LaconicSesquipedalia
New member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 37
The mech is way cooler.
This claim is biased; the created city is way cooler.
The mech is way cooler.
This claim is biased; the created city is way cooler.
Hey, I'll check out that link after work! Gotta rush.Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not ruling out the possibility of being an INFP at this point, though I'm not convinced from this alone that I've been mistyped. Every description I've read of Ti has confirmed that I use that function, while only some parts of Te descriptions resonate with me.
I'm curious though, how valid/accurate would you consider the points on this function questionnaire (especially for Te and Ti)?
Hey, I'll check out that link after work! Gotta rush.
Just a quick question though - are your ideas of Ti and Te still the same as those from your original post?
- X is more direct and outwardly focused
- X will look for fallacies and be quick to point them out
- Y will notice fallacies as well, but may be content to work with an imperfect system or theory
- X may be more directly skeptical and hesitant to work with a flawed system
- Y can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate
- X can half-accept a theory or system as well, but may prefer to refrain from using it until sufficient evidence is found to support it or until it is improved
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that first.No, my original ideas were clearly inaccurate. My perceptions of the two functions are a bit hazy at the moment, which is why I'm reanalyzing and looking for more input.
I'm perfectly mentally capable of rigorous logic, I just question its value and the claim to objectivity. As I see it, the purely rational way of understanding the world is just as much based on irrational assumptions as a purely emotional one - the axiomata on which logic is based are not self-evident if one does not accept self-evidence. They're just as consistent as one another, with all of the Ti knowledge base cohering according to the rules of logic and all of the Fi knowledge base cohering according to principle and integrability with the ideal. As a dominant Ti type can dismiss the Fi knowledge base as irrelevant, so can an Fi dominant type dismiss the Ti knowledge base as irrelevant: e.g., I'm an INFP and an apatheist, meaning that if someone makes an objective and logically defended claim about the existence of God, I'm more likely to respond, "Why should I care? I know right from wrong on my own and it wouldn't change how I behave or what I believe," than to pick apart their argument. I could do the latter, but it's not necessary. Conversely, an INTP may need to pick apart their argument, because it would be insufficient to challenge that they wouldn't care even if it were true: they're interested in the truth for its own sake.
Both seek to achieve a qualitative understanding, but they prioritise different qualities. That's the ultimate difference, I suspect.
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that first.
If we're deciding between INTP and INFP, I'm wondering whether it'd be better to compare Ti & Te, Fi & Fe, or both dominant functions - Ti & Fi...which would probably make more sense as they're both introverted and equally "conscious" due to their position.
Regarding the cognitive functions test you linked to, the focus seems to be how the Introverted aspect of each function (F, T, S, N) compares to it's Extraverted form.
I think it'd be more helpful, in our case, if the test focused on gauging how the two pairs of introverted functions differ as rational functions, i.e. Introverted F vs T.
Perhaps that's the reason why the descriptions there seem overly fluffy and emotional (nearly cringeworthy) for Feeling, and exclusively analytical and logical for Thinking. You'd think a Fi-user wouldn't be able to work out a technical puzzle, or a Ti-user would care nothing about some "universal spirit of compassion".
Anyway, I should probably be posting this in your Fi vs Ti thread, but I think it's very relevant here. A description by Mythographeas' (an INFP) of Fi from PersonalityCafe:
I'm perfectly mentally capable of rigorous logic, I just question its value and the claim to objectivity. As I see it, the purely rational way of understanding the world is just as much based on irrational assumptions as a purely emotional one - the axiomata on which logic is based are not self-evident if one does not accept self-evidence. They're just as consistent as one another, with all of the Ti knowledge base cohering according to the rules of logic and all of the Fi knowledge base cohering according to principle and integrability with the ideal. As a dominant Ti type can dismiss the Fi knowledge base as irrelevant, so can an Fi dominant type dismiss the Ti knowledge base as irrelevant: e.g., I'm an INFP and an apatheist, meaning that if someone makes an objective and logically defended claim about the existence of God, I'm more likely to respond, "Why should I care? I know right from wrong on my own and it wouldn't change how I behave or what I believe," than to pick apart their argument. I could do the latter, but it's not necessary. Conversely, an INTP may need to pick apart their argument, because it would be insufficient to challenge that they wouldn't care even if it were true: they're interested in the truth for its own sake.
Both seek to achieve a qualitative understanding, but they prioritise different qualities. That's the ultimate difference, I suspect.
What do you think?
*awkward hug and pat* Ugh, now it feels like I was trying to persuade you towards this direction...so, uh, feel free to keep considering!I can certainly relate to Mythographeas' post about Fi. Truth for it's own sake is not as appealing to me as truth that holds personal significance to me. If I think about it, every time I've gone into my focused analytical mode trying to find that kernel of truth, it's because it's something I value personally. I wouldn't invest that much time and effort into finding the truth about something that doesn't really matter. Maybe Fi and Ti really are the same process after all--just with different priorities. Anyways, it looks like I may be an INFP after all. I really appreciate all your help, Vizzy!
A flawed assumption sir! Ive been reading about the functions for 2 days. Never read it once before then!I take it that people don't read about the functions?
Your a good teacher. Introverted Thinking is internal and Extraverted Thinking is external. Got it.In other words, Ti has internal purpose and Te has external purpose. So I would agree with the OP, though I wanted to add my 2 cents about Ti.
In other words, a Ti-user strives for correctness and a Te-user strives for efficiency. Or is your interpretation something else?
Effective is as relative as practical and usable. When I say "effective", I mean it as achieving the goal of anything but precision.I'm not sure about the use of "effective" because to Ti, something is most effective if it's accurate to begin with, and to Te, something is most effective if it is practical and usable.
(I didn't want to use fuzzy words like 'tendency' because I think no one accepts any of this theorising to be black and white anyway...at least, I hope not)..
An emphasis on Correctness (Ti) can mean:
- Following a proven method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the most correct/accurate results.
- Creating your own method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you more correct/accurate results.
- Categorizing and systemizing so that things make logical sense, first and foremost.
An emphasis on Efficiency (Te) can mean:
- Following a proven method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the result more quickly/efficiently.
- Creating your own method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the result more quickly/efficiently.
- Categorizing and systemizing so that things make practical sense, first and foremost.
Couple of suggestions on top of what has been said: Ti is striving for long-term "most correct" solution, Te more for immediate practical solution, that solves the problem now, sufficiently.
Also, Ti is looking for solutions to problems that do not even need addressing right now. Te is less likely to do so, because it's not efficient.
I think Te-users and Ti-users of different types might have a different idea what their T-functions strive for...
This is precisely how I come into conflict sometimes with Te users. I am interested in far more than just solving the problem *now*. I want to look at underlying principles that will allow us to avoid such problems from happening in the future or if they do arise, they will be easier to solve the next time. What I really hate is when there is a problem and there doesn't seem to be any good logical explanation as to what's causing it.
Some of the Te users seem short sighted in my mind because they just want to solve the problem and don't care so much about the underlying cause. Their attitude is, if it happens again, we'll worry about it then.
This is precisely how I come into conflict sometimes with Te users. I am interested in far more than just solving the problem *now*. I want to look at underlying principles that will allow us to avoid such problems from happening in the future or if they do arise, they will be easier to solve the next time. What I really hate is when there is a problem and there doesn't seem to be any good logical explanation as to what's causing it.
Some of the Te users seem short sighted in my mind because they just want to solve the problem and don't care so much about the underlying cause. Their attitude is, if it happens again, we'll worry about it then.
[MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION] [MENTION=13844]redcheerio[/MENTION]
Ti and Te both look for fallacies and problems as they're thinking functions.
A Ti-user will be just as likely to point out something that's not consistent...especially on online forums, and I can attest to that.
I'm hesitant to utlilize or work with a flawed system/test because if the principles are fishy, it'll probably produce flawed results, leading to misunderstandings and incorrect answers - all unnecessarily. This may be a simplification, but why bother branching something out when the root was questionable to begin with? I'd rather just stay at Step 1 and fully understand the root of the problem. I may never fully understand it, which may also mean I'll never get to the stage where something real is produced but I guess, as redcheerio said, that's one problem INTPs face. (And I speak for myself when I say I personally don't NEED to come to a conclusion anyway. If it weren't for external pressure...)
Te-users will (half-)accept a system and use it for the sake of reaching any conclusion/getting some empirical data. Point is, this sort of Te-ish tangible thinking (e.g. empirical data and something to show) is what our society seems to prefer.
Disclaimer: In my opinion.