User Tag List

First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 298

  1. #191
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    S'cool.

  2. #192
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I think you're labeling too much of your thought process as Te. You use Ti to some extent, too, and intuition (plus feeling, to some extent) is what sets up the premises of any argument.

    Te itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the environment.
    Ti itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the internal standard.
    I happen to agree with the following line of thinking when it comes to the functions.
    It doesn't matter that it pertains to Socionics. The Jungian functions are Jungian functions, regardless.

    The extroverted and introverted variants of an information element (e.g. extroverted intuition Ne and introverted intuition Ni) are different perspectives on the same sphere of activity, so it makes sense that strength in one implies strength in the other. For example, strength in accumulating data (Te) implies strength in inferring structure based on that data (Ti).
    It seems that whether it's Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fe or Fi there always seems to be this "us and them" mentality in this forum. There was a gent named Alan Marshall who in the 90's theorized that the development of both attitudes was a given, so that after developing Te,Ti would come next. After developing Ne, Ni would come next. etc. I also want to mention that some people may have no problem using both attitudes, whereas someone else may have much difficulty. I have never been one to make blind assumptions that one who identifies as INTP necessitates a weakness using Te or one who identifies as INTJ necessitates a weakness using Ti. It's only a particular theory that makes it appear as if it is so.

    Having posted all of that, I think it's at the heart of many a disagreement.
    Certain people are "borrowing" manifestations of Ti or Te, thinking it is only one function they are using, when in reality they are more than likely using both.
    (God only knows how many fewer arguments would exist in this forum if people realized that about Fe and Fi.)

  3. #193
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    ^ I would add that I believe cross-attitude development is more likely in one's more primary functions (i.e., Ti and Ne are easier for an INTJ to develop than Fe and Si, etc.).

    Hence, something like my results from the Mindframes test:

    In Your Comfort Zone
    LOGIC - Meaning - Reason-based - Thought - Very often - (Ti) - 100
    INSIGHT - Meaning - Feel-based - Thought - Very often - (Ni) - 96
    CHARISMA - Meaning - Feel-based - Action - Often - (Ne) - 88

    Outside Your Comfort Zone
    PROACTIVITY - Meaning - Reason-based - Action - Sometimes - (Te) - 84
    SENSITIVITY - Perception - Feel-based - Thought - Sometimes - (Fi) - 84
    CONTROL - Perception - Reason-based - Action - Sometimes - (Se) - 82
    ORDER - Perception - Reason-based - Thought - Sometimes - (Si) - 80
    SOCIABILITY - Perception - Feel-based - Action - Seldom - (Fe) - 64

  4. #194
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Now this question points straight to the heart of the matter (and to what reflect was pointing to):

    The answer to the question is actually quite simple: it's the exact reason why INTJs are labeled "Js" and INTPs are labeled "Ps" under MBTI's system -- INTJs extrovert their T (so they tend to seem more left-brained), while INTPs extrovert their N (so they tend to seem more right-brained).

    It's good that you seem to have changed your language from one that connotes reality to one that connotes appearance.
    1. I'm going to keep this in mind. For now, it seems to make sense. You guys are internally intuitive and externally thinking, so you seem more stiff (even if you have tons of ideas bubbling around beneath the surface). We are externally intuitive and internally thinking, so we come off more conceptual, with our thinking more hidden beneath the surface.

    However, I know an INXJ. She has Ni > Fi > Te > Ti as her four main functions. She is internally INTJ (Te with a developed Ti). So she is basically a deep thinker who no one would suspect. Yet, on the outside, she appears to be warm, caring, and nice -- not like a typical thinker.

    How the hell would you explain this? Her Fe is low, while her largest feeling function is Fi (introverted feeling). Her Ti is almost as developed as her Te (extraverted thinking). Shouldn't she seem like a thinker who is actually a feeler, according to your theory here?

    Additionally, I'm not entirely convinced that INTPs and INTJ's are only right/left brained on the surface.
    It seems that we literally do conduct actual thought functions in a particular fashion.
    INTP's seem global and make intuitive leaps; INTJ's go step-by-step fashion. So, are you saying that they only seemthis way?

    2. Yeah, it's a good thing that I actually realized I was only speaking about appearances, rather than actual cognitive functions.

    You're committing the same error that IntrovertedThinker was previously making: calling INTP thinking "real thinking" and making INTJ thinking out to be a lesser form of thinking.

    You're also making me feel like SolitaryWalker.
    I never said INTP's do 'real thinking' and that INTJ's have a lesser form of thinking. I just said INTJ's come off more stubborn and close-minded in their approach to truth, which might leave out possibilities, and that I don't PREFER their approach. I did mention that INTP thought also has downsides.

  5. #195
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This may be true.

    In a previous thread on Ne/Ni, during a conversation with uumlau, I hypothesized that Te might be more associated with inductive reasoning, while Ti is more associated with deductive reasoning.
    No, they are both deductive.

    They're really the same process, i and e are just specifiers.


    Induction is N.

  6. #196
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    No, they are both deductive.

    They're really the same process, i and e are just specifiers.


    Induction is N.
    Practically speaking, in the case of thinking, introversion/extraversion defines whether you are deductive or inductive. Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning.

    It's almost wrong to even call Te logical. It is factual. What matters is the result, the way it was gotten is irrelevant. Ti looks at things exactly opposite of that. Even if you got the right answer, you went about it the wrong way and therefore fail.


    Oh, and if it's actually intuition, then why do ISTPs also seem more likely to use deductive reasoning, and ISTJs inductive reasoning?
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  7. #197
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    Practically speaking, in the case of thinking, introversion/extraversion defines whether you are deductive or inductive. Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning.

    It's almost wrong to even call Te logical. It is factual. What matters is the result, the way it was gotten is irrelevant. Ti looks at things exactly opposite of that. Even if you got the right answer, you went about it the wrong way and therefore fail.


    Oh, and if it's actually intuition, then why do ISTPs also seem more likely to use deductive reasoning, and ISTJs inductive reasoning?
    Wow, there are like 10 assumptions you've made in this post that I very much disagree with.

    "Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning."

    The definition of deductive logic is that the premises of an argument entail the conclusion. Ti and Te both check for just that. The premises they happen to be interested in are different (hence the i/e split), but the mechanism of judgment is exactly the same.

    Induction (not inductive logic, because it's by definition not logical) is when you make a conclusion that DOES NOT follow from the premises. Induction accounts for all of the leaps in understanding people go through. When you say something like "the sky has risen for my whole life, so I conclude it will rise tomorrow", that's NOT deductive. And also NOT an instance of a T function (either one).

    With deduction, you can not end up with more logical content than you start with. It's only purpose is to check for correctness, not to think up an answer (except in some deductive discipline, like math).

    Te takes an input from a perceiving function and checks its consistency against the premises of the external standard (current external environment).

    Ti takes an input from a perceiving function and checks its consistency against the premises of the internal standard (current individual thought process).

    Both just take the input (call it x), and see if it's consistent with the logical content of whatever premises they look at. In other words, Thinking checks if

    Premises in preferred environment (internal for Ti or external for Te)
    Therefore x

    is a valid logical claim. This is why Te users are much more practical -- pragmatism is a function of the external standard, and that's the focus of Te! Ti users are often checking for logical consistency in frameworks irrelevant to what's going on around them.*

    To get the premises in the first place, induction is used. Because you start with an empty premise set and end with more logical content (not deductively valid), you are creating new ideas. In other words, you are using Intuition. Intuition and induction are, for all intents and purposes, analogous.

    As a little aside, Feeling is also important for coming up with premises (or, rather, eliminating them). It decides which premises are important (the ones that still stand are what Thinking actually uses). Fe throws away premises that are not "good" given the external standard, and Fi throws away premises that are not "good" given the internal standard. That's why Fe users factor in the specifics of the external situation, and Fi users can get "stuck" on a value not necessarily relevant to what's currently happening. (Also, it's why Fi types are idealists -- they don't need to check with the environment to feel comfortable deciding what is good or bad.)

    So yeah, deduction is T, induction is N. That's just the way it is.

    * = It's also important to mention that the external standard and internal standard do not necessarily contradict each other. A Te and Ti user could make the exact same truth judgment if the premises found in the internal and external standard are equivalent (which actually happens all the time.)

  8. #198
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    So, you would say that using a statistical representation as proof of something is not inductive? Because that's what Te does. That's what Te users do. Ti users generally do not.

    I think you're assuming that one who prefers Te can't also use Ti and vice versa. This is not the case.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  9. #199
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    I guess what I'm saying is, a Te user can use deductive reasoning. But when they do so, they are not exercising Te in a pure sense. To argue something from evidence is not deductive, because you cannot prove that the statistics say what they seem to say. And Te is nothing if not evidence-based



    Edit:

    I take back everything I said. After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that what I was doing was arguing something I didn't really understand the definition of well enough. It's not due to a lack of understanding about the processes though as much as lacking a thorough understanding of what deductive and inductive reasoning are. From further research, it would seem that a person can use deductive reasoning from a Te mindframe. I was wrong.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  10. #200
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    I take back everything I said. After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that what I was doing was arguing something I didn't really understand the definition of well enough. It's not due to a lack of understanding about the processes though as much as lacking a thorough understanding of what deductive and inductive reasoning are. From further research, it would seem that a person can use deductive reasoning from a Te mindframe. I was wrong.
    Not to rub it in or anything, but I also think you are mischaracterizing the functions, not just the terms 'induction' and 'deduction'.

    If we were to substitute the full definitions for all of the terms here (functions too), I doubt we'd disagree.

Similar Threads

  1. Video: INTJ vs INTP
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 06:08 PM
  2. [MBTItm] STEM INTP VS INTJ VS ENTJ VS ENTP
    By Cryonium in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 09:44 AM
  3. INTJ vs INTP
    By Doctorjuice in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 10:58 PM
  4. [NT] INTJ vs INTP
    By Giggly in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 12:00 AM
  5. [NT] INTJs vs. INTPs
    By MerkW in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 04:46 PM

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