What you are describing and are considering wrong in my analysis (which probably is true) are the kinks of my general lines that I described.
No. I've done my best and have failed to communicate to you how your understanding is flawed. Now I'm getting bored because I don't like repeating myself.
And yes, I get that you want me to relate them properly.
You dont get it though. And you don't get us, that much is crystal. I have been showing you your mistake, you want to continue making it, that's up to you. You're in good company, most people make this mistake.
However, those things however important to you, are *exactly* the topic I want to show you by comparing it to INTJs (and the interacting conflict it gives between you two). That was the original topic. And it is an awesome demonstration of it. Your Ti wants things riddled out properly into fine detail and argues until it is riddled out.
No. These are not fine details. These are fundamental constructs. Either something is a manifestation of Si/Fe or it is not. You are diagnosing conflicting function usage as the core of the problem, so it's not a fine detail, it's the crux of your argument. You are continuing to assert the self-same argument, by calling our debate an "awesome demonstration" of your previous point. If it's a demonstration of anything, it's your inability to follow a line of thought through to its logical conclusions.. Because you misunderstand the theory, you misattribute motives and misread behaviours. This is a fundamental flaw in your understanding which invalidates your point and damages your ability to relate to INTPs. This is
why sound theory / reasoning is so important. Because it's too easy to come up with "observations" that support any theory / bias you decide to adopt. (See Forer effect.) It's bigger than the INTJ vs INTP conflict - we hate each other, who cares? And it's bigger than your application to INTPs. My focus is on the skeleton of the theory. The architecture of the idea. I'm exclusively interested in a consistent and sound framework which makes sense. Since you don't have one, any argument you make is going to be flawed and I'll just dismiss it. You can continue to misread this as an obsession with Si/Fe "protocol" or whatever wildly inappropriate terms you want to dream up. You'd just be more wrong. That's ok, your Ti is weak, I get it.
The only way you might be able to get anywhere here, would be if you could argue from a theoretical framework and show how one thing implies another. You are arguing from your gut and from your experience and from a parroted rather than considered interpretation of the functions INTPs "use".
Because this jives neither with an accurate/consistent understanding of theory, nor with my own personal experience, nor with my observations of other INTPs, I am never going to agree with you.
You are keen for us to agree because you are very much interested in reconciliation. It's of no consequence to me whether we agree or not because there are zero implications resting on it and investment in a common and harmonious interpretation is an obstacle to truth. This is the core T/F conflict in a nutshell. (And it's not resolvable. And that's ok.
)
I am not saying that you are wrong. In fact, you are likely very right as this is something you've finetuned (I'm saying likely here coz my understanding of Ti is...rudimentary at best). I'm merely saying that others do not need as deep a grasp, or as much refinement when looking at something in order to grasp the general gist of it, or in order to communicate a concept to someone else, to then move on to what *they* consider the main course of that conversation.
You only think you don't need it because you don't get it. If you got it, you'd know that you need it. For you, it's an unknown unknown. For me, it's a given.
Iow, you are being too thorough and have too high a standards,
Lol. "You are being too right." Impossible.
You are focused on the 'wrong' part of the conversation for INTJs (and Te-users in general probably). I'm not saying you should change your priorities, and what you consider to be vital (god knows I cant with Fi, when it comes to Fe-users). But it might help with the misunderstandings and the frustration and considering eachother moronic for not seeing this shit when keeping in mind that this to them just...aint that important.
Being right may not be important to you, but I assure you it's VERY important to an INTJ. My conflicts with them are all about the fact that they hate to be told they are wrong about anything (despite consistently doing this to others). And I do it without any kind of Fe/Fi face-saving to soften the blow. Believe me, I understand the dynamic perfectly. The frustration isn't mine. More often than not, I'm amused.
And vice versa, INTJs might want to keep in mind that their goal just aint that important to you in the discussion. From the Te-side of things however..it does make driving a point home rather...frustrating at times, just so ya know
Oh, yes. I'm quite aware of
their frustration. Te seeks to impose itself on its environment. Ti simply resists and slowly shakes its head. It is this act of resistance that causes frustration in the Te user. If we were Fe users, we would relent in order to maintain peaceful relations. We would seek out common ground. We don't do that, because we're not.
In a way, this situation reminds me of my math teacher first demanding that I show my work and when I get my paper back having red all over my work, but acknowledging that the result, the number I wanted to write down in the first place without showing all the work, is correct.
Except that it's the opposite. Both your answer and your working are incorrect, and one as an inevitable result of the other.
However..I think the solution in this (and perhaps you'll disagree, so feel free to reject it) is that...with a bit of benefit of the doubt from your side, I can explain the rudimentary trajectory to you, with my point. Then watch you go nuts on riddling it all out, in turn teaching me how to actually do something like that (coz it most certainly comes in handy and it surely is interesting), and get a more crystallised and clear understanding of what I just said.
That doesnt sound like fun to me. Fixing other people's mistakes is kind of a compulsion (up to a point) not my idea of a good time.
I'm not sure though..can you judge the actual goal of the conversation before you've riddled stuff out? Can you state up front that you agree with the general outline, just not the journey there?
