I don't really have time to do that the justice it would deserve. Basically we get a sense of "how something works" just like that book "The Way Things Work" by David MacCauley (at least, I do). Except it just doesn't have to be machines, it can be people, social systems, economic systems, religious theology, whatever... big-picture cohesive function based on observation as well as rational theory. This is how we so easily recognize inconsistencies in underlying principles.
It depends on the person. I find it more useful to acknowledge the coherent parts of a model (whether it's a theory, person, machine, system, or whatever), as well as to highlight specifically what the flaw(s) is, and then envision (sometimes without even trying) what that flaw could be replaced with to make the whole thing consistent again. I think to reject an entire system just because it's flawed is kind of immature and unrealistic, you won't get far in life if you're that rigid; instead, recognize the flaws and then compensate for them / avoid them.
So you can learn from any flawed thing, as long as you can label the "flawed part" as such and just take the good stuff.
Interesting. I think Fi's would differ in that things don't have to be as congruent when applied to their system of belief. For me, I will look at a part and just have a feeling that this is somehow related and there is a grain of truth somewhere buried deep there... then again this might be my Ne working and my secondary function failing to catch up.
To quibble, I would not say that everyone has a portion of the truth, someone is capable of being ENTIRELY wrong... but -- going along with your point -- no one is capable of being ENTIRELY right. So I would take the good parts and see if I can integrate them in some way to make a universal model better.
I think Fi users will tend to rather accept many differing 'truths' especially when it comes to personal beliefs so they themselves have such strong values they hold to themselves that usually are different from society. They are less tended to construct their system with logical congruencies as Ti users seem to do as they seem to be more accepting of even what may seem to be illogical incongruencies, since feelings themselves may be illogical at times.
Well, once we get into philosophy in that sense, it's almost starting to sound spiritual/religious... at that point, whatever people want to believe is their own business. I can still criticize the rationale of the belief, but people are permitted to believe whatever want, however coherent or however incoherent. So it sounds like we both have the same response, but I think our motivations are a little different.
Right, I think a Fi user motivation would be self-acceptance of other people's beliefs as an external desire for others to be accept them as well. Kinda like the Golden Rule. A Ti user, from what I deduce reading what you wrote, will accept differing views of philosophy because spirituality/religion are not logical at all in their essence. Therefore on subjects where logic and rationality cannot apply, you will dismiss your opinion on such a subject.
That is a personal preference. However, INTPs are typically model builders i.e., architects by nature, so it's not far-fetched for the latter to occur naturally. ISTPs are more hands-on and would rather act according to a coherent model than sit around and define/speculate the model like the INTP would. (So one is more "think it" and the other is more "live it.")
I think you have a valid point. This highlights the importance from the secondary function (Se vs Ne) and just how much they would make even users who share the same first function of Ti very different.
I see that as unavoidable for big systems with no established/protective bondaries. The more complex a model becomes, and the less that one vision can direct it, the more ineffecient/muddled it's going to become regardless of good rationale or intent.
I think people have a tendency to try and instinctually break down complex things. This can be seen in how we will use the subconsciousness to ride a bike without having to consciously think about it or how we thrive on things that will make things easier, faster, more efficient, etc. So when people approach a complex society/government, they will approach at it with a subjective view and utilize the system to make it easier for themselves. Since sensors seem to make up most of the majority (I believe the estimates were around 65~75%), the system is changed, developed, and suited easier for Sensors. A system, no matter how objective and complex, will eventually break down into something more suited for the majority in order to gain efficiency.
What do you mean by comforted?
I guess it means I want some ENFJ momma lovin'.
ISTP might want to "solve it," INTP wants to "understand it" but otherwise might not feel the need to "fix" anything.
Agreed.
Oh, CBT? Yeah, I would consider that a therapeutic style that is very "T" in nature. You basically decide what healthy/productive behavior would look like (i.e., behavior that accomplishes your stated goals), then determine how to behave until you get there. You also detach from your current behavior and emotions in the process. You don't really need to dive into the feelings and understand them completely or resolve them, the goal is on producing functioning behavior that accomplishes your aims.
Right, and the current progress I've made so far with the changed mindset is amazing. I think that developing that kind of thinking (although I'm still quite far from achieving) has a lot of potential and is just what I need. However, due to my Fi nature, I almost have an incessant need to understand my feelings and make sure I have complete control until I can move on. Unfortunately, this leads to me rather brooding over my emotions and not getting any thinking done. Hopefully, maybe, exercising my Ti function can help with this.
