The Opposite of Truth

[Salomé]

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.

This is true. But it's a meta-value.

Of course everyone has values, everyone also has all of the functions at their disposal. But Ti doesn't do "what do I care about?" If it did, we wouldn't need Fi, would we?

We're trying to delineate function use. Why this is so controversial is truly baffling.

What no one has yet asked is "What function do Ti-doms use when they lie?"

 

[Poki]

This is true. But it's a meta-value.

Of course everyone has values, everyone also has all of the functions at their disposal. But Ti doesn't do "what do I care about?" If it did, we wouldn't need Fi, would we?

We're trying to delineate function use. Why this is so controversial is truly baffling.

What no one has yet asked is "What function do Ti-doms use when they lie?"

I would say for me its Se with Ni. Things that are semi true and my focus becomes truth rather then the lie. I can move from Ni concept to using Se in a shallow or blurred manner. Some call it a white lie, others call it partial truth. For me the focus is on the truth.

edit: sometimes its external truth, sometimes its internal truth.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

People lie with all the functions. I would say that the lies are complex in different ways for each type. Let's take ISTP. When the person is trying to create a lie he wants to make it believable. That is his ultimate goal. What does he have at his immediate disposal. Se: This function is searched through by Ti to make sure that the pictoral information that he is going to lie about makes sense according to the lie (that being it looks like the truth). Ni searches through the lie(s) (Se-Ti construct) in order to see if every angle (or in this case most of the angles because it is teritary this aspect of the lie may not be as complex) of this lie has been covered so no one uncovers the truth. Finally Fe comes in here and examines the amount of damage this lie will cause and ultimately chooses based on that. These will be the aspects of an ISTP's lie that will be the most complex (barring the situation at hand).

 

[Salomé]

^Maybe...but you didn't cover the first part - which function provides the motivation to lie?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I know that I lie sometimes to prove a logical point; if someone is being an idiot, or some sort and I'll tell them a lie just to show how gullable/illogical/sheepish they may be. So because of my need for logical thinking if Ti is being ignored by someone else I lie. Motivation a la Ti. Howeva this is a value (a personal one at that) so I'd say Fi. When a value is crossed people lie to prove points. This is an Fi based lie.

It depends on whether you believe Fi being the last in our list of functions that makes them unimportant and weak, or unused and unrestrained in strength.

 

[Salomé]

I know that I lie sometimes to prove a logical point; if someone is being an idiot, or some sort and I'll tell them a lie just to show how gullable/illogical/sheepish they may be. So because of my need for logical thinking if Ti is being ignored by someone else I lie. Motivation a la Ti. Howeva this is a value (a personal one at that) so I'd say Fi. When a value is crossed people lie to prove points. This is an Fi based lie.

It depends on whether you believe Fi being the last in our list of functions that makes them unimportant and weak, or unused and unrestrained in strength.

First of all, Fi isn't last in the INTP function list, Fe is. (according to Thomson, also check out the Cog Funcs tests - for INTPs Fi>Fe in most cases. I actually have stats somewhere, but not to hand).

That's not a Ti motivation for lying. I read that as a Fe motivation - your intent is to manipulate the person/situation. It's also immature (no offence, but if you have to resort to lying to prove a point then you don't really have a case), ergo inferior Fe.

Devil's advocate is something else. It doesn't fall within my definition of lying because there is no intent to deceive - it's a rhetorical device. Rhetoric is about persuasion though - which again is Fe or requires Fe use.
Ti doesn't care if anyone else knows the Truth - it is enough that it exists and is understood. Making other people understand is a secondary consideration for Ti-doms - if it comes up at all.

 

[Poki]

I know that I lie sometimes to prove a logical point; if someone is being an idiot, or some sort and I'll tell them a lie just to show how gullable/illogical/sheepish they may be. So because of my need for logical thinking if Ti is being ignored by someone else I lie. Motivation a la Ti. Howeva this is a value (a personal one at that) so I'd say Fi. When a value is crossed people lie to prove points. This is an Fi based lie.

It depends on whether you believe Fi being the last in our list of functions that makes them unimportant and weak, or unused and unrestrained in strength.

Nice way to force values on people Sounds TeFi to me, the tides can be turned and a FeTi user can pull that same thing. Some people dont really care about those things, they dont fear being gullible, illogical, or sheepish.

 

[Jaguar]

I know that I lie sometimes to prove a logical point; if someone is being an idiot, or some sort and I'll tell them a lie just to show how gullable/illogical/sheepish they may be. So because of my need for logical thinking if Ti is being ignored by someone else I lie. Motivation a la Ti. Howeva this is a value (a personal one at that) so I'd say Fi. When a value is crossed people lie to prove points. This is an Fi based lie.

It depends on whether you believe Fi being the last in our list of functions that makes them unimportant and weak, or unused and unrestrained in strength.

It's pathetic for you to claim people lie when their values are crossed, just because you do it. That's pure horse shit, and a cop out.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

First of all, Fi isn't last in the INTP function list, Fe is. (according to Thomson, also check out the Cog Funcs tests - for INTPs Fi>Fe in most cases. I actually have stats somewhere, but not to hand).

That's not a Ti motivation for lying. I read that as a Fe motivation - your intent is to manipulate the person/situation. It's also immature (no offence, but if you have to resort to lying to prove a point then you don't really have a case), ergo inferior Fe.

Devil's advocate is something else. It doesn't fall within my definition of lying because there is no intent to deceive - it's a rhetorical device. Rhetoric is about persuasion though - which again is Fe or requires Fe use.
Ti doesn't care if anyone else knows the Truth - it is enough that it exists and is understood. Making other people understand is a secondary consideration for Ti-doms - if it comes up at all.

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.

 

[Jaguar]

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.

 

[Aleksei]

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.

 

[Poki]

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.

 

[Salomé]

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.

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[Poki]

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

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[Jaguar]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

In some respects that would be true.