[MBTI General] T's no more logical/rational than F's?

[andresimon]

Funny, I was about to ask the same question out of you, considering that you've found some way of opposing virtually everyone else's opinion so far.

And for the record, I did admit that I could be wrong from the very beginning, by claiming "everyone is free to debate me on this". But by 'debate', I did NOT mean to give license for people to call all that oppose their opinion "morons". I do not, in all seriousness believe, and never HAVE in all seriousness believed, that ENFPs are the spawn of evil. I'm only saying that almost all of the ones I've ran into have actually displayed evil behavior because they didn't know how to handle a crisis. Again, I know that in theory not all ENFPs are incapable of handling a crisis, but my own experience suggests otherwise. People can tell me that I'm wrong with words and theories, but they ultimately can't contradict what I've seen with my own, first-hand experience.

With this being said, I'm not immature enough to tell you to stop talking, but could I instead, politely ask you to demonstrate a bit more maturity? You might actually gain more supporters that way.

Leaving all past baggage aside, why do you think this thread needs to be closed?

You asked if T's are more rational than F's. And I sent you a link showing that both T & F are considered rational functions and that N & S are considered irrational functions. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. As far as you admitting you are wrong. Saying you CAN be wrong in a general sense is not the same as saying you are wrong in a SPECIFIC situation, namely THIS ONE.

As far as your view on ENFP's and your experiences. The operative phrase is YOUR EXPERIENCES and your own VIEW on YOUR EXPERIENCES. Someone else could see what the people you interacted with did and not view them as "evil." You are applying the wrong stereotypes to the wrong type. No type is ALL evil, this isn't even arguable. Although you did try and make THAT argument when you asked and answered, "Does this mean ALL Enfp's are evil" ..."Yes."

As far as opposing virtually EVERYONE else's opinion so far goes. It can be 1 person, 1000 people, or a billion people. Going against the grain doesn't make an argument true or false, good or bad, just or unjust. For being "logical" you sure do commit a SHIT TON of logical fallacies.

I'm not just arguing that you are wrong, I'm also pointing out to people that the things you say are not worth listening to because you are a BAD source of information. And frankly the fact that you won't own up to your mistakes in this situation, is just further proof of that. Were I to JUST attack your character without supporting the argument, then yes, that would be bad form.

Expressing emotions isn't a sign of immaturity. I'm not "acting catty" I'm expressing outrage for the things you are saying and passion for the things I believe and know to be true.

 

[andresimon]

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you want. I have no interest in arguing with the shadows in your mirror.

Until such a time that you can at least provide some evidence to support your claims, there is no point in continuing this discussion. We will just have to agree to disagree.

As I said. THE EVIDENCE IS BRIGGS MYERS. It's the basis of the subject matter we are talking about. it is VERY LITERATELY what the letters represent. That's the discovery, the essence, the entire basis of Jung's work. What else do you want me to say about it? Sorry you missed it?

 

[Bush]

INTP's are WAY more zoomed in than ISTJs. ISTJ's focus on universal linear principles first and INTP's focus on situational data and details first.

Every source on the face of the planet would disagree with you.

Take, for example, everybody:

https://www.google.com/search?q=int...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[Bush]

As I said. THE EVIDENCE IS BRIGGS MYERS. It's the basis of the subject matter we are talking about. it is VERY LITERATELY what the letters represent. That's the discovery, the essence, the entire basis of Jung's work. What else do you want me to say about it? Sorry you missed it?

...... quotes? Source? Anything?

 

[andresimon]

Every source on the face of the planet would disagree with you.

Take, for example, everybody:

https://www.google.com/search?q=int...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Not every source, just the incorrect ones.

 

[Bush]

Not every source, just the incorrect ones.

So virtually every source on the face of the planet is wrong. I'll reluctantly accept that.

 

[andresimon]

So virtually every source on the face of the planet is wrong. I'll reluctantly accept that.

Virtually yes.

 

[andresimon]

So virtually every source on the face of the planet is wrong. I'll reluctantly accept that.

GALILEO THE WORLD IS FLAT!!! You would think we would have a mechanism where we look at the past and realize that majority doesn't = accuracy. And yet no such mechanism exists, we repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Bush]

GALILEO THE WORLD IS FLAT!!! You would think we would have a mechanism where we look at the past and realize that majority doesn't = accuracy. And yet no such mechanism exists, we repeat the same mistakes.

Galileo had at least one shred of evidence, if not more.

 

[Qlip]

To be clear, 'Objectively' in this context is directly related to Extraverted Thinking and not Thinking in general. It is referring to things in the world (as opposed to the mind).

If you are interested, here is Jung's definition of Thinking:

Good point. I feel like I can only understand Ti by comparing it to my experience with Fi, it's as if whatever Fe focuses on inscribes internal patterns.... I'll have to mull this over when I can this weekend, I've got a full docket.

From a personal point of view. I can be logical (hah) and practical, and I definitely have a strong grasp on what it takes to accomplish things in the world. I've got a pretty solid knowledge of materials and mechanical things, more than basic logistics, actual logic, a pretty good idea of my own physical abilities (in potential and current) but such things aren't any where near my primary concern. They were gained mostly in trying to understand why: the world seems fundamentally broken and how I can fix it. And also being able to be in a place of clarity where I can understand myself and others.

 

[andresimon]

Galileo had at least one shred of evidence, if not more.

Evidence is the bitch of intent and purpose. Seek wisdom. In this case though. I'm done with this argument. Go buy BOOKS on MBTI and Jung. And read them. And you will find what I say to be true. I'm not going to search google to try and provide a source and frankly even if I had a source (I posted sources previously in this thread) it would not make a difference.

 

[Bush]

Evidence is the bitch of intent and purpose. Seek wisdom. In this case though. I'm done with this argument. Go buy BOOKS on MBTI and Jung. And read them. And you will find what I say to be true. I'm not going to search google to try and provide a source and frankly even if I had a source (I posted sources previously in this thread) it would not make a difference.

You posted a single source that had absolutely nothing to do about how INTPs are the most zoomed in of types.

C'mon. I bothered to Google search for you.

 

[Poki]

"More like" means you disagree with something I said. From what I can tell, you half ass forced your inaccurate opinion on the world. When you have a hard time understanding the big picture focus on details. That would be my advise to you.

LMAO, you have a brain...of course more like means I disagree with something. Must have been them there details that pointed that out. Cant get nothing past that sharp eye of yours. You just throwing punches at this point?

Learn who you are speaking to before giving advice You are talking to someone that has no issues with big picture nor details. Half ass throwing out advice or do you actually know me? Never actually reerred to your half ass, was referring to Fe half ass, but if you wanna reveal your half ass side...by all means reveal the moon.

 

[andresimon]

LMAO, you have a brain...of course more like means I disagree with something. Must have been them there details that pointed that out. Cant get nothing past that sharp eye of yours. You just throwing punches at this point?

Learn who you are speaking to before giving advice You are talking to someone that has no issues with big picture nor details. Half ass throwing out advice or do you actually know me? Never actually reerred to your half ass, was referring to Fe half ass, but if you wanna reveal your half ass side...by all means reveal the moon.

lollll...oh we have a detective over here. No shit Sherlock I was being sarcastic. Must have flew over your head. INTP's like ISTP's have an inferior Fe. They focus on universal principles LAST. Hence they are more likely than not to be bad at it. Does that mean you CANNOT be good at it? No...but it's rare and it is not your dominant strength and it NEVER will be. If you have developed your first four functions to the degree you are mentioning, then please write a book or something because you are a rare individual.FYI it is far more likely for you to THINK you are big picture then for you to actually be big picture oriented. It is far more likely you don't see your own blind spots and/or ceiling. But like you so elegantly mentioned we are not talking about YOU, your initial statement about Fe's was logically, ethically, and empirically, INACCURATE. Based on what you said, you have no idea how Fe interacts with the other functions for various types. As far as me throwing a punch at you, you clearly rolled yourself into the mix with the way you worded your initial rebuttal. If you don't see that, go read what you wrote again. The statement you made was about you AND other inferior Fe users. (Yes i do realize you are part of that group) At least that's how I read it.

And I will give you the same advice I gave you. Focus on details and data and through that you can develop your other functions as well. Bye bye wolverine.

 

[andresimon]

You posted a single source that had absolutely nothing to do about how INTPs are the most zoomed in of types.

C'mon. I bothered to Google search for you.

Yes it had to do with another topic. I didn't see everyone LOL'ing at this post. Changing their stance on F and T functions. I didn't see the heavens parting. What I saw is everyone, including the original creator of this thread, saying the sameeeee shit. I'm not going to bother.

 

[andresimon]

You posted a single source that had absolutely nothing to do about how INTPs are the most zoomed in of types.

C'mon. I bothered to Google search for you.

Are you an INTP? What is your type?

 

[Poki]

lollll...oh we have a detective over here. No shit Sherlock I was being sarcastic. Must have flew over your head. INTP's like ISTP's have an inferior Fe. They focus on universal principles LAST. Hence they are more likely than not to be bad at it. Does that mean you CANNOT be good at it? No...but it's rare and it is not your dominant strength and it NEVER will be. If you have developed your first four functions to the degree you are mentioning, then please write a book or something because you are a rare individual.FYI it is far more likely for you to THINK you are big picture then for you to actually be big picture oriented. It is far more likely you don't see your own blind spots and/or ceiling. But like you so elegantly mentioned we are not talking about YOU, your initial statement about Fe's was logically, ethically, and empirically, INACCURATE. Based on what you said, you have no idea how Fe interacts with the other functions for various types. As far as me throwing a punch at you, you clearly rolled yourself into the mix with the way you worded your initial rebuttal. If you don't see that, go read what you wrote again. The statement you made was about you AND other inferior Fe users. (Yes i do realize you are part of that group) At least that's how I read it.

And I will give you the same advice I gave you. Focus on details and data and through that you can develop your other functions as well. Bye bye wolverine.

Yeah over my head...lmao. I am as rare as you will find your to blind by personality to even see what's in front of you. Again spout stuff about me that you have no clue, but hey because you read books...I read people. You fail to impress me with your knowledge of people...but you know what...you may know mbti...see yeah book worm....I am busy reading people...instead of telling them who they are. But you know what I don't see big picture...I thought real life and reading people mattered most, but I am so glad you showed me that mbti is so much more informative. No one that knows me would have a clue I wasn't both big picture and little detal. I have fooled everyone that knows me, my job, my family, my friends. So glad I have mbti to tell me that no one can see who I am.

Bow down to the all knowing mbti lord..lmao

 

[Coriolis]

Thinking is an action, logic is not an action. Logic is the outcome of the action. Also...just because you can apply logic after the fact does not mean you are a logical person. It's the application beforehand that makes you a logical person. To many people spout shit after the fact using hindsight to logically support them, but that did not come into play beforehand.

It's complicated. I would say on average F is not any less logical then T. Logical is more dependent on knowledge and data then F vs T. BOUNCED around due to complexity of topic and lack of desire to write a novel touching on all aspect.

Logic is a process. Emotions, values, facts, and observations are all inputs to that process. This is why perfect logic (i.e. flawless application of the process) can still lead to nonsensical or even disastrous results: the inputs are flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

I on the other hand I was at home, I was good, had atleast a half tank of gas incase I needed to get anywhere, and I don't want to take away gas from those who actually needed it. If i ran out i could figure something out, or just stay at home. So I stayed home, chilled and avoided the entire mess while I was on the phone with someone who panicked and got stuck in a gas station that was so crowded no one could move, was frustrated, and bitching.

Good example. Both you and the guy who filled up gas tanks used a perfectly sound logical process. You started with different inputs, though - principally values and observations.

Buuuut, a Thinker cannot be essentially objective and still function, they still have a subjective (Feeling) function that they need to operate as a person. The same for Feelers. The difference between Thinkers and Feelers is entirely in emphasis and not in essence. We're the same-ish, at least enough to invoke a canny valley, which is why this thread exists.

Thinkers must augment their objective data with subjective data - namely values and priorities. We in fact do this, or we couldn't ever make a decision at all. We may be less comfortable in this subjective space, though, and if we are not clear on our own values, can run into big trouble.

I understand this type of thinking very well; in fact, my ISTP s.o. and I have similar opinions on how panic, no matter what type, can cause a situation to spiral out of control, especially more likely with Te if it doesn't take in other factors.

Again, Te must take into account more than those objective factors. This is where Fi is supposed to help.

This is similar to claiming F's are more empathetic or more compassionate than T's. . .

This was a very good summation.

So virtually every source on the face of the planet is wrong. I'll reluctantly accept that.

Virtually yes.

Evidence is the bitch of intent and purpose. Seek wisdom. In this case though. I'm done with this argument. Go buy BOOKS on MBTI and Jung. And read them. And you will find what I say to be true. I'm not going to search google to try and provide a source and frankly even if I had a source (I posted sources previously in this thread) it would not make a difference.

So you are directing our esteemed Mr Crothers to references that are wrong? How thoughtful.

BY DEFINITION this thread should be closed. Do you admit when you are wrong?

You are in no position to make this request, or to put this question to others, based on your contributions to this thread.

lol you're an evasive one aren't you.

No, just intellectually irresponsible, or perhaps simply lazy. People who really have a case are usually quite pleased to make it and actually demonstrate their superior knowledge/reasoning rather than simply claim it.

 

[Poki]

Logic is a process. Emotions, values, facts, and observations are all inputs to that process. This is why perfect logic (i.e. flawless application of the process) can still lead to nonsensical or even disastrous results: the inputs are flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.


Good example. Both you and the guy who filled up gas tanks used a perfectly sound logical process. You started with different inputs, though - principally values and observations.


Thinkers must augment their objective data with subjective data - namely values and priorities. We in fact do this, or we couldn't ever make a decision at all. We may be less comfortable in this subjective space, though, and if we are not clear on our own values, can run into big trouble.


Again, Te must take into account more than those objective factors. This is where Fi is supposed to help.


This was a very good summation.




So you are directing our esteemed Mr Crothers to references that are wrong? How thoughtful.


You are in no position to make this request, or to put this question to others, based on your contributions to this thread.


No, just intellectually irresponsible, or perhaps simply lazy. People who really have a case are usually quite pleased to make it and actually demonstrate their superior knowledge/reasoning rather than simply claim it.

Logic is like a solid...it's not a process. It is an affect of the process. Creating logic is the process. Creating the action, logic the outcome. I actually utilize what I call a fuzzy logic...others call it sense...fuzzy logic is neither known as true or false...it just has the ability with data and knowledge given to possibly be true. It adds anew additional unknown to the logical equations and allows a state of Flux so the blanks can be filled in...aka more data or knowledge.

 

[Coriolis]

Logic is like a solid...it's not a process. It is an affect of the process. Creating logic is the process. Creating the action, logic the outcome. I actually utilize what I call a fuzzy logic...others call it sense...fuzzy logic is neither known as true or false...it just has the ability with data and knowledge given to possibly be true. It adds anew additional unknown to the logical equations and allows a state of Flux so the blanks can be filled in...aka more data or knowledge.

I disagree here, though it might just be a matter of semantics. You use the word "logic" for the outcome, I use it for the process. As I see it (and learned it), logic is a set of rules which, when applied, will return a certain outcome. Doesn't really matter, though, as long as we are clear on each other's meaning.