Ti and Te arguing: The film critic vs. the lawyer

[The Great One]

Having the same type (or intelligence variant, with the same functions) is no guarantee you'll get along with someone. You'll just tend to think the same way (i.e. the same processes), but if the things you're thinking on (your beliefs, philosophies, etc) are opposed, then you can still clash. (I have often figured that it's all the more worse seeing my "hero" function Ti used against me; like used to support something I really disagree with).
It's all about the ego, not the functions it happens to prefer.

As far as sexual attraction, that could simply be the element of mystery. Anything too much like themselves they might not be interested in, while someone with a totally different function like that might seem "exotic".

I guess that makes sense.

 

[Avocado]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that I tend to sexually attract Fi users though, Ti users generally dislike me in real life? Why is this?

I seem to sexually attract Ti users and Fi users dislike me. What ever is going on, I am on the other side.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A strong preference for extroverted intuition, perhaps? Maybe a slight preference for extroverted thinking over introverted feeling. Do you think you might be Ne Te?

 

[Avocado]

A strong preference for extroverted intuition, perhaps? Maybe a slight preference for extroverted thinking over introverted feeling. Do you think you might be Ne Te?

At times, it seems that way…

 

[Society]

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that I tend to sexually attract Fi users though, Ti users generally dislike me in real life? Why is this?

I seem to sexually attract Ti users and Fi users dislike me. What ever is going on, I am on the other side.

i've had the occasional INFP crush and i'm most likely a TP...

really, i wouldn't take MBTI as a matchmaking system to heart, people are more likely to be attracted to whatever rocks their trousers and gives them a generally enjoyable time then they are to your functions.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Would you all agree?

Did it ever occur to you that the the argumentative style a person chooses has more to do with their educational background than with their temperament?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Coherence and correspondence theory of truth

 

[Stansmith]

I'll try to frame this into something I can relate to; whenever a Lebron vs. Kobe argument comes up, I tend to argue for Lebron because he's statistically better than Kobe, and he has just as many championships as a lead man as Kobe. If someone mentions Lebron having significant help in winning his championships, I argue that almost every all time great (including Kobe) has needed an above-average supporting cast. If someone mentions Kobe having 5 championships, I argue that only 2 of them count since the other 3 pretty much belonged to Shaq.



Is that Te or Ti? I'm guessing Ti-users would point out the inconsistencies in the stat-system.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

i've had the occasional INFP crush and i'm most likely a TP...

really, i wouldn't take MBTI as a matchmaking system to heart, people are more likely to be attracted to whatever rocks their trousers and gives them a generally enjoyable time then they are to your functions.

I'm starting to think that people are my complicated in their function development than MBTI suggests anyway. I think the functions are a valid concept, but it seems to me that knowing MBTI types does not always give a clear picture of the kinds of functions people prefer.

 

[Oaky]

NiTe and TiNe argue about whether relativity theory represents the absolute truth of things or whether it just seems as if its the truth;

TiNe: Relativity theory only seems to be true because it works, but i can give you many examples that are logical about it is only being seemingly true *inserts many examples*

NiTe: But it has been tested and it works, therefore it is true. Also einstein predicted a lot of things with it, like curvature of the space-time.

TiNe: I just gave you many logical reasons why it only seems to be true, but in reality only looks like it because it works. You see the curvature of space-time is another example, its just a model that works, but can be explained with other factors aswell *insert reasons*.

NiTe: But there is also the math that works, that at least makes it the absolute truth.

TiNe: Math working doesent mean shit because its based on assumptions, which are based on assumptions, which are based on assumptions.. You know, you can build a working model in logic that is internally consistent and which gives the right answer, but which isnt the reality of things.

NiTe: But those assumptions are things that have always worked, therefore they can be regarded as the truth.

And this goes on for hours

What's that INTP? NiTe blindly goes by "it's been tested and it works" theory? You miss the point of Ni in its entirety and I'm almost offended to see you make such general claims based on your interpretation of how you saw NiTes arguing in the past. Nah, I'm kidding, I'm not offended. I know you have weird thoughts and it can make you assume funny things so let me correct you there.
Ni has no part in making a NiTe user go "it just works" in any way. In fact, Ni gathers ups, downs, lefts, rights, ins and outs of a particular subject before it goes on to Te to say "let's dance in the meadows because it works scaring the crows away." It's like you think NiTe users have this kind of manual, text book, research paper, etc. in their hands and follow it because "it works". Stop dancing around INTP, you're confusing lots of things here and there. NiTe users very much go through a lot in their heads before they come to a conclusion but it tends to work in an abstract understanding of a particular situation or thing. With the understanding, it's Te that goes "yup, that's the best way to go over there".

Your TiNe and NiTe examples define a difference somewhere between Ti and Te but not TiNe and NiTe.

 

[INTP]

What's that INTP? NiTe blindly goes by "it's been tested and it works" theory? You miss the point of Ni in its entirety and I'm almost offended to see you make such general claims based on your interpretation of how you saw NiTes arguing in the past. Nah, I'm kidding, I'm not offended. I know you have weird thoughts and it can make you assume funny things so let me correct you there.
Ni has no part in making a NiTe user go "it just works" in any way. In fact, Ni gathers ups, downs, lefts, rights, ins and outs of a particular subject before it goes on to Te to say "let's dance in the meadows because it works scaring the crows away." It's like you think NiTe users have this kind of manual, text book, research paper, etc. in their hands and follow it because "it works". Stop dancing around INTP, you're confusing lots of things here and there. NiTe users very much go through a lot in their heads before they come to a conclusion but it tends to work in an abstract understanding of a particular situation or thing. With the understanding, it's Te that goes "yup, that's the best way to go over there".

Your TiNe and NiTe examples define a difference somewhere between Ti and Te but not TiNe and NiTe.

sounds like a typical case of mad cuz bad :----DDD

 

[Oaky]

sounds like a typical case of mad cuz bad :----DDD

So this is what we've come to.

 

[INTP]

So this is what we've come to.

nah, its this that we have come to

:-------------DDDDDDDDDDDDD

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMHO the standards for argumentation are much more rigorous in the courtroom.

The way the whole Zimmerman trial went down is pretty illustrative in this instance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ti doms argue by explanation... It's often long-winded tldr.

Te auxes (IXTJs) argumentation style could usually be summed up by "the facts stand for themselves".

I'm not sure how the Te doms fit into this, or the Ti auxes.

The Te doms, or the Ji doms with well-developed auxiliaries, seem more comfortable "connecting" the facts than the Si/Ni types who are less comfortable with Te, but they're aren't enough here to be certain, and I'm not sure that I've ever known any in real life particularly well.

As for the Te difference, I would sum them up as follows:

Te: What do we know for certain?

Ti: How can this make sense?

I think both approaches have value, although I'm biased more towards one than the other.

 

[Avocado]

Ti doms argue by explanation... It's often long-winded tldr.

Te auxes (IXTJs) argumentation style could usually be summed up by "the facts stand for themselves".

I'm not sure how the Te doms fit into this, or the Ti auxes.

The Te doms, or the Ji doms with well-developed auxiliaries, seem more comfortable "connecting" the facts than the Si/Ni types who are less comfortable with Te, but they're aren't enough here to be certain, and I'm not sure that I've ever known any in real life particularly well.

As for the Te difference, I would sum them up as follows:

Te: What do we know for certain?

Ti: How can this make sense?

I think both approaches have value, although I'm biased more towards one than the other.

But, how can anything be known for certain? How do you know an apple on a desk is real and not the result of chemicals in your brain?

 

[The Great One]

I seem to sexually attract Ti users and Fi users dislike me. What ever is going on, I am on the other side.

I think that I am an sx dom and I've noticed that most NTP types are sx last. I think it's my Sx that attracts the Fi users because most of them aren't sx last.

Did it ever occur to you that the the argumentative style a person chooses has more to do with their educational background than with their temperament?

Well [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] and I were exploring that recently in this thread if you go back a few pages. It seems as though psychology majors especially use facts when arguing due to the fact that papers are written in APA format, and objective facts and sources are required in the writing of these papers.

However from my experience and from what I have read:

Te users tend to argue with objective facts and they believe facts to be the "end-all-be-all" in an argument. Te users generally check the validity of these facts as well, and make sure that they are true (i.e. they make sure that the facts are valid, that they are from a credited source, that they are from a double blind study, they make sure that they weren't from case interest study, etc.) Then, they basically believe that the facts tell the ultimate truth and put all their faith in them. If you don't believe their facts, and question them, they often regard you as a dumb ass. Te arguments tend to be fast, efficient and to the point.

Ti users on the other hand tend to argue by using logic. Ti users will question and nitpick others' logical processes. Ti users will often times look at something and say, "This doesn't make sense and here is why" and "That doesn't make sense and here is why". I've noticed that often times the Ti users like to engage in something that I like to call, "The Ti volley" as well. Ti users tend to argue with others and both question one-another's analysis, and in the process, break apart an idea until it can be broken apart no more, and then finally reach a conclusion at the end. Ti users also tend to need to clearly define things in an arguement as well, and I've noticed that a lot of their arguments turn into debates over formulating a correct and precise definition of something.

 

[The Great One]

But, how can anything be known for certain? How do you know an apple on a desk is real and not the result of chemicals in your brain?

This seems like a very Ti based concept. By finding out if you exist or not, it really doesn't accomplish a goal either. Te is all about accomplishing goals, getting results, and making things as efficient. Te really doesn't obsess over things like this. It's Ti on the other hand that wants to understand everything and define everything. You remind me of two Ti user philosophers: one was Renee Descartes and the other is Immanuel Kant. Descartes literally spent a very long period in his life trying to prove whether he existed or not. Finally, after years of study, he came to the conclusion that, "I think, therefore I am". Descartes figured that in dreams you really can't think, but in reality you can openly think, analyze, and reason. So therefore because he could openly do all of these things in reality, he logically reasoned that he did, indeed exist.

 

[Lady_X]

just had an argument last night and was told how my style is very aggressive/bitchy/scolding matter of fact. like with major conviction of "rightness" and any other opinion is not worth my time to consider. :/

nice huh...but yeah it's probably accurate...and i guess how te comes out for me sometimes??

 

[The Great One]

just had an argument last night and was told how my style is very aggressive/bitchy/scolding matter of fact. like with major conviction of "rightness" and any other opinion is not worth my time to consider. :/

nice huh...but yeah it's probably accurate...and i guess how te comes out for me sometimes??

But what was your style of arguing?