ti prefers to analyze/dissect information whereas Te prefers to apply/connect information.

    Ti exhibits depth in details, and Te exhibits depth in scope.
    I kind of get what you're saying here, but I really don't see how it disagrees with my points above. The question I'd ask is, to what end does Ti analyse/dissect information? IMHO, the answer is, "to derive general explanatory principles".

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    coming up with underlying principles takes an N function as well as a T function. i just don't think Ti can do that alone. it takes an intuitive leap to guess how something works. Ti then checks that work.
    I just want to address this point by asking, Where do ISTPs fit into this? They're also excellent at figuring systems out.

    (P.S. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, so I hope I haven't given that impression.)

  8. #68
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The WhimWham View Post
    So Te will be satisfied with "If you want to do wordprocessing, click the Word icon", but Ti will want a deeper understanding: "Programs can be run by clicking their icons (which are themselves pointers to the actual executable files)"..
    What you fail to understand/recognize is that regarding information processing, Te focuses on a more broader understanding, i.e., lateral thinking and Ti focuses on a more detailed understanding, i.e., vertical thinking.

    Someone who prefers to study life at the molecular level is no deeper or more intelligent than someone who prefers to study life at the ethological/ecological level.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    What you fail to understand/recognize is that regarding information processing, Te focuses on a more broader understanding, i.e., lateral thinking and Ti focuses on a more detailed understanding, i.e., vertical thinking.

    Someone who prefers to study life at the molecular level is no deeper or more intelligent than someone who prefers to study life at the ethological/ecological level.
    You're right, and I should have put "deeper" in inverted commas. I don't think Te is more superficial than Ti, but I certainly think that's how it appears to I_TPs. It's really a pretty old cliche that extraversion seems "shallow" and "superficial" to introverts (and, by the same token, introversion looks myopic and limited to extraverts).

  10. #70
    Senior Member alcea rosea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    I have been reading some of the things said on this forum, and that has raised some doubts and question in my mind.
    I am getting confused about Fe.
    People were saying, its mostly 'fake', a lie. Its just to accommodate the other person/group by playing chameleon. This is making me paranoid! Its making me feel Fe is insincere! How do I believe a person who is Fe? Is it what they're actually feeling, or is it just some big show?

    Also, how does the Te work?
    Thank you

    Fe in my opinion is very warm and considerate function. Well balanced Fe is no fake in any way.

    I'd say Te is all about organizing and categorizing.

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] Fe(and maybe Te?) Question: Groups and your relationship to them
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 06:37 PM
  2. Fe and Te balanced, is this possible?
    By CuriousFeeling in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 06:58 PM
  3. Why does Ti always go with Fe and Fi with Te?
    By sofmarhof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 03:57 PM
  4. [Fe] Fe and how it works
    By Poki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO