Morgan:
An example. What if I said that 2+2= 10. This statement is obviously false. If I say that this is true, the lie that I generated, when analyzed, would reveal the truth. This works when someone knows the answer is false, but the other knows what should be considered true and what shouldn't, but doesn't know directly that this answer is false. They have to analyze why the lie is a lie thus showing the truth. Does that explain it better? The analyzation aspect is the Ti. Going through logically and discerning why 2+2=/=10.
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. Why would you say something that is obviously false?Morgan:
An example. What if I said that 2+2= 10. This statement is obviously false. If I say that this is true, the lie that I generated, when analyzed, would reveal the truth. This works when someone knows the answer is false, but the other knows what should be considered true and what shouldn't, but doesn't know directly that this answer is false. They have to analyze why the lie is a lie thus showing the truth. Does that explain it better? The analyzation aspect is the Ti. Going through logically and discerning why 2+2=/=10.
It was part of the example. I suppose it could be used as a method of teaching. The teacher knows why 2+2=/=10, but the student may not and so in order to get the student to think about why this isn't true they would have analyze it. The goal of the lie was to ultimately get towards the truth that 2+2=4 and not 10. He made a false statement in order to get there. This may also be perceived as Fe, but I wouldn't think so because their isn't a social dynamic just a logical one, but apparently my definitions of this system are still flawed.
Poki- Sarcasm?
Jag- Thank god! Otherwise he'd have to be a full-time parent. Now he only has to worry about part of a child.
People teach math in this way?It was part of the example. I suppose it could be used as a method of teaching. The teacher knows why 2+2=/=10, but the student may not and so in order to get the student to think about why this isn't true they would have analyze it. The goal of the lie was to ultimately get towards the truth that 2+2=4 and not 10. He made a false statement in order to get there. This may also be perceived as Fe, but I wouldn't think so because their isn't a social dynamic just a logical one, but apparently my definitions of this system are still flawed.
Why else do you think we're all nihilists?I was trying to find a way that a Ti could be a motivator. Obviously it's not easy to do.
Yeah, I cant follow your train of thought like Jag did. I actually thought he was telling the truth until I put pencil to paper and realized "wait...how do you become half pregnant" All I came up with is that my wife was full pregnant so his buddy must be half the man I am.
Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by the subjective factor....It does not lead from concrete experience back again to the object, but always to the subjective content. External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality....Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sakes. (C. G. Jung, Psychological Types, 380.)
As far as Introverted Thinking being so "objective" and "truthful", lets see what Carl Jung had to say about that:
Eat that, suckas!!!!!! :workout:
****EDIT: Matter of fact, I think that quote deserves a whole thread of it's own.
It is truthful...just truthful about the users subjective experience. Te is more obviously truthful because it focuses on the current environment.
The logical structure isn't any different, though... the premises are just less obvious for Ti.
No one is born with functioning Fe - cultural ideas about socially appropriate behaviour have to be internalised over time.
No one is born with functioning Fe - cultural ideas about socially appropriate behaviour have to be internalised over time.
Actually, it is you who has misinterpreted me for much of the thread. You're still doing it. No one is born with the ability to even understand where "me" ends and the external world begins. Child development 101.Just so you know, this is why you have interpreted me wrong this whole thread.
Fe is just value-judgments based on the external situation.
Fe functions fine as a child.
Maybe a person's interpretation of an external situation becomes more normative over time, but it doesn't mean they don't use Fe before then.
Interpreting what the external situation actually IS isn't really in Fe's scope.
Actually, it is you who has misinterpreted me for much of the thread. You're still doing it. No one is born with the ability to even understand where "me" ends and the external world begins. Child development 101.
And that is an inaccurate definition of Fe. It is about what is important to others and what is appropriate to a given situation.
'Value judgements about an external situation' can just as easily be made by Introverted Feeling. Orientation and source are not the same thing. In fact, all "situations" are external if you think about it.
...because they don't do the same thing. Any more than Te and Ti or Ne and Ni....When Fe and Fi do the same thing, why call them something different?
Fe is not about looking at external situations. That doesn't mean anything. In fact, it's perceiving, not judging. Fe is about valuing external standards. I'm not making this shit up. It's textbook. And I'm not nit-picking. It's fundamental to an understanding of the theory.A 5-year old can be a clear Fe user even if they know nothing about "social values". They use Fe as long as they think looking at the external situation is more relevant to a value judgment than looking internally is.
A 5-year old can be a clear Fe user even if they know nothing about "social values". They use Fe as long as they think looking at the external situation is more relevant to a value judgment than looking internally is.
Fe is not about looking at external situations. That doesn't mean anything. In fact, it's perceiving, not judging. Fe is about valuing external standards. I'm not making this shit up. It's textbook. And I'm not nit-picking. It's fundamental to an understanding of the theory.