MBTI Te Versus Ti Logic

[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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

This still doesn't explain your framework. Telling me that you use "standard logic" doesn't tell me what sort of frame it is or how you use it, or for what. As for your comment about "looking around to see what kind of reasoning other people are currently applying to the situation," this is too general of a statement and can describe the incidental and haphazard guesswork of a pedestrian amateur, but it isn't precluded from being an analytic activity that operates as a part of some conceptual subpartition, remaining as an aspect of one's own person logical framework. So, some of this has to be discerned on a deeper level.

What we don't want to do is begin to disparage each others epistemic dynamics as they may be inherently structured and attuned to a specific field or science. I don't want to disparage other higher order thinkers such as yourself; however, I do want to be clear that I expect certain processes of thought to be specific to certain fields and that they would be ill-fit for others. We both know there are various applications of interdisciplinary research and analysis, but our discernment of this wouldn't mean, then, that every aspect of one field can be casually applied to some other field, at least not in a direct, easily transitive manner.

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.

Sure. Some processes of everyday experience are pedestrian in nature and self-evident. But those aren't the ones I have in mind for this thread. Depending on the epistemic goal of analysis or the innovation intended via a certain system, higher orders of thought may, and often are, needed.

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. At the same time, some of us have a limited time to be here on these forums. Moreover, I cite my sources as support for my views and I expect others to do the same to some moderate measure, or else I assume they are simply mouthing uninformed opinions. It seems that all too often on public forums, it is filled with personality types that only want the opportunity to express their own opinions, and when they do so, they attempt their to make their statements hit with the alleged force of authority, all the while refraining from clearly and distinctly providing either their sources or their shared (ala the sciences) insights. Mavericks are one thing, but Solipsists are another.

And somewhere in the mix here, I get that there is a further consideration for justification in epistemology involving the divide between Internalists and Externalists, which gets messy.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Thanks for restating your intentions for this thread in such a succint way.

I, for one, have always found MBTI to be disturbing pseudoscience from the very first time I encountered it.
That it has been held up as representing some kind of hard, fact finding tool for solving human problems, is the really disturbing part.

I am yet to find clear examples where other subtleties of human interactions can be discounted as the major influence in a given situation, thereby revealing (somehow) the usefulness of MBTI thinking.
It may be a useful analysis tool .. but more than analysis is usually necessary to resolve human issues .. and MBTI always leaves that crucial component unresolved.

 

[SelfSim]

.. And somewhere in the mix here, I get that there is a further consideration for justification in epistemology involving the divide between Internalists and Externalists, which gets messy.

Messy or not, what exactly are those 'divisions' in the MBTI model, which you assume are justified for consideration?
Beyond the model, where can we find a human interaction example?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Messy or not, what exactly are those 'divisions' in the MBTI model, which you assume are justified for consideration?
Beyond the model, where can we find a human interaction example?

I wasn't referring to divisions in the MBTI model. I was referring to divisions that are a part of the process of justification that any of us have on an individual basis and which apply in any of our attempts to justify our points of view. But, being that I'm no expert on the MBTI, and I'm just a student and fellow inquirer here like (I assume) most of the rest of you are, we can explore any apparent conceptual overlap that may be supposed.

For now, I'll simply say that Introversion and Extroversion in the MBTI don't appear to be synonymous with the Internalist and Externalists positions in Epistemology, but the Internalists and Externalists issues are, all psychologizing aside, more pressing in importance, I think.

What we're concerned with here is 'how' a person feels they are justified and how they then indeed attempt to justify their point of view.

 

[Yttrium]

That it has been held up as representing some kind of hard, fact finding tool for solving human problems, is the really disturbing part.

I haven't really seen any use for solving human problems myself. It does seem to me to have a couple things going for it. Once you've identified someone as belonging to a certain personality type, it can be used to explain certain behaviors in the context of the cognitive functions and even predict some behaviors. Like I said, though, this is very conjectural and shouldn't be relied on.

Also, MBTI can be used to make good comedy videos. There's a lot of them out there. Of course, you need to be familiar with the personality types to follow what's going on in them.

 

[SelfSim]

I wasn't referring to divisions in the MBTI model. I was referring to divisions that are a part of the process of justification that any of us have on an individual basis and which apply in any of our attempts to justify our points of view. But, being that I'm no expert on the MBTI, and I'm just a student and fellow inquirer here like (I assume) most of the rest of you are, we can explore any apparent conceptual overlap that may be supposed.

For now, I'll simply say that Introversion and Extroversion in the MBTI don't appear to be synonymous with the Internalist and Externalists positions in Epistemology, but the Internalists and Externalists issues are, all psychologizing aside, more pressing in importance, I think.

What we're concerned with here is 'how' a person feels they are justified and how they then indeed attempt to justify their point of view.

Ok.
I suppose I can see, (in a hardcore sense), the invoking of justifications as being a clever way we've devised for being right and making others wrong. The self is validated, whilst simultaneously invalidating others. One gets to dominate, or avoid domination .. (and, in that same hardcore sense, its sort of ugly too, because justifications come at a cost to the individuals practicing it).

These notions, arguably, had their origins in Dr. Eric Berne’s work, Transactional Analysis, in the early 60's.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok.
I suppose I can see, (in a hardcore sense), the invoking of justifications as being a clever way we've devised for being right and making others wrong. The self is validated, whilst simultaneously invalidating others. One gets to dominate, or avoid domination .. (and, in that same hardcore sense, its sort of ugly too, because justifications come at a cost to the individuals practicing it).

These notions, arguably, had their origins in Dr. Eric Berne’s work, Transactional Analysis, in the early 60's.

Yes, I think you're right. For some people, the social transaction of 'education' comes as a felt expense rather than a conceptual gain. Some people --- and I know of several in my own family --- care more about their own individuality and control of personal feelings and circumstances than they do about knowing how reality works and, through social transmission of knowledge, grow and become more capable.

Similar in vein to the arguments of Dr. Eric Berne, some others could (possibly) be added to his. Those from someone like philosopher, Paul Boghossian [not to be confused with Peter Boghossian], would be relevant too, particularly as he expresses them in his book, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism (2006).

 

[SelfSim]

I haven't really seen any use for solving human problems myself. It does seem to me to have a couple things going for it. Once you've identified someone as belonging to a certain personality type, it can be used to explain certain behaviors in the context of the cognitive functions and even predict some behaviors. Like I said, though, this is very conjectural and shouldn't be relied on.

Personally speaking, I have to ask what's the point of making predictions to explain someone's else's behaviour towards me .. (as if there's anyone beyond that immediate person and me, that can make any difference whatsoever, in some interactions with that person)?

Its just not practically useful .. I'd prefer a toolset that will lead to immediate practical outcomes .. rather than implied glorification of analysis/musings that carries someone's name to identify the originators of them (aka: Myers and Briggs, for eg).

Also, MBTI can be used to make good comedy videos. There's a lot of them out there. Of course, you need to be familiar with the personality types to follow what's going on in them.

Entertaining, for sure .. but of practical use in an immediate situation requiring resolution(?) .. I don't think so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personally speaking, I have to ask what's the point of making predictions to explain someone's else's behaviour towards me .. (as if there's anyone beyond that immediate person and me, that can make any difference whatsoever, in some interactions with that person)?

Its just not practically useful .. I'd prefer a toolset that will lead to immediate practical outcomes .. rather than implied glorification of analysis/musings that carries someone's name to identify the originators of them (aka: Myers and Briggs, for eg).

Entertaining, for sure .. but of practical use in an immediate situation requiring resolution(?) .. I don't think so.

It is entertaining, especially for the infusion of narcissistic notions that sometimes comes with it. For instance, I know of a person who identifies as INTJ, and in that identification, harps quite a bit on the notion that she heard from a MBTI source that INTJ can be genius prone (supposedly). She takes it fairly seriously and has incorporated this idea about personal tendencies into her individual sense of self and identity.

Supposedly, I'm INTJ too, but in reflecting on myself, I always tend to end up with a taste of Imposter Syndrome. And I'm quite sure that I'm definitely AIN"T a genius (and maybe a bit rushed and lazy, too). Maybe this is 'why' I prefer learning from smart people.

 

[SelfSim]

It is entertaining, especially for the infusion of narcissistic notions that sometimes comes with it. For instance, I know of a person who identifies as INTJ, and in that identification, harps quite a bit on the notion that she heard from a MBTI source that INTJ can be genius prone (supposedly). She takes it fairly seriously and has incorporated this idea about personal tendencies into her individual sense of self and identity.

Supposedly, I'm INTJ too, but in reflecting on myself, I always tend to end up with a taste of Imposter Syndrome. And I'm quite sure that I'm definitely AIN"T a genius (and maybe a bit rushed and lazy, too). Maybe this is 'why' I prefer learning from smart people.

Grapheme–color synesthesia sort of gained a reputation as being a sign of so-called 'genius'.
I'd guess these folk would be considered as 'outliers' by MBTI advocates(?) and thereby, yet again .. the irresistable exclusionary conclusion that seems to result from MBTI thinking there .. perhaps(?)

 

[Yttrium]

Supposedly, I'm INTJ too, but in reflecting on myself, I always tend to end up with a taste of Imposter Syndrome. And I'm quite sure that I'm definitely AIN"T a genius (and maybe a bit rushed and lazy, too). Maybe this is 'why' I prefer learning from smart people.

Ah yes, an INTJ. One of the Te types. One would think that an INTJ would be an organized version of an INTP like me, but all of our cognitive functions are different. Knowing that you're an INTJ, I can now foolishly make lame predictions about your behavior. You're a planner. You love to plan. You're the plan man. You can sit in a dark room for hours alone doing nothing but planning. Just like I have a personal framework of logic, you have a personal framework of abstract concepts (from your dominant Ni), that forms a strong worldview... unlike my own lack of a worldview. You put more importance on your own feelings than the feelings of others. You'd like to get out more to experience new things, if only you weren't afraid of leaving your house. So instead, you're building a secret underground lab as you plot to take over the world. But you'll never expect that daring ESTP to foil your plot.

Okay, maybe I've been watching too many of those videos.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah yes, an INTJ. One of the Te types. One would think that an INTJ would be an organized version of an INTP like me, but all of our cognitive functions are different. Knowing that you're an INTJ, I can now foolishly make lame predictions about your behavior. You're a planner. You love to plan. You're the plan man. You can sit in a dark room for hours alone doing nothing but planning. Just like I have a personal framework of logic, you have a personal framework of abstract concepts (from your dominant Ni), that forms a strong worldview... unlike my own lack of a worldview. You put more importance on your own feelings than the feelings of others. You'd like to get out more to experience new things, if only you weren't afraid of leaving your house. So instead, you're building a secret underground lab as you plot to take over the world. But you'll never expect that daring ESTP to foil your plot.

Okay, maybe I've been watching too many of those videos.

I will say one thing-----you were nearly spot on about me, except for one little hitch that even I couldn't plan for:

HULK **SMASH** puny ESTP ... !!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah yes, an INTJ. One of the Te types. One would think that an INTJ would be an organized version of an INTP like me, but all of our cognitive functions are different. Knowing that you're an INTJ, I can now foolishly make lame predictions about your behavior. You're a planner. You love to plan. You're the plan man. You can sit in a dark room for hours alone doing nothing but planning. Just like I have a personal framework of logic, you have a personal framework of abstract concepts (from your dominant Ni), that forms a strong worldview... unlike my own lack of a worldview. You put more importance on your own feelings than the feelings of others. You'd like to get out more to experience new things, if only you weren't afraid of leaving your house. So instead, you're building a secret underground lab as you plot to take over the world. But you'll never expect that daring ESTP to foil your plot.

Okay, maybe I've been watching too many of those videos.

There has been this strange thing happening lately where my results change on the MBTI and indicate that I'm a "turbulent" INTJ. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but apparently, in certain moments, I become an INFJ. I guess other people find them annoying?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah yes, an INTJ. One of the Te types. One would think that an INTJ would be an organized version of an INTP like me, but all of our cognitive functions are different. Knowing that you're an INTJ, I can now foolishly make lame predictions about your behavior. You're a planner. You love to plan. You're the plan man. You can sit in a dark room for hours alone doing nothing but planning. Just like I have a personal framework of logic, you have a personal framework of abstract concepts (from your dominant Ni), that forms a strong worldview... unlike my own lack of a worldview. You put more importance on your own feelings than the feelings of others. You'd like to get out more to experience new things, if only you weren't afraid of leaving your house. So instead, you're building a secret underground lab as you plot to take over the world. But you'll never expect that daring ESTP to foil your plot.

Okay, maybe I've been watching too many of those videos.

Here's something fun! Do you think these attempts to coordinate MBTI types with Marvel characters stack up? Where are they right? Where are they wrong?

Which Marvel Character Are You, Based On Your MBTI Type?

Looking through the lens of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MCU fans can learn more about themselves and the heroes they love.

www.cbr.com

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Grapheme–color synesthesia sort of gained a reputation as being a sign of so-called 'genius'.
I'd guess these folk would be considered as 'outliers' by MBTI advocates(?) and thereby, yet again .. the irresistable exclusionary conclusion that seems to result from MBTI thinking there .. perhaps(?)

I've heard about this synesthesia, but not the part that it had been seen as a sign of genius. I'll have to read up on it and see what that's about.

 

[SelfSim]

There has been this strange thing happening lately where my results change on the MBTI and indicate that I'm a "turbulent" INTJ. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but apparently, in certain moments, I become an INFJ. I guess other people find them annoying?

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).

 

[Yttrium]

There has been this strange thing happening lately where my results change on the MBTI and indicate that I'm a "turbulent" INTJ. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but apparently, in certain moments, I become an INFJ. I guess other people find them annoying?

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.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

I’ve found the Enneagram to be more accurate but it has no scientific basis at all. It shouldn’t work but strangely it does.

 

[Yttrium]

Here's something fun! Do you think these attempts to coordinate MBTI types with Marvel characters stack up? Where are they right? Where are they wrong?

Which Marvel Character Are You, Based On Your MBTI Type?

Looking through the lens of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MCU fans can learn more about themselves and the heroes they love.

www.cbr.com

Well, keep in mind that the movie writers aren't writing with either realistic personalities or MBTI personalities in mind, so I wouldn't expect the characters to be consistent.

Thor - I'd say he's more like an ESTP, eager to take risks without thinking too much of the consequences. The ENFJ is kinda the psychoanalyst of the personalities, which doesn't really fit Thor.

Vision - Sure, he fits an INFJ well. He's compassionate but doesn't really know his own personality.

Spider-Man - Yeah, he's outgoing and imaginative, but conflicted and disorganized, like an ENFP.

Scarlet Witch - Yeah, INFP. Often lost in her own fantasy world.

Iron Man - He's like the archetypical ENTP. Never try to debate him.

Bruce Banner (Hulk) - My man, the INTP.

Nick Fury - He sure fits ENTJ, the innovative CEO type.

Doctor Strange - The reclusive planner, INTJ. Yep.

Hawkeye - Nah, he's no efficiency expert ESTJ. More like an ISTP, the curmudgeon repairman.

Gamora - I guess ISTJ make sense. She might be a bit emotional for that, but maybe not. ISTJ types enjoy following rules and doing dull, repetitive tasks.

Rocket - Absolutely an ESTP.

Black Widow - Yep, ISTP.

Captain Marvel - ESFP fits. Party girl.

Shang-Chi - Didn't see that movie. ISFP tends to be self-centered and emotional.

Star-Lord - ESFJ?? Wha--?? No way. That's the schoolmarm type. Try ESFP, the party guy.

Captain America - Yup, ISFJ is the dependable, trustworthy one. Usually a quiet, happy homemaker, but Cap still fits.