# Thread: Do N and T really go together?

1. Originally Posted by Athenian200
This isn't about being soulless. It's more about the way logic force-fits intuition into a simple, linear frame.

There's a line drawn between this concept and that, a connection identified, but if you like you could draw a curly squiggle and it's not linear no mo'.

2. hmmm, so you're saying Kalach, that the superpositon effect applies to a 2D spatial layout of intuition? I'd agree

3. First off, I take issue with the claim that T is always linear. I thought that Ti was the non-linear sort of logic, like the sort that you use on those IQ tests that ask you to fill in the missing part of the picture (the picture will have like 9 frames, but you have to analyze it as a whole to understand what piece should go in the ninth frame). You don't do that sequentially or in a linear, algebraic fashion (at least I don't). You have to first understand the whole thing to know which part is missing.

Also, even if my conception of Ti is not correct, and it is in fact linear, I still don't understand the claim that N and F is somehow more "natural" than N and T. You say that fitting the capabilities of N into the "limited box" of T is restricting. But isn't it the same for F? I mean, a judging function must by definition be limiting, because you use it to make a decision about something (whether something makes sense, what should be done, which option is best, what is most in line with our value system, what I like best, etc.,). And making a decision about something excludes the other possibilities that were present at the moment of decision. I don't see why limiting intuition in this fashion using subjective criteria (feeling) is somehow less restrictive than using objective or impersonal criteria (thinking).

4. Originally Posted by Kalach

There's a line drawn between this concept and that, a connection identified, but if you like you could draw a curly squiggle and it's not linear no mo'.

I see I'm going to have to define "linear."

lin?e?ar??[lin-ee-er]
4. involving measurement in one dimension only; pertaining to length: linear measure.
Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional, especially compared to Intuition. Everything is "true" or "false" with no nuance.

5. Originally Posted by Athenian200
Basically, I'm implying that Thinking is rather flat and one-dimensional
I'm so curious to take a peek inside your brain.

6. Originally Posted by Orangey
First off, I take issue with the claim that T is always linear. I thought that Ti was the non-linear sort of logic, like the sort that you use on those IQ tests that ask you to fill in the missing part of the picture (the picture will have like 9 frames, but you have to analyze it as a whole to understand what piece should go in the ninth frame). You don't do that sequentially or in a linear, algebraic fashion (at least I don't). You have to first understand the whole thing to know which part is missing.
Ah. I was thinking of T in general, not Ti specifically. Ti might be less linear.
Also, even if my conception of Ti is not correct, and it is in fact linear, I still don't understand the claim that N and F is somehow more "natural" than N and T. You say that fitting the capabilities of N into the "limited box" of T is restricting. But isn't it the same for F? I mean, a judging function must by definition be limiting, because you use it to make a decision about something (whether something makes sense, what should be done, which option is best, what is most in line with our value system, what I like best, etc.,). And making a decision about something excludes the other possibilities that were present at the moment of decision. I don't see why limiting intuition in this fashion using subjective criteria (feeling) is somehow less restrictive than using objective or impersonal criteria (thinking).
Well, the idea is that feelings, being subjective and holistic in process, tend to capture more of N in their decisions, because it's not so "cut and dried."

If you want the idea, it's basically:

N: Subjective, holistic perception.
F: Subjective, holistic judgment.
S: Objective, compartmentalized perception.
T: Objective, compartmentalized judgment.

I don't know where that come from, but that's what I was looking at before. I guess I didn't explain it very well.

7. Originally Posted by jenocyde
I'm so curious to take a peek inside your brain.
Why? Did I say something that makes it seem that my mind works strangely?

8. I'm beginning to think that the word "linear" should be automatically filtered out of posts.

9. Originally Posted by Athenian200

So, what is an NT, really? Is it an Intuitive that was forced to discipline their imagination into working with logic? Is it a conflicted person who tried to set up a strange compromise between the rational and irrational parts of their mind? Is it someone who wants to hide/destroy their own sensitivity for some reason?
Originally Posted by Athenian200

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel broken and unnatural with my idea.
You didn't. It was a sarcastic comment, mainly making fun of an NF tendency I've noticed. Some of you exhibit such a pompous sense of pity for anyone who cannot "feel" as you do, that you think ridiculous things like "N and T don't go together" and what I have quoted from you above in an attempt to figure it out. I find this entire topic to be funny.

I was merely trying to point out how they seem to originate from different places in the mind (and thus are based on conflicting methodologies about how reality should be processed), and then are forced to work together. The crossover might even result in a more disciplined, useful imagination. Hence NT intelligence... the result of the constant mental challenge of trying to reconcile these two processes.
The bolded is a ridiculous statement. NTs are largely responsible in explaining and creating the systems that accurately describe reality, yet apparently you think that's not how reality should be processed. There's nothing to reconcile. T and F are both rational functions, just with different criteria for decision making. If anything, you're looking at N through your Fe analysis of what it is, because nearly everything you've said about N so far I find to be absurd. It isn't "imagination" or "creativity." It's your preference of perception. That's it. N doesn't make a decisions as to how reality should be processed, it just determines what you tend to notice. T and F make decisions on how what you notice is processed.

Anyways, for me, I am not a conflicted individual trying to mediate apparently conflicting processes. They don't conflict, for me, they work in wonderful synergy. I love it. I love seeing possibilities, themes, glimpses of relationships, and using my dreadful, linear, boring, Ti to stamp out the beauty of Allmighty N. It warms my icy black NT heart.

Unfortunately I won't be able to explain much further if you have any questions until later on tonight, my co-workers are glaring at me, wondering why I'm not really doing anything constructive. Also do not take this personally, I just think your interpretation of how N and T and even N works is a bit misguided.

10. Originally Posted by Aleph-One
I'm beginning to think that the word "linear" should be automatically filtered out of posts.
Now that would really dismantle the discussion.

#### 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