[MBTI General] Do N and T really go together?

[Kalach]

This isn't about being soulless. It's more about the way logic force-fits intuition into a simple, linear frame.

What's linear about it?

There's a line drawn between this concept and that, a connection identified, but if you like you could draw a curly squiggle and it's not linear no mo'.


I just made ka'squiggley logic!

 

[nozflubber]

hmmm, so you're saying Kalach, that the superpositon effect applies to a 2D spatial layout of intuition? I'd agree

 

[Orangey]

First off, I take issue with the claim that T is always linear. I thought that Ti was the non-linear sort of logic, like the sort that you use on those IQ tests that ask you to fill in the missing part of the picture (the picture will have like 9 frames, but you have to analyze it as a whole to understand what piece should go in the ninth frame). You don't do that sequentially or in a linear, algebraic fashion (at least I don't). You have to first understand the whole thing to know which part is missing.

Also, even if my conception of Ti is not correct, and it is in fact linear, I still don't understand the claim that N and F is somehow more "natural" than N and T. You say that fitting the capabilities of N into the "limited box" of T is restricting. But isn't it the same for F? I mean, a judging function must by definition be limiting, because you use it to make a decision about something (whether something makes sense, what should be done, which option is best, what is most in line with our value system, what I like best, etc.,). And making a decision about something excludes the other possibilities that were present at the moment of decision. I don't see why limiting intuition in this fashion using subjective criteria (feeling) is somehow less restrictive than using objective or impersonal criteria (thinking).

 

[Athenian200]

What's linear about it?

There's a line drawn between this concept and that, a connection identified, but if you like you could draw a curly squiggle and it's not linear no mo'.


I just made ka'squiggley logic!

I see I'm going to have to define "linear."

lin⋅e⋅ar  [lin-ee-er]
–adjective
4. involving measurement in one dimension only; pertaining to length: linear measure.

Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional, especially compared to Intuition. Everything is "true" or "false" with no nuance.

 

[jenocyde]

Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional

I'm so curious to take a peek inside your brain.

 

[Athenian200]

First off, I take issue with the claim that T is always linear. I thought that Ti was the non-linear sort of logic, like the sort that you use on those IQ tests that ask you to fill in the missing part of the picture (the picture will have like 9 frames, but you have to analyze it as a whole to understand what piece should go in the ninth frame). You don't do that sequentially or in a linear, algebraic fashion (at least I don't). You have to first understand the whole thing to know which part is missing.

Ah. I was thinking of T in general, not Ti specifically. Ti might be less linear.

Also, even if my conception of Ti is not correct, and it is in fact linear, I still don't understand the claim that N and F is somehow more "natural" than N and T. You say that fitting the capabilities of N into the "limited box" of T is restricting. But isn't it the same for F? I mean, a judging function must by definition be limiting, because you use it to make a decision about something (whether something makes sense, what should be done, which option is best, what is most in line with our value system, what I like best, etc.,). And making a decision about something excludes the other possibilities that were present at the moment of decision. I don't see why limiting intuition in this fashion using subjective criteria (feeling) is somehow less restrictive than using objective or impersonal criteria (thinking).

Well, the idea is that feelings, being subjective and holistic in process, tend to capture more of N in their decisions, because it's not so "cut and dried."

If you want the idea, it's basically:

N: Subjective, holistic perception.
F: Subjective, holistic judgment.
S: Objective, compartmentalized perception.
T: Objective, compartmentalized judgment.

I don't know where that come from, but that's what I was looking at before. I guess I didn't explain it very well.

 

[Athenian200]

I'm so curious to take a peek inside your brain.

Why? Did I say something that makes it seem that my mind works strangely?

 

[Aleph-One]

I'm beginning to think that the word "linear" should be automatically filtered out of posts.

 

[JocktheMotie]

So, what is an NT, really? Is it an Intuitive that was forced to discipline their imagination into working with logic? Is it a conflicted person who tried to set up a strange compromise between the rational and irrational parts of their mind? Is it someone who wants to hide/destroy their own sensitivity for some reason?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel broken and unnatural with my idea.

You didn't. It was a sarcastic comment, mainly making fun of an NF tendency I've noticed. Some of you exhibit such a pompous sense of pity for anyone who cannot "feel" as you do, that you think ridiculous things like "N and T don't go together" and what I have quoted from you above in an attempt to figure it out. I find this entire topic to be funny.

I was merely trying to point out how they seem to originate from different places in the mind (and thus are based on conflicting methodologies about how reality should be processed), and then are forced to work together. The crossover might even result in a more disciplined, useful imagination. Hence NT intelligence... the result of the constant mental challenge of trying to reconcile these two processes.

The bolded is a ridiculous statement. NTs are largely responsible in explaining and creating the systems that accurately describe reality, yet apparently you think that's not how reality should be processed. There's nothing to reconcile. T and F are both rational functions, just with different criteria for decision making. If anything, you're looking at N through your Fe analysis of what it is, because nearly everything you've said about N so far I find to be absurd. It isn't "imagination" or "creativity." It's your preference of perception. That's it. N doesn't make a decisions as to how reality should be processed, it just determines what you tend to notice. T and F make decisions on how what you notice is processed.

Anyways, for me, I am not a conflicted individual trying to mediate apparently conflicting processes. They don't conflict, for me, they work in wonderful synergy. I love it. I love seeing possibilities, themes, glimpses of relationships, and using my dreadful, linear, boring, Ti to stamp out the beauty of Allmighty N. It warms my icy black NT heart.

Unfortunately I won't be able to explain much further if you have any questions until later on tonight, my co-workers are glaring at me, wondering why I'm not really doing anything constructive. Also do not take this personally, I just think your interpretation of how N and T and even N works is a bit misguided.

 

[Orangey]

I'm beginning to think that the word "linear" should be automatically filtered out of posts.

Now that would really dismantle the discussion.

 

[Kalach]

I see I'm going to have to define "linear."

Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional, especially compared to Intuition. Everything is "true" or "false" with no nuance.

Ah ha, I think I getcha: the T view of the world is un-nunanced, having as it seems just two dimensions, true and false.

We could go ahead and speak of the T worldview in its subjective terms, in which case we get a plethora of other adjectives, true, false, known true, uncertain, possible, confusing, rank amateur silly, "Wow check out the beauty in the form of that statement," and so on.

Maybe a bit like we could go ahead and insist on an objective view of the feeling world, categorising all feelings according to the two most fundamental evaluations, good and bad.


That's so ka'squiggled I'm tightening my belt another notch just to keep from spinning.

 

[Aleph-One]

Now that would really dismantle the discussion.

What discussion? What could it possibly mean to say that "thinking is one-dimensional" or "thinking is linear". It's nonsense, and is only metaphorical at best (I could generously interpret it as saying "thinking is limited", but I'm not in the business of constructing banalities). I can't even argue against it because it doesn't say anything at all.

 

[Aleph-One]

Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional, especially compared to Intuition. Everything is "true" or "false" with no nuance.

 

[jenocyde]

I'm sorry, I keep rereading Jock's post over and over and laughing like new each time. It should win some sort of award.

"my icy black NT heart", "stamp out the beauty of the Almighty N", "pompous sense of pity", and then the kicker: "do not take this personally".

My goodness, this made my day. Thank you, Jock - you speak the truth. Preach on!

:yim_rolling_on_the_ :yim_rolling_on_the_:yim_rolling_on_the_ :yim_rolling_on_the_



EDIT: Oh wait, I just saw the scarecrow in the above post. Holy shit, this day is fantastic.

 

[jenocyde]

Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional

I'm so curious to take a peek inside your brain.

Why? Did I say something that makes it seem that my mind works strangely?

The linear progression would be:
You say that thinking is flat and one dimensional, which leads me to believe that you don't like to think, or that you think in a one dimensional manner only or that you don't think at all. Earlier, I gave you two very clear examples of how I process information. Now, I would like to see the way you process information. The statement you made is curious at best.

Can you give us an example?

 

[Orangey]

What discussion? What could it possibly mean to say that "thinking is one-dimensional" or "thinking is linear". It's nonsense, and is only metaphorical at best (I could generously interpret it as saying "thinking is limited", but I'm not in the business of constructing banalities). I can't even argue against it because it doesn't say anything at all.

Yeah, I interpreted it as meaning "thinking is sequential" (which I thought could be argued against), but that's apparently not what the OP meant anyway. It's even more vague now, since "compartmentalized" seems to have taken the place of "linear."

 

[Nocapszy]

I've actually been wondering for a while now. It seems like ST and NF make sense, but NT and SF don't.

Precisely what do you mean by "make sense"?

An ST uses specific, sensed details, and reasons in a linear, impersonal fashion. Basically, the calculator/bean-counter type. I can see those two going together well.

An NF uses their imagination and instinct to get an idea of the "essence" of things, and then weighs this according to their subjective sense of value. These two also go well together.

Still... what are you talking about?
"go well together"
What is that?

 

[Virtual ghost]

First off, I take issue with the claim that T is always linear. I thought that Ti was the non-linear sort of logic, like the sort that you use on those IQ tests that ask you to fill in the missing part of the picture (the picture will have like 9 frames, but you have to analyze it as a whole to understand what piece should go in the ninth frame). You don't do that sequentially or in a linear, algebraic fashion (at least I don't). You have to first understand the whole thing to know which part is missing.

I can see your point.

I just want to say Te when it is mixed with Ni is not really linear as well.
Since when you are designing a system you have to "jump" from one point to another so that you get "borders" of the system and general "appearance".

Only then you can start connecting the dots. What is not that liner also. Since you could have overlaping or interferention so you are forced to think about many scernarios and tricks before you get it right.
What can include a lot of jumping between past, present and future.

 

[Aleph-One]

Yeah, I interpreted it as meaning "thinking is sequential" (which I thought could be argued against), but that's apparently not what the OP meant anyway. It's even more vague now, since "compartmentalized" seems to have taken the place of "linear."

Right. And I think, in that case, that NT thought is not confined to sequential deduction. This is perhaps the reason that mathematics departments are refugee camps for NTs. In my experience theorem proving is rarely a sequential process (even though the final product is usually a very clean, logical argument). The process of starting a proof has always been, for me, a kind of synthesis where several of the needed pieces fall into place at the same time, and they aren't organized until I write them on paper.

N and T go together. People with a marked ability for theoretical or abstract reasoning are NTs.

 

[Grayscale]

I've actually been wondering for a while now. It seems like ST and NF make sense, but NT and SF don't.

An ST uses specific, sensed details, and reasons in a linear, impersonal fashion. Basically, the calculator/bean-counter type. I can see those two going together well.

An NF uses their imagination and instinct to get an idea of the "essence" of things, and then weighs this according to their subjective sense of value. These two also go well together.

i have wondered the exact same thing since the system made sense to me.

from my 10+ years of experience with my INTP friend, it seems more that his ability to dissect things logically is abused rather than obeyed by his less specific general feelings about something, although they are often still driven by reason

to say intuition is always logical suggests that our ability to identify rigid systems of logic is never clouded by the fact that intuition is still a "feeling" of whether something fits a pattern or it does not without delving into the details. it is to say, you can add up a large quantity of numbers perfectly without concerning yourself with every decimal. convenient for confidence' sake, but untrue... whenever you convert from specific to less specific, general efficiency is gained, accuracy is lost (it's a balance that is observed by computer storage compression algorithms)

to put it in mbti-speak, intuition is not tied to logic, it is tied to a chemical/emotional response to logical patterns and theories. logic is inflexible, so if it were tied to anything it would be raw sensory perception, as inaccurate as those can be. an "NT" would be someone who has a positive ratio of thoughts based on feelings that draw from logical observations(if if, then then then then then?), an ST would be someone who has a ratio in favor of logical observations followed by the patterns that can be deducted from them (if if if if if if, then then), an NF, positive ratio of feelings about patterns of emotion (same as NT, for emotional rather than rational issues), SF, emotional observations followed by the principles that can be deducted from them (same as ST with the same difference)