MBTI Te Versus Ti Logic

[2PhiloVoid]

You sometimes let your emotions get the better of you? I've heard that INFJ is a pretty common false result, despite INFJs being fairly rare. I always get INTP.

Yes, my emotions get the better of me at times. I've never actually registered as on the MBTI as an INFJ. I've always been an INTJ in each assessment I've taken, but the last MBTI I took added a new measure of "turbulent" where the T factor was assessed, making it almost borderline.

Here's what it said: INTJ-T: Someone with this subtype is known as the "Turbulent Architect" and has a greater concern about the areas where they may fall short, whether in reality or perception. They also tend to use this concern to their advantage by pushing themselves harder and paying more attention to detail. (..... unless, **cough** they get burned out and demotivated )

I can see how you'd register as a solid INTP. It shows in your writing, or at least it does in what we see of it on this side of the keyboard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the major issue I have with it .. If my personality type radically shifts over a typical hour/day/week/month/year, then what is the benefit it offers? I can't use it for practical purposes other than to conclude humans move all over the MBTI chart over time .. (which we already know).

I hear you. But it does seem like the older Type-A/Type-B distinction is too simple and more could be assessed than merely that a person is extroverted or introverted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been looking more and more into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personaity types lately. Within the MBTI model, each person has a thinking cognitive function which deals with how we apply logic to situations (as opposed to feeling cognitive functions that apply emotion). A person will have either extroverted thinking (Te) or introverted thinking (Ti), which doesn't necessarily match up to whether a person is overall extroverted or introverted. Extroverted thinking looks to outside sources for logic, while introverted thinking develops a personal sense of logic.

But the Te habit of reaching out to society for logic sources got me to thinking about using Youtube and similar sources for arguments about scientific topics here. Now, using online videos as examples or for information is one thing. I'm talking about making arguments via videos. That is, a forum member makes an assertion and points to a video that provides the argument for that statement. That's a typical Te thing to do. Ti thinkers are far more likely to use their personal logic to make an argument and would use a video to present their argument only if it matches their own logic, and they have a hard time expressing the argument themselves.

Bonus Te points for saying that if you disagree with the logic, you should take it up with the person in the video.

This has made me realize that trying to engage some people in a logic argument over a YouTube video isn't going to work. The problem is that the Te thinker is using the logic of the video to judge which of us makes more sense. They don't have a personal sense of logic to judge my criticism of the video. Once the Te thinkers latch onto an outside source, that outside source will always make more sense to them. If they have a highly developed Te function, they'll probably use sources that have a broad consensus in society. But if not, or if they're feeding a strong personal philosophy (due to a highly developed introverted intuitive function) they could conceivably latch onto things like nutty conspiracy theory sites.

Basically, what it comes down to is that if I spot Te thinkers, I can pretty much give up on debating any videos they bring up. It would be pointless. All I can do is point out any misinformation or logical contradictions for casual viewers. Am I looking at this wrong? Keep in mind that I don't want to paint Te as overall a bad thing. Both Te and Ti have their advantages and disadvantages.

Here's a video that doesn't make my argument for me. It's just an example of some differences between Te and Ti.

As for the comment about how a Te thinker "latches onto an outside source, and that outside source will always make more sense to them," you might keep in mind that a Te may have a wide array of outside sources that are referenced, and the presentation of but one video is seen by the Te to be just that, one source from an array of interdisciplinary intertextuality. These multiple strands of interplay strengthen and reinforce the perceived coherence the Te has of of the Te's sources, This broad interconnection could be potentially strong if the sources are indeed cogent on each respective point that could be analyzed, and this strength of coherence won't sit well with the Ti who appreciates figuring things out for himself instead.

The downside, though, could also be that the Te ends up instead in extreme delusion if the collection of sources trusted are themselves esoteric in nature and/or situated individually in merely conspiratorial frames.

Anyway, I'm just offering a cheap hypothesis to add to the discussion. I'm all up for having it tested by everyone else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, here's a couple videos describing things.

I just now saw you had posted these videos. Sorry I missed it. I'll watch them and see how they jive with my guesswork above.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's the major issue I have with it .. If my personality type radically shifts over a typical hour/day/week/month/year, then what is the benefit it offers? I can't use it for practical purposes other than to conclude humans move all over the MBTI chart over time .. (which we already know).

Maybe star signs work better... Frankly if you just replaced the codes with zodiac symbols it would sound the same.

 

[SelfSim]

As for the comment about how a Te thinker "latches onto an outside source, and that outside source will always make more sense to them," you might keep in mind that a Te may have a wide array of outside sources that are referenced, and the presentation of but one video is seen by the Te to be just that, one source from an array of interdisciplinary intertextuality. These multiple strands of interplay strengthen and reinforce the perceived coherence the Te has of of the Te's sources, This broad interconnection could be potentially strong if the sources are indeed cogent on each respective point that could be analyzed, and this strength of coherence won't sit well with the Ti who appreciates figuring things out for himself instead.

The downside, though, could also be that the Te ends up instead in extreme delusion if the collection of sources trusted are themselves esoteric in nature and/or situated individually in merely conspiratorial frames.

Anyway, I'm just offering a cheap hypothesis to add to the discussion. I'm all up for having it tested by everyone else.

Why even bother testing it if its a 'cheap' one?
It seems the testing of/answer to that question merely serves to bolster the ego of some analyst sitting perched like the proverbial bird on the wire(?) Y'know .. the one who'll eventually profit by writing some kind of estoteric book on the topic?

I'm reminded of the very sad (and notorious) 'Electric Universe' pseudoscientists, who regularly deceive EU followers and seek exactly that end, ie: making book profits and putting themselves on some kind of self-aggrandizing pedestals, where they become instant A-list celebrities for so-called Electric Universe 'Conferences', which achieve not much more than propagation of confused pseudoscience, contributing to the noise factor in the real Sciences(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe star signs work better... Frankly if you just replaced the codes with zodiac symbols it would sound the same.

It sounds harsh ... but I'm afraid I'm beginning to (reluctantly) be led towards that conclusion(?)
I've always had these views of this MBTI stuff, but I've never really explored the root causes until this thread.
Its all laid out here now, in black and white .. (as it is in your analogy above there). Many thanks to all those contributing, none-the-less.

I also note, that for some reason, its also considered wildly outrageous to come even remotely close to questioning MBTI in corporate life too(?) I've had very similar debates with Human Resource staff in past lives .. I had one of 'em tell me, when I asked: 'What am I supposed to do with all this new found analysis?' The answer was: 'Well that's up to you, as a manager, to figure out' .. (My inner, unarticulated response was: 'What a copout! What another waste of my time this pow-wow's been ..)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why even bother testing it if its a 'cheap' one?
It seems the testing of/answer to that question merely serves to bolster the ego of some analyst sitting perched like the proverbial bird on the wire(?) Y'know .. the one who'll eventually profit by writing some kind of estoteric book on the topic?

Keep in mind that this is, as it is to many others here, merely a 'public forum.' I don't have the time to spend nor the inclination to put in the academic level work that I would if I were drawing up a scientifically oriented research project being done for some university. So, yeah, I'm just positing some things off the cuff. ................................. additionally.

At the same time, you have a good point. Why bother, especially if we're just dealing with a matrix we already suspect is questionable, like the MBTI? (........in asking this, I have to admit, too, that I haven't yet looked at the claims about scientific validity made by the MBTI producers. I'm sure they have their claims and someone who is in the know professionally could tease that out, I'm sure....)

I'm reminded of the very sad (and notorious) 'Electric Universe' pseudoscientists, who regularly deceive EU followers and seek exactly that end, ie: making book profits and putting themselves on some kind of self-aggrandizing pedestals, where they become instant A-list celebrities for so-called Electric Universe 'Conferences', which achieve not much more than propagation of confused pseudoscience, contributing to the noise factor in the real Sciences(?)

That's a good point, too. I was thinking of something similar myself. It does seem, for instance, that the conceptual divide between Te vs. Ti needs a few added axes of measure, those that take into account other dynamic social and educational factors to control for things like: Stockholm Syndrome, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, proclivities toward strong Confirmation Biases of various kinds, and the ability to cite logical fallacies when they occur in one's thinking.

So, I do hear what you're saying. But for the casual discussion here in this thread, where we're all already wary of the topic at hand, I'm only going to expend a "cheap" guess about Te vs. Ti and not put much more into it than the rest of you will.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're just getting the wrong impression of what I'm saying. I use very standard logic. There's nothing unmoored about it. Having a personal sense of logic, a personal framework, doesn't mean it's anything unusual. It just means that when I go to make a decision, I don't look around and to see what kind of reasoning other people are currently applying to the situation. I've already learned logical processes in the past, and I apply those processes to make my decision.

If someone tells me that the sky is blue because oceans are blue and therefore the sky is an ocean, I don't have to look up some online source to counter the argument or call up some philosopher friends to see what they think about it. I can just apply the logical processes that I'm already familiar with.

The thing is, as a philosopher, I'm going to question the actual epistemological structure and efficacy of your "personal framework," just as surely as I suspect you would do to me as well (and as, believe it or not, I do to my own "personal" conceptual state, especially where Religion™ is at stake).

There is much more to the alleged Te vs. Ti divide, if we want to call it that, more than goes beyond what the MBTI is capturing, one which the fields of Psychology and Sociology and Neuro-Science attempt to touch upon and which don't seem to be clearly implied within the TE vs TI factors presented.

Yes, videos can be used in different ways. They can be used as an argument. They can be used to support an argument with additional reasoning. They can be used to provide background information. They can just provide some humor. Etc.

It's when the video is used as an argument that I usually have a problem. The person providing the video typically (but not always) doesn't really understand the material and can't argue the topic. And more to the point, they may be using the logic of the video, no matter how bad that logic may be, which can make the person unable to understand a logical refutation.

Sure. I get that. And I'm sure many folks look at me, thinking that very thing when I post a video. They complain that I don't go far enough or demonstrate any 'real mastery' of a topic, substituting a video post for real knowledge. They then impute into that assumption (which could in some slices of analysis be correct, but only partially) that I'm also "only" going in for what is esoteric and not worth most people's time or effort to study. I think they would be wrong, of course........

I'd counter their criticism of my praxis and say that all of the study and sources I attempt to read and thereby refer to in relation to my own view and outlook of the world aren't really esoteric in nature, at least not any more than very high level maths or sciences are. "Specialized" is the better word, I think. And it's not my fault if folks don't want to engage my sources (which admittedly aren't 'status quo') and instead go by their own frameworks. Without my knowing what those frameworks are, I can't make an objective appraisal to say to them, "By George, you have something there, something solid that's very compelling and devoid of fallacies! Good job!"

P.S. One more thing. In your OP video, there is no indication as to what kind or extent of education or social conditioning any one of the three women have. So, we have no basis by which to measure how valid and sound their assertions may be. Any of them could, for instance, be thinking and operating from their own little private Dunning-Kruger mind-boxes.