Rational Functions: an update: Te vs Ti
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лют 2015
- I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com/dp/B089278TWR/...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blo...
__________________
Check out my Patreon! Or don't! Those are your two options! / michaelpierce
Video Script: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blo...
Here it is!
The irrational functions will come next Thursday!
'Thinking is difficult, that's why most people judge'
Carl Jung praising his Ti here.
As you said why(how), not what. Example is my sister, an INTP who is a pragmatist, utilitarian, once anti-philosophy, and strong believer in science (to me, to the point of scientism, but that is another story). She adheres to these ideas, however, in a very theoretical, deductive, academic philosopher-esque way (she goes about Te philosophy in a Ti way). Contrast this to my dad, who is an INTJ, who believes in mysticism, does not think science explains everything, and once went by Kantian ethics. However, if you see how he lives his life, he is quite pragmatic (Te-driven). He is driven by results, and my sister theoretically likes to be driven by results, but her life is more otherwise. William James is one of the greatest pragmatists, but he is an INTP. Aristotle was one of the earliest deductive logicians, but he is an ENTJ.
As in introverted thinker myself I under estimated this video in the beginning after watching the video till the end I’ll have to say I’m impressed one of the best explanation of introverted thinking and extroverted thinking I’ve seen on UA-cam
Thanks to this video and your other ones, I have a better UNDERSTANDING of Te, in spite of being a dominant Ti user. Cause when I first learned about the 2 functions, they seemed similar.
As I now understand it, Te uses the facts and data it has to make a system work in the outside world or achieve some kind of goal. "Sure there'll be some loopholes in the system but fuck it. As long as I get the results I want, we're good." Te thinks.
Ti on the other hand uses the theories or ideas has to make its own system in their own minds (Where the ideas come from will depend on whether its from Se or Ne). It'll even try to take advantage of the loopholes of Te's very cluttered framework of its system after making sense of it all and finding where the inconsistencies are. At least that's how I understand it.
I was surprised you didn't mention Kant, as he was specifically mentioned by Jung as an example of introverted thinking, and his ideas on metaphysics are very Ti in nature. He completely distrusted the sense, appealing entirely to "pure reason" and logic.
I appreciate your hard work Michael.
Ti: Let me get a Boneless Pizza.
Te: Pizza ain't got no bone in it.
Ti: What's the problem then?
Te: I don't understand, how can Pizza be boneless?
Ti: If it ain't got no bone then 'is BONEless
(D E A D A S S)
(Checkout this video "Boneless Pizza" in case you don't get the reference)
It's dumb sorry.
@@cstharlo Oh, the video is silly, indeed. It does illustrate this point, though. Ti is looking at a logical abstraction "If the pizza has no bone in it, then it is technically boneless, and as long as nobody puts any bone in it, it will remain boneless", while Te thinks "But how does it matter in practice? Pizza doesn't usually come with bones, it is not like we're gonna have to make an effort to remove any bones, so this is redundant to talk about as it has no impact on logistics" to the point of thinking "if it had no bone it can't be _boneless_ as the bones won't be _removed_ " which, again, is not technically true, but is true from a practical perspective.
@@MultiSenhor logical abstraction = Ti? I may start doubting the fact that I'm a Te user because I naturally reason like your Ti example.
@@cstharlo Ti is not logical abstraction itself, but the introverted atittude has a tendency to look at things from a self-contained, isolated, perfectionistic, ideal, abstract perspective.
There are a few things you can take into consideration:
a. The functions don't work in isolation. An ISFJ's Si interacts with their Fe-Ti, as an ENTJ's Te interacts with their Ni-Se, but also with the individual's memories, psychopathologies (if there is any), values, and other parts of the psyche/personality/mind;
b. There are four functions with two atittudes each, rather than 8 functions, that is, Thinking is still Thinking whether it is extroverted or introverted and someone who dominates this function is likely to have some fluidity between both atittudes. IDRLabs has a few articles on this, I ca recall one called 'Typology lessons from von Franz';
c. Repression of the inferior function. Ti-doms can have characteristics similar to Fi users, because they repress the opposite atittude to that function. This applies to any function/type, ISxJs are much more single-focused with a tendency to relate everything to one main point in a manner not quite equal but _similar_ to Ni, while ESxJs and xNxPs aren't as much like that, because ISxJs repress Ne;
d. Relationships, life experiences, culture, the environment can alter or expand the way one thinks, while everyone is different despite any personality category they may fall into and Jungian types mostly indicate tendencies, dispositions.
This is one of the main points of psychotherapy, to provide someone with a transformative, perspective-expanding relationship that they may not have in their life otherwise, while the psychotherapist is also growing psychologically from being in contact with many different kinds of people (and this includes the authors of the theoretical books they read, reading a book is like a conversation too, in this sense) and trying to understand their individual perspectives, their history, sip from their wisdom, and at least in theory is able to then have a broader cromprehension of that which is human and exchange and spread this wisdom/expanded perspective with their clients, and/or better be able to translate what people think and feel but may not be able to explain, kinda like Anderson Silva traveling the world and learning techniques from different fighting styles to integrate into his own and possibly pass some of what he's learned down to other fighters. Not _always_ what happens, some psychotherapeutic relationships go nowhere, but I digress anyways.
I guess this was probably more confusing than clarifying, it is hard to condense much information into a short format, but I guess it'll make more sense the more you learn (hopefully)
Someone should seriously make an Ni vs Ti video *cough cough* michaelpierce *cough*
remainsilent I have a brilliant idea! I think I'll try making an Ni vs. Ti video at some point!
Michael Pierce Damn, that's genius!
Michael Pierce Now I feel silly for not scrolling down before posting a comment suggesting this exact thing. Oh well :)
what's really interesting is that the combination of Ti + Ne + Si can often have similar results as Ni...also Ni is reported to be a strong function of INTPs those who study Socionics
Please we need this, you are a bastion for all that is meaningful dear sir
Intresting video once again. I really like how you use the philosophers in your videos.
Enlightening, this helps me a lot in understanding myself and a close friend of mine, I am Te while she is Ti.
One example being of how this helps me is that I am not big on Grammar or spelling, as long as I get the idea I am trying to communicate across my job is done, she however will think a long time before saying anything and while take time to make sure the details(punctuation, dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s etc) about what she is saying are perfect before sending me an IM.
Definitely food for thought. Definitely Helpful. Thank you for your thoughts.
Andrew Bailey Ti doms can be very concerned with accuracy - the ideal statement is exact, concise, with no fluff but just the meaning conveyed. In contrast I tend to ramble on and on and make corrections as I go.
I could not read all the comments, so maybe someone already said it, but anyway. I think you mispresented Ti a bit. You made it sound like we don´t care at all about objetive facts, and that is not true. we´re model and system builders and at least, i, as an INTP try to make sure that my theoretical models are aligned with objetive data. Actually, the objective facts are the starting point of my theories. maybe i will mispresent Te, but i think the difference between Ti and Te is what we actually do with the facts. Ti users use them to build theoreticals models about how the universe works, Te users use the facts in a more utilitaristic way, the way i see it. I think they have not much interest in how this or that fact fits into a whole but how the bit of data can be applied to a concrete end.
Yes!, just Yes! You nailed it. What we do with the data is where it differs. I am a Te and the data is tested outside of me. The proof lies in the pudding to me.
That is completely irrelevant, this is talking about the functions within a vacuum not the functions co-existing with other functions.
I have no idea if you take suggestions, but a video comparing/contrasting Ni and Ti would be awesome. I think a lot of INTJs and INTPs mistype as each other because of some of the similarities between being Ti-dom and having Ni/Te, since Ni gives INTJs a lot of those "holistic system" "thinking for its own sake" type of experiences, though naturally in a completely different (though sometimes superficially similar) way.
XOmniverse The best cure for INTJ/INTP confusion is to just get in touch with people of those types. The interests and to an extent motivations are highly similar, but how they present themselves in person (or in writing, if you have access to a lot of it outside an academic context that demands a certain style) is way different.
In my opinion, your use of philosophies in this video is more appropriate than in the Fi/Fe video. I think the big distinction is Ti vs Te really do represent different and opposing worldviews, and thus lead more naturally to different philosophies.
Fe vs Fi however, are less characterized by different worldviews, and moreso by how someone forms their worldviews (or more specifically values). As such, as you've said on a number of occasions, Fe and Fi can look quite similar, but as a result of different reasons. It might be the case that an Fi type and an Fe type share very similar values and thus philosophies, even though the Fi discovered those passions within while the Fe learned them from without.
You have Se and Te mixed up.
When Te's talk about ''facts'' they mean _measurable data_, as in statistics and things like that. This is why Te has a reputation for being ''bureaucratic''. The Scientific Method is a good idea of what Te looks like -- ''through objective, measurable, documented data, we can establish the objective truth for everyone''.
Nothing Sherlock does is about measurable data or establishing the objective truth for others to abide by. He responds to small details in the environment, _as they happen_ and has no further use for them after they've served the purpose of solving the puzzle-- that's an extreme version of Se, not Te.
Jackeda Sherlock definitely does not have Te as his primary or secondary function. Definitely not. I agree with you on that.
Noticing small details is Si not Se. Se looks at the big details in the environment, looking for any potential threats (going back to hunter gatherer days).
@@astonish_injurer5598 Se is about noticing details, and Ni is about why are the details the way they are. About what sequence of actions was taken, to make a detail on certain place presented in certain way.
Not necessarily. Te cares about facts as in objective truth, measurable data is a part of it, but a means, not the end.
@@astonish_injurer5598both SE and SI notices details it’s HOW they do it
SE goes from subject to objective focus
SI goes from object to subjective focus
SE notices the nuances and differences in the impressions…SI takes the seeming impressions to process it by its own personal understanding of what it is
Jung said that, as a thinker, Freud was an Extroverted Thinking type, but as a human being he was actually an Introverted Feeling type...
Te-Fi axis.
TE and FI always reveal each other based on conditions
There were times I thought I was using TI…but it was really repressed FI jolting out of my Dom TE
This is excellent! I too use ideas from the world of Science and Maths to understand psychology. I'm happy to see a presentation that uses similar use cases.
My own experience with Te (INTJ) vs Ti is that Te for me is fairly rigorous about following the "Occam's razor" heuristic - what is the least convoluted assumption that can be made? That is probably the best one. It is a way to prevent my mind from over-complicating what could be more simply explained with the given information right in front of me (which I can sometimes overlook, getting caught up in my head.) This means I have to somewhat force myself to take a situation external to me at face value when making a judgment about it. Whereas from my perspective, Ti users (INTP, ENTP, ISTP) seem to be 'violating' Occam's razor almost intentionally, and it seems like a vain attempt because I personally can't imagine doing that without basically inserting my own subjective associations into a situation where they don't belong. I'm not comfortable with doing that but I guess for Ti this is a non-issue? Then again I find INTP's are often the same way (cautious about overstepping.) I don't know. lol.
Yes, we (INTP) do intentionally violate Occam's razor, if the piece fits into an already extensively formed theory. lol We are careful about overstepping when it comes to stating how confidently we "know" something.
You guys' adherence to Occam's razor drives me nuts but your nonjudgementalism makes up for it. We are like mirror images in that way.
I'm an Introverted Thinker and I like Rand's Objectivism despite its appeal to Extraverted Thinking. I think that she will help other Introverted Thinkers develop their theories since her metaphysics is excellent (I'm more of a fan of her metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics than her politics)
This is brilliantly done. Thank you for creating this.
there's two or three things that strike me as off though.
Objectivity and Subjectivity;
I'm sure you've pondered on every topic you present, and this one for sure, but There's still something up with it; objectivity and Subjectivity, in a typical sense, might more closely be said to be T and F respectively, objectivity being pure, selfless, uninvolved viewing of data, and Subjectivity being something flavored with personal opinion or experience. in this definition, I would say that Ti and Te don't line up nicely with those categories, nor do the introverted and extroverted functions. however, in the sense that introverted functions are not based on external factors like extroverted functions, then naturally it's true. although you probably know as well as I do; and this is my point, introverted functions are removed from external data, but this does not make them false, they work towards completion and are aware of their biases for the most part, and although the conclusion is nonetheless not based on real data, it still attempts to create unified, flawless understandings.
also, I wouldn't say introverted thinking is individualistic in terms of it as it's own function. more so, it's as if there exist universal axioms of thought we use to make conclusions from the data. In this way, Ti is not individualistic at all. it makes the user merely a computer that can conceive of this existing logical relationship. But Ti is individualistic in the sense that it knows for certain that it's conclusions are correct on the premises they are built on, and it will not bend to anything that says otherwise or contradicts these axiomatic and tested conclusions.
else, you were spot on, and I'm sure you agree with this to a fair extent and it just didn't show in your video. But still, I can agree with basically everything you said. in fact, I feel relatively out of place for saying this because I'm sure this may just be your intentional message, but if I have a misunderstandig or a different opinion I would like to see where we differ or where this schism arises.
Aside from those minor comments/questions, I say, A+++, 101%, Everything is wonderfully said and stated. Great job! This is a great resources for those looking for answers.
Wow, you helped me understand Ti a whole lot more just now. Data comprised in the mind as foundations for premises to be built on. While me as a Te builds premises on data taken from the environment of what is consistent and not consistent. I maybe be mixing Ne in there as well, but that's my way of understanding what you said.
An analogy that I've come to use is that Te starts with states of reality / fact-sets. Let's envision these as islands. Te operates by using theory as a bridge between these fact-islands - say the current situation and a projected state. Theory's used to see whether this presumption is reasonable.
Ti (in INTPs at least - it'll probably be more specific and contextual in ISTPs) is like a spider living in a huge web or scaffolding around the world. The thought resides in the web - facts are used to make the web a good depiction of the world, to make sure it's represented properly. So if a Ti type starts from a few facts, and derives a principle from them he then builds a web-system and sees if it needs to be corrected much. No? Probably a good system. Yes? Uh, oh. A Te type, given a principle, would try to see if it leads from one island to another, ie if it's good for building bridges. The thought is in the states the system settles in, the theory is for moving about.
This will be explained further next week I'm sure, but I am confused at how to tell the difference between Ni and Ti. Edit: Also how the functions, (such as Fi and Te), are opposites.
Nelson Warner Ni is a perceptive function: It focuses on the impressions observing the outside world and hearing new ideas leaves on the person. It is a subconscious black hole of understanding, taking in everything and finding the common thread between things - it readily sees commonalities between different things, and, taking in a system as a whole, sees where things will end up at (though not necessarily the intermediate steps with any kind of clarity, let alone order). It is singular, focusing - Ne beholds and object or idea and sees a multitude of near future possibilities, Ni takes a whole bunch of data and just understands how the thing works, where it will go. Ni is unconscious in its operations, its resultant thought units encompassing a huge amount of miscellanea and their connections. It grasps things holistically, "just knows", finds the red threads between things. Because of the large amount of detail an Ni conception of a thing includes, transferring that idea to others can take a lot of work - these conceptions are much the same as jumping into the river. You can describe the experience at length, but it still fails to capture the nuance of the whole thing. That is something you can know only by jumping into the river yourself.
Ni understanding is mystical or visionary, holistic, grasping things as an insoluble whole, and on the whole it FEELS or "just knows" how things are. Combined with an INTJs Te, this is grounded firmly into real world physical systems, with an INFJs Fe/Ti it can freely explore the mystical to promote harmony or discover the workings of the universe. Ni's perception is concerned with pondering the patterns of history, what will be in the far future, and timeless principles for how the world works. It lives everywhere but the here and now, a job that is Se's forte.
Ti is a judging function - it does not look, but tries to evaluate observations based on whether these make sense and can be fit into a logically consistent model of how the world or situation works in their mind. It is conscious and deductive. Ti is interested in the principles of how a thing works, from which it can then derive explanations of how something works on the fly. When Ti dom sees something, he starts looking for the first principles behind the thing so he can see where it fits in the overall scheme of things and whether his model of the world or the thing in question have to be altered.
Ti types are consummate logicians, INTPs especially so. They typically don't like to assert conclusions - "let reason alone decide" is a classic motto. They go where the logic takes them, and in an argument typically lay out the logic to the step just before the last, and leave it to their interlocutor to make the final jump.
A Ni type's way of arguing can differ drastically depending on whether he is an INTJ or an INFJ. INFJs have a certain kindness to them that can often be absent from the INTJs presentation. INTJs tend to be tellingly obstinate and stubborn, and will be prone to somewhat uncaring bluntness. INFJs with strong Ti can come off as very warm INTPs, but there's a difference in there. You see, both Ni types tend to already have a conclusion in mind - when they argue, what they are doing is trying to verbalize their Ni conception to the other party, to find a route through emotion, logic and factual example to that destination.
A Ti type is less sure of where he wants to go, but knows the hard and fast rules of how to travel. When they argue, they're travelling according to those rules and seeing where the journey takes them.
In short, Ni types are more prophets painting a picture of their vision and Ti types logicians trying to outline the inevitable conclusions by temperament.
Reading these pages may be helpful in discerning Ni v. Ti, as they lend themselves to very different kinds of self-expression, even if the point or content is the same:
Ni:
Ni + Te/Fi (vision, hierarchy, individuality, excellence):
www.celebritytypes.com/intj.php
Ni + Fe/Ti ( (mystical) vision, harmony, kindness, soundness of logic / root cause style understanding of the world):
www.celebritytypes.com/infj.php
Ti + Ne/Si (logical thought driven to find the root causes of all things, exploration of new perspectives, factuality):
www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php
Ti + Se/Ni (logical thought driven to systematize things, focus on the concrete, acting in the moment, mastery):
www.celebritytypes.com/istp.php
Nelson Warner I second Komatik: in a nutshell, Ni is not naturally organized, it is just seeing things, almost like a prophet seeing some vision they've sort of just whirled together after a long while of watching stuff, and neither you or them are really sure just exactly where it came from. They're relating something they feel that they've seen in the world. Ti is very much organized, and can generally tell you exactly what their train of thought is and what the logical structure of their argument is. They don't see into the world as much as build a system and adjust it to apply to the world and describe it. They can look rather similar because both are trying to describe the world with some kind of introverted idea, but Ni is reactive, like an eye seeing something or a mind in the moment of realization, while Ti is much more active and organizational, like a mind figuring something out.
Nelson Warner As for Fi and Te, I discuss that more in some of my other videos, such as in my video on ENTJs (ua-cam.com/video/89uYbBOm6fg/v-deo.html). But in a nutshell, Fi is focused on fleshing out what is valuable to the subject, and what the subject wants, while Te is entirely focused on what the outside world is actually like, and getting stuff done out there. Together, you have the internal spark (Fi) guiding the engine of a juggernaut in the world (Te), but if one dominates the other, then you either get a juggernaut who doesn't do anything but just talks about what it wants (dominating Fi) or a juggernaut that is not clear about its goal but is just smashing everything in a general direction of progress (dominating Te). In some sense, its the dichotomy of a bulldozer and a protester lying down in front of it.
Marie von Franz is the first to officially standardize this opposition of Te and Fi in her "Lectures on Jung's Typology", though I've gone much further in my description.
Michael Pierce I disagree with Fi-dom being a juggernaut - if anything, their fundamental nature is the absence of the juggernaut:
Tolkien: "It is difficult [for me] to say anything [about my work] without saying too much: the attempt to say a few words opens a floodgate of excitement."
Tolkien: "The most improper job of any man ... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."
Tolkien: "I often long to work at my nonsense fairy language and don't let myself 'cause though I love it so it does seem such a mad hobby!"
Fritzsche: "Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people - even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office."
The juggernaut part, the hierarchization and desire for power is a Te-born quality. It would be wrong to characterize an Fi dom as such a juggernaut - rather they are the engine that has not been installed yet, and developing the Te may install that engine of passion in some kind of machine.
Michael Pierce Komatik
Those are excellent explanations. Thank you very much.
In regards to what you said in the intro to this video about harmony vs individualism, this is very interesting to me. Being an Intp I felt everything you said in your video revisiting Intp was accurate to a scary level. I loved it! And whilst I am very certain as to my type I also felt like Fi seemed very much me and Fe seemed very ... alien to my nature. Honestly it had me thinking I was some kind of "broken" Intp because I identified with Fi so much more then Fe. But here it sounds like you have more of your astute insight on that topic. My mind is a greedy thing and I want more. more knowledge. While I feel reluctant and even a little selfish for even asking, I am compelled to. Could you please enlighten us more on this topic? And if you have already spoken more about it somewhere please point me to that? I am watching my way through your videos as fast as I am able but have not yet seen everything you have uploaded. In any event a sincere thank you for sharing your delightful insight.
Edit: After several hours of watching more on the subject and thinking hard I think I'm starting to figure things out. One part ego and two parts misunderstanding but I wont bore anyone with my details. And thank you once more for uploading these very helpful videos.
do you have videos on the stack? or rather on how the functions in the different locations interact?
amazing thank you for sharing very helpful:)
So what was Hulme influenced by? Ni? Ne? Ti? Te? with the claim on 13:51?
what mbti type was Gottfried Leibniz?
I didn't take philosophy in college. But I'm taking courses by Michael Pierce post college.
If fi is individualistic then why entp's are individualistic?
according to this model, i use Ti > Te, so this does fit with my self-assessment as an ISTP, but just to play devil's advocate - how do we KNOW this is the actual difference between Te and Ti? it makes more sense as the difference between xSTx and xNTx in many ways.
without knowing anything about the functions themselves beyond "logical + introverted" and "logical + extroverted," you could hypothesize that Ti is logic that is hesitant to form a conclusion until enough data is gathered whereas Te makes bold, quick guesses. or you could say that Te users are driven to influence others with logic and get people to agree with their ideas whereas Ti is only concerned with understanding things for themselves. or expanding the definitions to include aux functions of IxTJs and ExTPs, you could define the functions as "logical + judging orientation" and "logical + perceiving orientation" and define Te as logic that is applied to a present situation, a purpose, or objective and Ti as logic that is universal and structural in nature (similar to the definition you posit, minus the evidence-based vs. structural base element, defined by the intended application but not the burden of proof), or you could define it as logic that arises in RESPONSE to environmental stimuli as opposed to logic that comes to someone out of the blue.
i do think this is mostly right but really, though - how do we know that this is the actual core of the difference that the judging orientation and the perceiving orientation creates? could it be something deeper? (not to be super Ti about it, but... yeah. gonna be super Ti about it.)
also, what type do you think Sherlock Holmes is? i was under the impression he is a Ti dominant, not a Te user.
Typical ISTP you are.
Elf Machine turns out i'm an ENTJ. i just want some goddamn EVIDENCE for this goddamn third Ti THEORY. preferably involving a graph, or a literal brain scan.
Mariah Jennifer Well use your goddamn brain ,you can up with your own evidence.
People with Ti use their mind different, compared to people with Te. You can literally ask those people.
There is no actual Ti inside someones brain ,that's ridiculous. The same way there is not a part called the subconsciousness inside your brain. Those are just terms to discuss certain behaviors and cognitive capacities -___-
You don't even need brain scans.
And yes it goes VERY DEEP.
Also your goddamn descriptions are pretty good. Work at it !
Plato's allegory of the cave has more to do with intuitiveness, both extraverted and introverted, than Ti. Ti is concerned with finding balances in things to reach an universal balance, but Nx realizes we do not see reality as it is, but the way we have separated the primordial qualia soup of ideation and material sensory perception into two. We can quite easily omit the degree to which we are dependent on our lenses, and scoff at the alchemists, mystics, clercs, and hermetics. But these quite god-realmish individuals are the actual culprits of science and slaying superstition, and not the antagonist to it. Science is not IN OPPOSITION to the mystical, it comes from it, from the mythological. The same way Isaac Newton has been an alchemist first, and a scientist second, it can be argued as quite probable that he summarized his understandings from studying alchemy to what is now known as the three laws of motion, which are a very heavy representation of his Fi projecting value into things others have dismissed as fringe non-sense. Intuitiveness is the meshing of the material and the ideational back into that soup in aims to discover some new ideation and form of seeing the material, such as to cause a paradigm shift. All great, true geniuses, from Isaac Newton, through Einstein, to Mendeleev, were invoking a strongly faith-based standing by their paradigm shift, discovered in the same chaos and lingering of eldritch beings, through which the insane were trapped within it. These same ways are societies coordinated into normalisation, and learned helplessness, believing certain facts are true and just have to be stoically accepted, even though they are for the most part devised by propaganda. The degree our beliefs and narratives about the world affect our qualia to the degree of base perceptions is insanely neglected, especially by the ill-minded scientists that think genius is dry, not wet, whereas nothing can be further from the actual case.
What are your thoughts on development of the Tertiary function as a way of development and protecting the gateway to the shadow functions when the inferior is overwhelmed and the amygdala hijacked?
I have reflected back upon my life and what caused major stressors (inferior Se opening the gates to shadow functions in an chaotic explosion of suddenly conscious energy) and what brings me back to focus (Ti.) Using this I model after ISTPs (Bruce Lee, professional body builders that rely more on intelligent design and nutritional science than pure Se) and apply the principles to my trade (Classical guitarist, songwriter, video game composer) and my hobbies lie congruent. I am preparing my doctoral thesis statement to bridge the gap between music composition and neuroscience to create full immersion and flow and applying the results to my students' curriculum creating harmony both in and out of the classroom (Fe.)
Paul Masinelli I'm afraid I couldn't tell you -- as of right now I don't know much of anything definite about the best way to develop one's personality. Sorry I couldn't be of more help there -- but good luck with the doctorate!
Paul Masinelli Firstly I'd throw Beebe to the trash can. It's a bunch of highly specific claims about the workings of the unconscious, which I find to be a pretty questionable thing to do. Fancy, but not necessary to explain things and quite likely more confusing than actually helpful.
Personally, I just see the functions as a bunch of processes we use for taking in, evaluating and organizing information that consequently influence our character. Four functions, each of which has an attitude, done. A function is preference, predilection, tendency, aptitude, pattern, ingrained habit. Not a requirement to do something as eight function models often suggest, just a way you tend to do something (eg. reason in a cold and detahced way - my go-to pattern for it - Te - is bad for symbolic logic, for example, because the patterns I'm drawn to think in don't suit it. Doesn't mean I can't do it, just that it's harder work than for a Ti-primary type).
That said, the dominant and the auxiliary are what we do compulsively and habitually (respectively) and what our braisn are wired to need as a diet if you want to maintain a satisfied mental state. The tertiary and especially the inferior are more like munching candy - satisfying for a moment but as a long-term diet will just end up making you sick. Nevertheless, you need to feed them somehow. For that I tend to try to find activities that satisfy your "meat and potatoes" part of the diet, but also fulfill the lesser functions.
An ISTP mechanic is a great example: Dealing with mechanical systems in a concrete, hands-on manner is deeply satisfying, but the tertiary Ni and inferior Fe get to play too, helping to identify problems and interacting with customers for example (and Fe is probably happy when people become happier as a result of the ISTP's activity).
If you really are an INFJ (this might not be the case, take care to verify your type), one good direction to take would be to just do something with people, especially if it involves understanding how a mechanism works or involves analyzing people's behavior.
Love your videos. It's funny that Aristotle an obvious bias for te derived alot of the principles of deduction and Socrates a seemingly entp type of character made a lot of observation through conversation with the people's of Athens before coming to any theories or hypothesis regarding his observations. the same could be said of Darwin as he observed much plant and animal life while on his exploration aboard the beagles before coming to a more specific conclusion
In this way there is something interesting happening at the level of the entire personality
I do see your point that ti seems to focus on the premise of her argument as a process that begins its journey to a logical conclusion thus deductive but I'm inclined to say that the behaviour of lets say an intp is perhaps more inductive as a functional stack or entire personality than an Intj so for example ti ni together might be inductive as a preference ?
Let me know your thoughts if possible as I'm no expert
donald clark Thanks! I'm glad you enjoy them!
I'm not expert either, but in answer to your question, from my experience everyone makes use of inductive and deductive logic, but Ti as a process is better described by deductive logic, in the sense that it is not working with a series of objective facts to prove its point, but is occupied with fleshing out a logical idea in its mind. For example, the difference between studying biology and studying mathematics. Pure mathematics doesn't require any objective facts to prove its points: it is entirely theoretical and only requires "theoretical facts" or "subjective facts" to prove its points, as in a logical proof.
In the case of Darwin, if he were an INTP his process would be to perhaps see some facts, and be inspired to develop a theory, but his focus would ultimately be on fleshing out the pure theory, and seeing all the connections in his mind, and then using facts and observations as illustrations for this idea, but the focus is on the idea itself. The Ti type wants their theory to connect with the facts, but because their comfort zone is working with the theory this can sometimes be a problem area. For instance, for a while after developing his theory of evolution, Darwin would break into a sweat whenever he saw a peacock, because he realized peacocks represented an objective fact that seemed to contradict his theory (as they presented no good reason that they had survived through natural selection) and it threatened to prove his whole beautiful internal theory invalid unless he figured out a way to accommodate.
So, the point is I'm not sure how Ti and Ni together would result in being more inductive by preference...
Michael Pierce Michael Pierce thanks for your reply Michael
I think it can be a little tricky in that both induction and deduction start with a premise or hypothesis which is basically just a theory until proven otherwise. The theory is derived via its own mechanisms. So for instance a deductive statement might start from this premise: all birds have feathers.
An inductive premise might be phrased like this: all birds I've observed have feathers.
The difference between the two hypothesis is simply one of authority.
Deduction positions itself as more objective or at least absolute In its premise and can be considered a fact while induction is more subjective and can be considered a hypothesis, however the statements seem to be the same. (i would also sneakily insert which one sounds ntp and which ntj:)
Now I can go one step further and insist that all premises start from an inductive inquiry as induction seems to really end at the premise. If so induction can go two ways
1: move into a deductive space or
2: wait to be proven wrong .
for me the difference between ti and te is the authority given to a premise vs the formulation of a some premise. I'm not sure that an intp is too concerned with an already proven statement or fact,he wants to formulate new theories that may one day become facts but if as stated above he started his enquiry from a deductive position first he would not be dealing with theories he would be dealing with objective facts which flies in the face of the subjectivity inherent in Ti so I wonder if ti spends more time taking a theory to a point where he comfortable using his theory as the start of a deductive premise?
I don't know lol
Sorry for the long reply btw but it's a great outlet to discuss these things and ironically flesh these ideas out:)
***** donald clark I've gotten several comments about me misrepresenting induction and deduction as related to Te and Ti, so I'm fairly certain you're right and I have mixed up my terms. If anything, I'll be refraining from describing Te and Ti as "inductive" and "deductive" respectively, because I'm finding they aren't relating like I thought they did.
Michael Pierce it's a difficult one as there is evidence for either assumption but I'm not sure one function fits nicely into the description of inductive/deductive very easily it has always seemed to me to be more of a process that requires 2 or more functions as induction and deduction usually coexist together as cognitive process's.Either way your take on it has been refreshing to think about so untill properly proven otherwise carry on exploring:)
2:48 when video begins
Love your insightful videos, Michael, but why do you talk as if your head were not attached to a body?
Rationalism vs Empiricism
Oh I see... Ti is actually very similar to Si. Because Ti uses preconceived knowledge/facts to evaluate the function and essence of an object while the Te guy's just look at what and how the object functions in the real world and its environment to judge and understand it. So in a way your looking at an object say a "radio". The Te will say to himself, this is a device used to communicate information to people across the nation. I could use one to do A,B,C,D etc. But a Ti user will look at that same radio and try to relate it to his inner world or subjective knowledge that he stores within himself and perhaps say something like "this is a radio, the reason why it functions is because it has components A,B,C,D running inside of it to do X." or something along those lines... I think.
So to conclude Te looks at objects and their functions in the real world and how they can be used... while Ti looks at objects and their functions and WHY and HOW it is POSSIBLE for them to be used. Does anybody know if this analogy is correct because I've always struggled understanding Ti that's why I'm watching this video.
What's the difference between MBTI Feeling and Emotion ? And why are the feeling types more people oriented than the thinking ?
***** Well, in my own definition that I use throughout the channel, I consider feeling to be "value". For instance, thinking is concerned with functionality (a+b=c). Feeling is concerned with value or desirability (a is good, b is bad, and c is a bit of both).
Emotion is generally considered to be "irrational" in the sense that it acts independently of reason and forms judgments or conclusions about what is right or what it wants using more instinctual criteria (so and so hit me so now I am angry with them and want to hit them back harder). This is not the case with feeling in the Jungian sense: it is considered a rational function, as it reasons just like thinking does, but it concerns itself with rather different things, questions of desirability, which is often heavily related to sentiment, pleasure, good feelings, rightness, nobility, etc. Because we are human, questions concerning what humans find valuable will naturally relate directly with social questions.
It should be noted however, that Fe is really the stereotypical social function, in the sense that it is concerned with what is objectively considered valuable or good, and is thus very appropriate, and concerned with maintaining or improving the "feeling atmosphere" of its environment by talking with the right people in the right way, saying the right thing, etc. But Fi and Te are both social functions as well, because Fi judgments about what is valuable through the subject's personal lens often relate to other people, and Te often involves other people in its goals or logical standards.
CelebrityTypes has an article discussing exactly this, although I may or may not agree with them on every point, its definitely worth checking out if you'd like: www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2014/01/feeling-as-a-rational-function/
***** A bit of a nitpick here, sorry. But it would be good to talk about MBTI Feeling (an dimension in a test that sees whether you prefer the Thinking answers over the Feeling ones, and tries to give people a type as a combination of these preferences on four dimensions) and Feeling in a functional sense - first because functions separate Feeling into two types, and second because the things a functional outlook and the MBTI test's dichotomatic outlook are looking for are not the same.
MBTIs Feeling dimension measures how accomodating a person is - kinda Fe-ish stuff, functionally speaking.
Other than that, I 100% second what Michael has written above.
Ti's are the typical overthinkers.
So I'm an INTJ and my girlfriend is an INTP. (funnily enough, I'm a chemical engineer and she's an architect, just as predicted by the various sites - and no, there's no cognitive bias at work here, we're sure of our types)
Now, assuming we've typed ourselves correctly, how would you explain that she's VERY individualistic in almost every facet of her life? I mean, it makes sense that I'm very individualistic with my Ni and Fi, but she has Fe as an inferior function.
How is it that Ti overrides this Fe making her individualistic (as you mentioned at the beggining of the video), and more like myself?
Because that Fe is heavily suppressed by that dominant Ti. Inferior functions are usually suppressed by their corresponding dominant functions. The only time the inferior function really shows up is when the user is really stressed.
jinhong91 Inferior functions have an influence on the basic establishment of the dominant functions, they are expressed, but under a very thick layer of the dominant one.
The thing is that you have to be aware that even if you don't like it, it's a part of you which you have to embrace build and improve upon slowly with time simply by not rejecting it.
SapereAude1490 I second the previous points, and I add this quote from Jung concerning introverted judging types (INTP, ISTP, INFP, ISFP): "Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling." [Jung: Psychological Types p. 373]. Hopefully that makes sense, he's rather opaque at times, but essentially a dominant introverted judger such as an INTP tends to naturally feel that as far as their logical ideas go, its them against the world, simply because those ideas are introverted and therefore not derived from the world.
This mentality is expressed in the suppression of Fe, which DOES get its ideas about value from examining the world, and this is something that Ti, by its nature, struggles against. It's the dichotomy of someone learning a language, and being able to read it in their own time, but have trouble actually speaking it and getting all the nuances and cultural things right in real time, which is more Fe's forte. Ti, to some degree, doesn't want to be "corrupted" by slang or social nuances, but understand the pure linguistic system.
You seem to be confusing Te with Se by using NTPs as a Ti example
where the continue of the game of risk video ?
Vicheachakra Chet ua-cam.com/video/PkyknLAIFdU/v-deo.html
Michael Pierce
oh,by the way, love the video.
Freud is Ni, ENTJ.
I'm listening to doctor who and trying see the difference between 10 and eleven. I see ten as an ENFP...but i don't find clear evidence that 11 is an ENTP. And then...7:02.... this is really a weird coincidence...are you in my brain ??? XD
No wonder Elon musk is so convinced simulation theory is likely lol and im like bro, you're hella smart but no you're wrong about this one.
When he was talking about simulation theory you can see him going inside his head, analyzing the theory and saying yeah it's likely he was basically doing what you said "in danger of being deceived by data that temporarily inconsistent with the general pattern of the universe"
So you’re an INFJ?
Or an ISTP