Seeing aeon has registered here, it reminded me of an exchange a while back, and thought I would share there:
I posted this over at INFPg on
Those of you who post on INTPCentral, why do you?
I'm going to show you how I think during the quoted argument above and how it determines my response.
Here is the original post:
And here is how I break it down:
Analysis: postulated conclusion
Mode: respond
Analysis: subjective conclusion
Mode: ignore
Analysis: subjective conclusion
Mode: ignore
Analysis: joke
Mode: respond
Analysis: social nicety designed to mitigate negativity
Mode: ignore
Output: Engage humor, respond to postulated conclusion, expand analysis
Any thoughts?
Interesting. My analysis/perception would have been (very remotely) similar, assuming I had responded, but my response would have been somewhat different (probably due to how Fe operates). Like so:
That makes me doubt INTP analysis, as that has to be one of the weakest tests and most-flawed assumptions one could make based on the data.
Perception: Criticism of usefulness of Ti, declared support for empiricism along with implication that Ti runs counter to it, basically an unqualified and unsupported assertion.
Response: Counter with instances in which Ti is a useful tool, show that it is not incompatible with empiricism, and provide generally agreeable examples to show this, making my argument more persuasive than his.
In any case, only those who are immature, ignorant, unintelligent, ethically corrupt, or spiritually bankrupt would engage in teasing and harshness as a means to go about the world.
Or maybe they are 3 years old. ;-)
Perception: Unsupported moral critique of INTP behavior based on a limited perspective.
Response: Counter with instances in which said group of people did not engage in such practices, with an acknowledgment that some INTP's do behave like this along with a claim that it isn't representative of the entire group. Add examples of where harsh criticism that was generally interpreted as teasing proved useful in the final result.
Perception: Standard signature
Response: Ignore
I think I was clear enough about how I would have responded that I don't actually need to write out a response.
In any case, I think my auxiliary Fe makes me more responsive to every part of the statement compared with a dominant Ti's intense focus on the underlying logic, and weaker awareness/concern with the potential implications from a social/emotional perspective (likely due to their inferior Fe).
This seems to confirm my perception of what Ti and Fe do. Ti manipulates an external system via internal rules, and Fe manipulates an internal system via external rules. Obviously, both parties try to manipulate/change what the other considers solid, and hold firmly to what the other considers reasonably subject to change. This is why IxTP's and ExFJ's (and perhaps more generally ExxJ's and IxxP's) typically clash, a failure to acknowledge the validity of the other's reality due to the discomfort it brings them to do so.
So, that was how my mental processes would function in a similar situation.
Did this make sense?
