# Thread: The Opposite of Truth

1. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
I believe I said "I know that I.." meaning I don't know if others do, which in turn means I excluded everyone else. It's illogical to say that people don't lie when their values are crossed. I think people can be desperate enough to do so.
You're copping out again, right now. These are your own words:
When a value is crossed people lie to prove points.
If you want to weasel out of what you post, right after you post it, it might be a good idea not to post rubbish to begin with.

2. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
What do people use to lie?
That would depend on the kind of lie they're generating. I generally use Ne, Si, Ti and Te.

3. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
I was considering the last 'shadow function' to be the last function that we use. I don't know which theory that corresponds with, but I wanted to clarify that. What does one do when they are not understood? It may be a stretch to say, but lying is a form of reaching the truth. I may lie at times to get to the truth because the lie analyzes why it is not the truth. This forces to analyze what is true and makes the truth known. So if Ti simply wishes that the truth exists and is understood they may lie in order to do so for the points previous to this statement. I don't really care if it's an unhealthy way of doing things it is another means to the same end.
Ti is used to see logic intenrally, Ti is used to play with whats true, Ti is used to find truth. I see no direct lies here, I must escape in some way or another from Ti to lie and I do this via Se and Ni.

4. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
I was considering the last 'shadow function' to be the last function that we use. I don't know which theory that corresponds with, but I wanted to clarify that. What does one do when they are not understood? It may be a stretch to say, but lying is a form of reaching the truth. I may lie at times to get to the truth because the lie analyzes why it is not the truth. This forces to analyze what is true and makes the truth known. So if Ti simply wishes that the truth exists and is understood they may lie in order to do so for the points previous to this statement. I don't really care if it's an unhealthy way of doing things it is another means to the same end.
I don't really understand this concept. Perhaps you can give me an example.

5. Originally Posted by Jennifer
It's unfortunately that T is also conscious, and it's also chosen because it's a value of the user. We value detachment in our evaluation process.

So while values -> motivation, everyone has values, and one of T's values is using T and approaching things in a detached fashion.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you are making it either, because of this basic, simple truth.
I see what you're saying. I'm not saying we are not motivated to use Thinking. I'm saying Thinking isn't the function motivating us to use thinking. Since the scope of Thinking doesn't include anything about personal importance, how could it conclude anything about personal motivation?

Again, you're over-simplifying. iNtuition is about focusing on the ramifications and connections between data rather than the data directly. It's not equivalent to the subconscious/unconscious.

And who says the unconscious is always abstracted? Do you think Sensors still are driven by concepts, or are there very specific details that have been ingrained into the subconscious that they are responding to? It's not a concept necessarily, it can be a literal sense impression that people respond autonomatically too.
I guess I've done a bit of my own theorizing here, too. I do think sensors are driven largely by concepts -- everyone is. The concepts come from N functions. I don't think Sensors have any deficiency using Intuition, they just stop it before it gets too far away from reality (which, for some reason, I can't do )

Sometimes the conceptualization occurs when we TALK about it -- i.e., someone had a specific bad experience, now they operate a certain way in real life that is not appropriate as a direct result, and N's conceptualize the specific event into an idea that is then discussed as if the person specifically has that concept embeded... but in reality, it's still really just the specific event that was embedded.
I consider language to be completely dependent on intuition (and sensing too). Each word is a metaphor for some concept -- it's past the point of concrete now -- it's just a bunch of analogies.

Apparently not... based on just how there is still disagreement over whether your suggestions make sense here.
Yeah, I wasn't really directing that at anyone except Wonka. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me -- this is just my theoretical understanding of the system. I got pretty personally affronted earlier, so it's possible I said some things I can't really back, sorry. If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

I just have a problem with someone choosing not to try to understand me and implying I somehow have autistic ways of thinking.

6. So if you one uses lies to prove things, does that make the lie a truth?

7. 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.

8. Originally Posted by poki
Ti is used to see logic intenrally, Ti is used to play with whats true, Ti is used to find truth. I see no direct lies here, I must escape in some way or another from Ti to lie and I do this via Se and Ni.
Ti knows what is true and that's the basis of which the lie can be altered. Se and Ni would alter the truth (Ti). You have a point though. This isn't motivation per se, just a foundation for the lie.

9. Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR
When did defending an idea become a cop out? I'm not denying my first post, I would like to point out that you are creating a giant generalization out of a personal experience that I've had... Not you.
You strike me as one who would argue their hand is only "partially" in the cookie jar. HAHAHAHA. What a crock.

10. In some respects that would be true.

#### 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