MBTI Te Versus Ti Logic

[Yttrium]

See my note above for more context, but the basic misunderstanding I see in your articulation is that repression makes something a non-factor.

Oh no, I don't mean to say that it's a non-factor overall. I just mean that it wouldn't be much of a factor in logical arguments, since the person would be focused more on emotional reasoning. I'm well aware of the effects of my own inferior Fe, but it's my Ti that does most of the decision making.

And while I do appreciate the long analysis that you gave, it doesn't really seem to address the issue I have with Te users and their sources of logic.

 

[aritsotle]

Oh no, I don't mean to say that it's a non-factor overall. I just mean that it wouldn't be much of a factor in logical arguments, since the person would be focused more on emotional reasoning. I'm well aware of the effects of my own inferior Fe, but it's my Ti that does most of the decision making.

And while I do appreciate the long analysis that you gave, it doesn't really seem to address the issue I have with Te users and their sources of logic.

I didn't mean to imply you thought of it as a non-factor overall.

"just mean that it wouldn't be much of a factor in logical arguments, since the person would be focused more on emotional reasoning"
^
I'm saying that this is where you are making the mistake. There is no real difference, other than how consciously aware you are about it. So when you say

"my Ti that does most of the decision making."

I'm going to assume you are using the same fundamental idea here (you might define it completely differently altogether, but I wouldn't know that unless you told me so).

More accurate would be to say "I decide according to Ti-Fe". It's not a balance of deciding by Ti, and putting Fe out of favor.

It is a matter of focusing on the Ti aspect of Ti-Fe and deciding according to this.

What you are actually rejecting on the whole is Te-Fe decision-making. That is why it is so hard for you to understand them. You function completely differently even though you (think you) are both talking about logic.

Te - I will decide according to what makes sense to everyone and is rational to everyone and according to what everyone understands
Fi - and I will decide according to what means the most to me, according to what I personally and subjectively value, and what feels right (and healthy)

Ti - I will decide according to what makes sense to me, even if nobody else gets it
Fe - I will decide according to what feels right to everyone, what most people value, and what promotes easy and harmony for everyone around me,


It can go into more detail than that, But the basic gist is that you can have a Fi-dom who is engaging in thinking. What they know is what they feel and they are not focused on the thinking aspect of how they are deciding. So they might send you a video that explains it. It doesn't mean the explanation is bad, it doesn't mean they don't understand it. They just don't know how to explain it because it isn't as consciously accessible to them as thinking is for you, based on how they function.

So that is how I would describe it as Fi.

In terms of it being Se oriented, it is still a social function. It tends to focus on the senses and the facts of things. Te isn't going to watch a video unless it is worth (Fi) it to them personally and individually. I don't think they would send a video that they chose that way.

But someone who is oriented towards Se, especially as a first or second choice, is going to see this as a totally fair thing to do. "I watched this, it helped, and also worked with my intuition, even though its repressed". So they send it to you too. And if they are an introvert they could just be saving energy.

And if they are both? For example, ISFP
Fi Se Ni Te

Then not only are they not going to waste energy because they have better things to do, but they can also recognize that you don't value the same things they do and understand they would only hurt themselves for no reason by putting in all that energy to talk to you when you are just going to dismiss it.

So hopefully that clarifies my intuition about who they might be. I don't know the people who you mean, which are the source of the truth and reality of the facts about them, so intuition was all I had to go on in terms of my reply.

For the record, I don't send videos and neither do I watch them. I rather like explaining my reasoning even as extraverted thinking.

One of the main reasons I don't go for the videos or the pop-science version of MBTI which is what most of it is now, is because I see it as mainly extraverted feeling and introverted thinking. People subjectively telling their definitions inconsistent to any empiricism or logic, but all according to what makes people feel good about themselves and makes it easier to share the videos, spread the superificial thinking around, and get more likes and subscribers. To me that is a clear and consistent example of introverted thinking and extraverted feeling working together in tandem.

So you might have gather through extraverted feeling a sort of constraints on your thinking. I chose to go with thinking that had a broader scope - to preserve my rationality, based on what I value.

Sorry for the overly long analyses. I hope what I meant is clearer now.

 

[Yttrium]

What you are actually rejecting on the whole is Te-Fe decision-making. That is why it is so hard for you to understand them. You function completely differently even though you (think you) are both talking about logic.

Te - I will decide according to what makes sense to everyone and is rational to everyone and according to what everyone understands
Fi - and I will decide according to what means the most to me, according to what I personally and subjectively value, and what feels right (and healthy)

Ti - I will decide according to what makes sense to me, even if nobody else gets it
Fe - I will decide according to what feels right to everyone, what most people value, and what promotes easy and harmony for everyone around me,

Yeah, I'm not buying that. That makes up a minority of my decisions. Certainly, if I'm discussing something like politics, which influence a lot of people, I'm going to consider how it affects other people. But in most cases, other people simply aren't involved. If I'm evaluating science, creationism, or what toothpaste I'm going to buy, the feelings of other people just don't factor into it. In this forum section, my Fe just doesn't apply.

 

[aritsotle]

Yeah, I'm not buying that. That makes up a minority of my decisions. Certainly, if I'm discussing something like politics, which influence a lot of people, I'm going to consider how it affects other people. But in most cases, other people simply aren't involved. If I'm evaluating science, creationism, or what toothpaste I'm going to buy, the feelings of other people just don't factor into it. In this forum section, my Fe just doesn't apply.

What you're saying is you don't understand repression and how the cognitive functions work.

What could be the reason for you to dismiss the established work and evidence in favor of your own preferred idealized way of thinking it, that has no basis in reality except your own subjective experience?

Gotta think about this....hmm...

 

[Yttrium]

What could be the reason for you to dismiss the established work and evidence in favor of your own preferred idealized way of thinking it, that has no basis in reality except your own subjective experience?

Um... Ti logic. Duh. It has no respect for authority. Now, I'd be happy to look at established work and evidence to see if it makes sense to me, but I'm not the type to just take people's word on things.

If I'm deciding on a position regarding something like gay rights, then sure I'm going to have Ti and Fe working together. If I'm deciding how likely Big Bang theory is, Fe has no reason to get involved. Although I'm interested in seeing how other people feel about the theory, how they feel about it makes no difference in my assessment of the Big Bang. The theory needs to conform to the scientific method and make logical sense to me. Then I consider it to be likely.

Now, I welcome you to try to explain how I'm using Fe to help evaluate the likelihood of something like Big Bang theory. I'll need some specifics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Um... Ti logic. Duh. It has no respect for authority. Now, I'd be happy to look at established work and evidence to see if it makes sense to me, but I'm not the type to just take people's word on things.

If I'm deciding on a position regarding something like gay rights, then sure I'm going to have Ti and Fe working together. If I'm deciding how likely Big Bang theory is, Fe has no reason to get involved. Although I'm interested in seeing how other people feel about the theory, how they feel about it makes no difference in my assessment of the Big Bang. The theory needs to conform to the scientific method and make logical sense to me. Then I consider it to be likely.

Now, I welcome you to try to explain how I'm using Fe to help evaluate the likelihood of something like Big Bang theory. I'll need some specifics.

Somewhere in the middle of this seems to sit an unwarranted presence: The Heuristic Fallacy. It becomes especially acute when we muddle around with the idea that there is this thing called, "The Scientific Method."

Even though there are different forms and modalities of Logic and Methodologies, and thereby we find different and competing Praxes, there really isn't such a thing as individual logic, so that sort of "thinking" has to be thrown out the window at some point, or else we can slide into a self-imposed solipsism. And I don't think the MBTI is meant to provide that sort of individualized psychological warrant.

 

[Yttrium]

Somewhere in the middle of this seems to sit an unwarranted presence: The Heuristic Fallacy. It becomes especially acute when we muddle around with the idea that there is this thing called, "The Scientific Method."

I tried a search for "Heuristic Fallacy", but I couldn't find anything. I assume you're talking about the perils of taking mental shortcuts. As far as the scientific method goes, it can be a bit messy and rough around the edges, but it's an important thing in conducting science.

Even though there are different forms and modalities of Logic and Methodologies, and thereby we find different and competing Praxes, there really isn't such a thing as individual logic, so that sort of "thinking" has to be thrown out the window at some point, or else we can slide into a self-imposed solipsism. And I don't think the MBTI is meant to provide that sort of individualized psychological warrant.

I'm not sure what you mean by "individual logic" logic here. Introverted thinking (Ti) has a personal sense of logic built up from experience. I certainly didn't develop my sense of logic on my own, it mainly comes from math. But I apply my sense of logic directly to a concept, rather than looking to see how others deal with the concept.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I tried a search for "Heuristic Fallacy", but I couldn't find anything. I assume you're talking about the perils of taking mental shortcuts.

Yes, I'm referring to the misuse and unreliability of our personal heuristics which often, even if not always, lead us into taking myopic short-cuts when dealing with or attempting to understand the world, such as is briefly described by Sean Rife,

As far as the scientific method goes, it can be a bit messy and rough around the edges, but it's an important thing in conducting science.

Actually, the notion that goes by "The Scientific Method" is too general of a description to apply to what actually goes on in the everyday practice of working scientists. There are Scientific Method(S) employed by different scientists, each varied according to the specific contexts involved in any one certain field of science or study. This is all I'm getting at and has to do with the epistemological, ontological, and methodological analysis that goes on via the educational field of The Nature of Science in tandem with Philosophy of Science.

see Nature of Science

I'm not sure what you mean by "individual logic" logic here. Introverted thinking (Ti) has a personal sense of logic built up from experience. I certainly didn't develop my sense of logic on my own, it mainly comes from math. But I apply my sense of logic directly to a concept, rather than looking to see how others deal with the concept.

I wouldn't parse the various MBTI trends in a way that implies each personality position enacts some separate form of logic. At best, all these MBTI positions do is identify tendencies that each of us may have.

And I'm not sure how you can say that you apply "your sense of logic" directly to a concept, when all along you didn't make up your own math to apply. You got it---learned it---- from other people, and then you personally choose when and where to apply what you learned elsewhere. Even if you're a genius of an innovator, it's not as if you are self-referential in applying logic.

I don't think invoking MBTI extricates us from this complexity.

 

[Yttrium]

Yes, I'm referring to the misuse and unreliability of our personal heuristics which often, even if not always, lead us into taking myopic short-cuts when dealing with or attempting to understand the world, such as is briefly described by Sean Rife,

Yes, there are all sorts of cognitive traps we can get into.

Actually, the notion that goes by "The Scientific Method" is too general of a description to apply to what actually goes on in the everyday practice of working scientists. There are Scientific Method(S) employed by different scientists, each varied according to the specific contexts involved in any one certain field of science or study. This is all I'm getting at and has to do with the epistemological, ontological, and methodological analysis that goes on via the educational field of The Nature of Science in tandem with Philosophy of Science.

'Kay. You don't like the term because it's not specific enough. I don't know what to replace it with, so I'll stick to using the term for the time being. It gets the general idea across.

And I'm not sure how you can say that you apply "your sense of logic" directly to a concept, when all along you didn't make up your own math to apply. You got it---learned it---- from other people, and then you personally choose when and where to apply what you learned elsewhere. Even if you're a genius of an innovator, it's not as if you are self-referential in applying logic.

Acquiring logical processes from outside sources in the past doesn't tell me how to deal with every abstract concept in the future. My math classes didn't mention anything about the Big Bang or gay rights. I have a logical framework built up through past experience that I apply to new situations. I don't look to outside sources for logic as I'm dealing with the new situations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, there are all sorts of cognitive traps we can get into.

'Kay. You don't like the term because it's not specific enough. I don't know what to replace it with, so I'll stick to using the term for the time being. It gets the general idea across.

You're missing my insinuated point about complexity and complication. But whatever. I'll let it go for now.

Acquiring logical processes from outside sources in the past doesn't tell me how to deal with every abstract concept in the future. My math classes didn't mention anything about the Big Bang or gay rights. I have a logical framework built up through past experience that I apply to new situations. I don't look to outside sources for logic as I'm dealing with the new situations.

What????????????? I'm an Existentialist and inclined to some level of Skepticism myself, but you and I apparently have different perceptions about science and the nature of knowledge. Like I said, these things are, like the Reality we're BOTH stuck in, complex and often complicated.

But I really don't get the part where you say you don't look to outside sources for logic(S), even when dealing with new situations. REALLY? I'm not sure how you can escape doing so since it's a part of---as you keep referring to-- "THE" Scientific Method. Analysis and the use of Logic(S) and Method(S) aren't separable; no, they're integral with each other.

The zinger in this is that if we attempt to rely upon Intuition too much as we trot along in life, Reality has a way of biting us in the butts if we all too casually think we've "got what we need." The unfortunate truth is that we don't get to design our own reality, and we do have to live with what we've been given and with the choices we make in that realization. Moreover, the MBTI doesn't extricate us from the gravity of reality. Too much reliance upon something like the MBTI can also become a mental crutch that serves as an excuse from having to have Epistemic accountability.

 

[Yttrium]

But I really don't get the part where you say you don't look to outside sources for logic(S), even when dealing with new situations. REALLY? I'm not sure how you can escape doing so since it's a part of---as you keep referring to-- "THE" Scientific Method. Analysis and the use of Logic(S) and Method(S) aren't separable; no, they're integral with each other.

As I said, I have a logical framework that I already built up in the past. Although that framework was derived from outside sources originally, it doesn't depend on new outside sources in the future. Depending on new outside sources is a Te thing.

The zinger in this is that if we attempt to rely upon Intuition too much as we trot along in life, Reality has a way of biting us in the butts if we all too casually think we've "got what we need." The unfortunate truth is that we don't get to design our own reality, and we do have to live with what we've been given and with the choices we make in that realization.

It's not a case of relying on intuition.

Moreover, the MBTI doesn't extricate us from the gravity of reality. Too much reliance upon something like the MBTI can also become a mental crutch that serves as an excuse from having to have Epistemic accountability.

MBTI shouldn't be relied on at all. It's too conjectural. It's an interesting way of looking at personality types, but people can't be categorized so easily. My whole purpose in this thread is to consider whether differences in Ti and Te can be taken seriously, and if they can, how does that difference impact the logic in the forum arguments we have around here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I said, I have a logical framework that I already built up in the past. Although that framework was derived from outside sources originally, it doesn't depend on new outside sources in the future. Depending on new outside sources is a Te thing.

And simply saying that you have a logical framework doesn't indicate that you have one that is clearly discernible as such, or valid, by other individuals.

Also, IF you're actually engaging "THE" Scientific Method, there will always be ongoing new sources (i.e. research) that goes into the method that will be developed for testing one's hypotheses. You seem to imply that what is typically the 2nd conceptual step can....................be skipped.

Something doesn't sound conceptually copacetic here.

However, there is the chance I'm simply misinformed or misunderstanding you. If am, would you please let me in on which professional field you work from and by which you've developed your logical framework, and within which you don't perceive a need to apply additional, new sources?

It's not a case of relying on intuition.

That's good to hear.

MBTI shouldn't be relied on at all. It's too conjectural. It's an interesting way of looking at personality types, but people can't be categorized so easily.

I agree. The MBTI is a form of entertainment more than it is a state of fact.

My whole purpose in this thread is to consider whether differences in Ti and Te can be taken seriously, and if they can, how does that difference impact the logic in the forum arguments we have around here.

Personally, I'm all for the notion that research (and education) is an ongoing project, for life. One doesn't actually reach a plateau in praxis where he/she doesn't have to research, test, or bring in any further information into the supposed logical framework being used. I don't personally believe in perfected logical frameworks. To imply as such sounds like a fallacy to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually, the notion that goes by "The Scientific Method" is too general of a description to apply to what actually goes on in the everyday practice of working scientists. There are Scientific Method(S) employed by different scientists, each varied according to the specific contexts involved in any one certain field of science or study. This is all I'm getting at and has to do with the epistemological, ontological, and methodological analysis that goes on via the educational field of The Nature of Science in tandem with Philosophy of Science.

These observations seem to be a fine example of the "too general" description you complain permeates @Yttrium 's arguments.

The vocabulary uses well recognised words, but of such a widely encompassing character that one could derive several quite diverse and contrary meanings from the patagraph. That is an attempt to say politely that your objection verges on being word salad.

 

[Yttrium]

And simply saying that you have a logical framework doesn't indicate that you have one that is clearly discernible as such, or valid, by other individuals.

I don't care if it's discernable by other individuals. I apply my logic, and if other people disagree with it, I'm happy to hear why.

Personally, I'm all for the notion that research (and education) is an ongoing project, for life. One doesn't actually reach a plateau in praxis where he/she doesn't have to research, test, or bring in any further information into the supposed logical framework being used. I don't personally believe in perfected logical frameworks. To imply as such sounds like a fallacy to me.

Yeah, you're still not following my point. I never said the framework was perfected. I just said that it exists. And I got most of it from math. I'm sure you'll agree that math exists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

These observations seem to be a fine example of the "too general" description you complain permeates @Yttrium 's arguments.

The vocabulary uses well recognised words, but of such a widely encompassing character that one could derive several quite diverse and contrary meanings from the patagraph. That is an attempt to say politely that your objection verges on being word salad.

So, gathering sources and doing research before forming a hypothesis to test is "word salad"?

You speak as if you're about to school me, so ................ here I am. Please school me!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't care if it's discernable by other individuals. I apply my logic, and if other people disagree with it, I'm happy to hear why.

There is no such thing as an "individualist" logic. If it's logic, it can be recognized as such by other people. To assume what you do is also to deny another step in "The" Scientific Method. So, no. I'm sorry. You can't pawn that loose notion off here, Yttrium.

\Yeah, you're still not following my point. I never said the framework was perfected. I just said that it exists. And I got most of it from math. I'm sure you'll agree that math exists.

And? What is that framework and in which profession do you apply it? I mean, there's no good reason conceal it if it's indeed real.

And if you think it applies, why should I assume that it should affect how any of us discuss/debate here on CF?

 

[Yttrium]

There is no such thing as an "individualist" logic. If it's logic, it can be recognized as such by other people. To assume what you do is also to deny another step in "The" Scientific Method. So, no. I'm sorry. You can't pawn that loose notion off here, Yttrium.

Yes, I sure hope it can be recognized by other people, because it's mostly taken from math. Most people have taken math to some degree.

And? What is that framework and in which profession do you apply it? I mean, there's no good reason conceal it if it's indeed real.

I could recommend some good math courses if you'd like.

And if you think it applies, why should I assume that it should affect how any of us discuss/debate here on CF?

If you look back at the OP, I was more concerned about discussing the Te, actually. It sounds like Te is something you would have an easier time understanding. Perhaps you could go over what I have wrong about Te in the OP.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, gathering sources and doing research before forming a hypothesis to test is "word salad"?

You speak as if you're about to school me, so ................ here I am. Please school me!

It is very easy to misinterpret post within forums. As you may note from my signature my initial reaction to a misinterpretation by one of my readers is to assume it is my fault for being insufficiently clear and perhaps unambiguous. So, here is my first attempt to clarify.

1. I was responding to one specific post, though in the context of the exchange between you and @Yttrium . In that specific post "gathering sources and doing research before forming a hypothesis to test" were not mentioned. So, no - I do not consider the afore mentioned phrase to be word salad and I apologise if my post somehow gave you that impression.
2. I did not accuse your writing of being word salad. I very carefully, thoughully and deliberately used the phrase "verges on being word salad". In my understanding of English saying something verges on being A is not equivalent to saying that something is A. I might have said instead "the general nature of your statement is such that it conceals any precision you intended. It comes across as vague and one is left uncertain whether one is, or is not in agreement with it".
3. I welcomed your response, revealing as it does that I was unclear in my writing. I have told you I found you unclear in one of your posts. You do not appear to welcome that observation. That seems strange since I thought that would fall into your category of "gathering sources".
4. The phrase "to school me", suggests that my post appeared patronising. Had I wished to patronise you I think I could have done a more convinvcing job of it. I wished only two things:
   1. To enter a discussion, since this is a discussion forum.
   2. To make you aware that at least one reader found one of your observations to lack the precision and clarity you probably intended for it.
5. You appear (I've put that in bold for emphasis) to have taken umbrage at comments offered as part of a discussion and intended to help. I've explained what was actually intended. And apologised where appropriate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is very easy to misinterpret post within forums. As you may note from my signature my initial reaction to a misinterpretation by one of my readers is to assume it is my fault for being insufficiently clear and perhaps unambiguous. So, here is my first attempt to clarify.

1. I was responding to one specific post, though in the context of the exchange between you and @Yttrium . In that specific post "gathering sources and doing research before forming a hypothesis to test" were not mentioned. So, no - I do not consider the afore mentioned phrase to be word salad and I apologise if my post somehow gave you that impression.
2. I did not accuse your writing of being word salad. I very carefully, thoughully and deliberately used the phrase "verges on being word salad". In my understanding of English saying something verges on being A is not equivalent to saying that something is A. I might have said instead "the general nature of your statement is such that it conceals any precision you intended. It comes across as vague and one is left uncertain whether one is, or is not in agreement with it".
3. I welcomed your response, revealing as it does that I was unclear in my writing. I have told you I found you unclear in one of your posts. You do not appear to welcome that observation. That seems strange since I thought that would fall into your category of "gathering sources".
4. The phrase "to school me", suggests that my post appeared patronising. Had I wished to patronise you I think I could have done a more convinvcing job of it. I wished only two things:
   1. To enter a discussion, since this is a discussion forum.
   2. To make you aware that at least one reader found one of your observations to lack the precision and clarity you probably intended for it.
5. You appear (I've put that in bold for emphasis) to have taken umbrage at comments offered as part of a discussion and intended to help. I've explained what was actually intended. And apologised where appropriate.

That sounds reasonable to me. And upon reflection of what you've said, I'll attempt to do a better job of expressing my illocution.

I

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I sure hope it can be recognized by other people, because it's mostly taken from math. Most people have taken math to some degree.

Oh no! This is going to become one of those mathematicians and computer logicians VS. everyone else threads. (Actually, that's an attempt at humor.....just ignore it.)

I could recommend some good math courses if you'd like.

That depends on both the time I have to spare, the needs for math I actually have at the moment, and the counter-factuals in philosophy I may have at hand which would temper my desire to take you up on those courses. And I also have Youtube, so I can go ask the Math Sorcerer, hoping he might know, if it comes to that. I'll keep you in mind, though, Yttrium.

But seriously, what math applications do you use which you feel place you into your own Federation Starship? I have to ask, because when I think of everyone else who has done so from Descartes and Pascal onward up to Morris Klein, I can't think of any ways in which Math in and of itself philisophically empowers anyone to operate or think unmoored from the rest of the ongoing projects of society.

If you look back at the OP, I was more concerned about discussing the Te, actually. It sounds like Te is something you would have an easier time understanding. Perhaps you could go over what I have wrong about Te in the OP.

Where your thoughtful OP is concerned, I'd say that we'd have to take a look into "how" a video is intended to be used and how its use is conceptualized by any one particular poster here on CF. For instance, when I watch your video, the gal on the couch resonates very distinctly with me in contrast to the gal wearing black (the later of whom reminds me of my wife to some extent). As for the new modilities that the MBTI has been bringing forth lately in making 'finer' distinctions in its theory, I'm not sold on these as yet. For me, some folks are simply rash and want to excuse themselves in the "name" of expediency.

Furthermore, and I'm sure it's the same for you here in this thread and even with your OP, when you post a video, you [and I] only intend for it to be an ice-breaker to open the topic up as well as to inform for awareness. This is our intention rather than posting it as a slap-dash effort to quell opposing arguments or to offer some cheap attempt at a "last word" by some figure propped up as an authority.

So, we might add to your thoughtful OP the further analysis of the intended use (or illocution) of that statement or set of statements??

What do you think about this? I could be wrong? I may be off. So I'm all open to your input and to hear what your view on this is.