Ti vs. Te <split>

[MacGuffin]

No, no, you're right for once.

For the first time ever???

 

[Haphazard]

But Guffin, we'd love to have you on our team!

 

[MacGuffin]

But Guffin, we'd love to have you on our team!

Do I get the secret decoder ring now?

 

[Haphazard]

Do I get the secret decoder ring now?

Not until you send in those box tops.

 

[Uytuun]

An observation: BW reminds me of athenian200, they are both excessively dry in their writing. Both claim to be Ti users and both have also been put into the Te camp...but...where is the Ne and the Ni?

Also, when I am naturally obsessed with making sure that at no point in my argument I contradict myself/can be interpreted as contradicting myself or do things that upset the argument's logic and try to make sure I have as many logical possibilites covered as I can think of, is that Te at work or Ti?

 

[MacGuffin]

Also, when I am naturally obsessed with making sure that at no point in my argument I contradict myself/can be interpreted as contradicting myself or do things that upset the argument's logic and try to make sure I have as many logical possibilites covered as I can think of, is that Te at work or Ti?

Ti. Do you get paralyzed and unable to speak/write your argument?

 

[lastrailway]

I'd say someone who first jumps to the conclusion and then constructs the arguments and theories to support this conclusion, is more likely to be using Te. The lists, bulletpoints, etc, might be auxiliary methods Te thinkers use to make their points more clear to their audience, but the essence of Te is the way TJs think, how their thinking starts from the result and goes backwards to justify this result.

 

[Uytuun]

Ti. Do you get paralyzed and unable to speak/write your argument?

Often the possibilities overwhelm me and I feel that I can never reproduce them and the endless movement they can put into motion in words.

It is the same I have with Ni, only Ni is more out of the blue and poetical...I've been known to write 13-line sentences because it just rolled out like that.

I'm also insanely aware of inconsistencies in other people's argument and find some of the theoretical articles I read to be sloppy.

 

[Gabe]

I'd say someone who first jumps to the conclusion and then constructs the arguments and theories to support this conclusion, is more likely to be using Te. The lists, bulletpoints, etc, might be auxiliary methods Te thinkers use to make their points more clear to their audience, but the essence of Te is the way TJs think, how their thinking starts from the result and goes backwards to justify this result.

Everyone who writes up something here has already come to a conclusion before they write it (except for a few Ne's who might think of new stuff while they're writing). It is obvious that BW made his conclusion long before (months?) he wrote is 'papers' here on this forum.

 

[Haphazard]

From this, it would make sense that BlueWing is a Te dom.

 

[Uytuun]

except for a few Ne's who might think of new stuff while they're writing

Ok, either I'm completely mistyped, or your assertion is wrong. Ni is perfectly capable of providing new insights that might result in the adaptation of (parts of) the argument.

 

[Haphazard]

Ok, either I'm completely mistyped, or your assertion is wrong. Ni is perfectly capable of providing new insights that might result in the adaptation of (parts of) the argument.

People are usually fairly good with both the introverted and extroverted version of their dominant function, I've noticed -- they just don't lean on the one not in their type code nearly as much.

 

[MacGuffin]

Ok, either I'm completely mistyped, or your assertion is wrong. Ni is perfectly capable of providing new insights that might result in the adaptation of (parts of) the argument.

Sounds more like Ne.

Ni is that ability to have the conclusion just come to you. Then you pick it apart. If you're only making minor changes, that's probably your judging (T/F) function.

 

[lastrailway]

Everyone who writes up something here has already come to a conclusion before they write it (except for a few Ne's who might think of new stuff while they're writing). It is obvious that BW made his conclusion long before (months?) he wrote is 'papers' here on this forum.

Yeah, this is obvious.

What is also obvious in my opinion is that, anybody who submits an idea/conclusion in a forum for discussion, can take different approaches to the discussion that follows:
1) Examine the input they receive, evaluate it, if it makes sense see whether it fits or not in their rationale, and, if it doesn't fit, they re-examine the corner stones of their argument and the basic principles in which they based it.
2) Examine the input they receive, evaluate if it reinforces or not the conclusion they submitted, if it doesn't but does make sense, they try to alter the construction in ways to incorporate it or refute it, without touching their original conclusion.

 

[Athenian200]

An observation: BW reminds me of athenian200, they are both excessively dry in their writing. Both claim to be Ti users and both have also been put into the Te camp...but...where is the Ne and the Ni?

You don't like me, do you?

 

[Venom]

1. Te cuts through bullshit like a knife through butter.
2. if BW were to ever use Te, he would start by breaking up his page long paragraphs into actual POINTS
3. BW is an INTP with underdeveloped Ne, Te... IMHO

 

[lastrailway]

1. Te cuts through bullshit like a knife through butter.
2. if BW were to ever use Te, he would start by breaking up his page long paragraphs into actual POINTS
3. BW is an INTP with underdeveloped Ne, Te... IMHO

This could have been a Te-like argument (it is not, actually, but resembles):
You start with a conclusion (1).
Based on this conclusion, you construct an argument (2).

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

You guys are making too much of this whole, "stating the conclusion first" thing. In certain academic settings it is convention to state your conclusion first, and then explain how you arrived at that conclusion. I know this is standard in mathematics, and I believe it's common in philosophy too (which we all know BW studies a lot). The phenomenon of stating the conclusion first has more to do with education than type.

 

[redacted]

yeah the whole "coming to the conclusion before you write" thing seems completely irrelevant to me.

basically Te and Ti have a lot of overlap, but Te focuses on relevant understanding and Ti focuses on full understanding (but not necessarily relevant). i know i already said this, but it's just so much more simple to think about it this way...

 

[MacGuffin]

The conclusion thing is not so much how the supposed INTJ writes, but how the supposed INTJ thinks.

There is not much backtracking or reanalysis. The conclusion remains, no matter how misguided it is.