MBTI functions in action, within politics.

[Vendrah]

Ok, its time for me to explain.

[MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION], [MENTION=19700]Tactical Turtleneck[/MENTION] your answers weren't much off, but one of the reasons I asked this is to see how much people on the thread are really paying attention to original Jung text (and it seems that in general they aren't much).
[MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION], "As very heavy Te user I think that this whole thing "Te ignores facts" is false", that is not true, I will just show ya.

So, question "when Te ignores data and facts?"
Straight answer: When the data and facts are against the Te-user intellectual formula.

That is it, that is the answer, but Im going to explain this better.

Some of you might not even heard the expression intellectual formula for Te; Although the websites out there suppress this entirely, it is the center of Te, where not only intellectual, but where the moralistic part - the fairness Te part that is usually associated with Thinking on the Fairness vs Compassion (with Fairness associated with Thinking and Compassion with Feeling side). Generally, people mistake Te morality with Fi quite easy (it is really an easy mistake to commit). Intellectual formula expression comes directly from Jung.

We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

I bold below the part where there is the answer but I took a whole paragraph to give more context to it.

In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

That is the answer (Dar. and Tact. Turt. were close, although quite specific) I will answer the thread with type and views later, gotta go now.

QUICK EDIT: Myself, I think this Jung description is very wide, and I have my own personal opinion that this transcends the Te-doms and the STJs and it is really wide. This applies to basically any ideology; left and right.

 

[Maou]

Ok, its time for me to explain.

[MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION], [MENTION=19700]Tactical Turtleneck[/MENTION] your answers weren't much off, but one of the reasons I asked this is to see how much people on the thread are really paying attention to original Jung text (and it seems that in general they aren't much).
[MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION], "As very heavy Te user I think that this whole thing "Te ignores facts" is false", that is not true, I will just show ya.

So, question "when Te ignores data and facts?"
Straight answer: When the data and facts are against the Te-user intellectual formula.

That is it, that is the answer, but Im going to explain this better.

Some of you might not even heard the expression intellectual formula for Te; Although the websites out there suppress this entirely, it is the center of Te, where not only intellectual, but where the moralistic part - the fairness Te part that is usually associated with Thinking on the Fairness vs Compassion (with Fairness associated with Thinking and Compassion with Feeling side). Generally, people mistake Te morality with Fi quite easy (it is really an easy mistake to commit). Intellectual formula expression comes directly from Jung.



I bold below the part where there is the answer but I took a whole paragraph to give more context to it.



That is the answer (Dar. and Tact. Turt. were close, although quite specific) I will answer the thread with type and views later, gotta go now.

QUICK EDIT: Myself, I think this Jung description is very wide, and I have my own personal opinion that this transcends the Te-doms and the STJs and it is really wide. This applies to basically any ideology; left and right.

I've learned 90% of typology via osmosis and listening people who have gone beyond just the original Jungian functions, who've personally sythasized or combined different theories. So I am definately not going to follow the text absolutely. That's too Te for me.

 

[Vendrah]

I've learned 90% of typology via osmosis and listening people who have gone beyond just the original Jungian functions, who've personally sythasized or combined different theories. So I am definately not going to follow the text absolutely. That's too Te for me.

While you do that, you are even more prone to Te actually...

 

[Vendrah]

I am best fitted at Centrist Liberal/Democrat/Left in US terms, but actually my political ideas have been changeable and have been becoming semi-unique (but since the focus is on the political "position", I think I don't need to explain them), they also change on the environment, and I think for the moment for the US and my country central left is the best (due to the excessive income inequality). I used to be more "classic liberal" (freedom, personal and secondarily market) a few years ago, but I was way more careless about politics.

In quite long term, I am a xNxP. I have been considering highly myself ENFP 59[7]2 , but I have been behaving a lot INTPish lately (perhaps more like a INTP 9 lately).

 

[Red Memories]

I consider myself a centrists. I usually type as ENFP 1w2.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

I consider myself between a social democrat and a democratic socialist. I believe it is a strong, robust welfare state (public education, guaranteed healthcare, and a minimum income) that is conducive to a strong society and economy, not "small government" or the absence of government regulation. I also believe in economic democracy and can conceive of a world in which workers either 1) have a strong say in the direction of a company and can possibly vote for executives; 2) own and run the enterprise collectively (workers' co-op, essentially). ENTP 7 so/sp.

 

[ygolo]