MBTI Te Versus Ti Logic

[Yttrium]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

MBTI types may be an interesting way to think about how people behave, but the test is generally considered pseudoscience, not least because the scientific evidence that it shows that people fall into such categories is weak to non-existent. For example, results for the oppositional types typically follow a normal distribution rather than a twin-tailed distribution.

 

[Yttrium]

MBTI types may be an interesting way to think about how people behave, but the test is generally considered pseudoscience, not least because the scientific evidence that it shows that people fall into such categories is weak to non-existent. For example, results for the oppositional types typically follow a normal distribution rather than a twin-tailed distribution.

Hmm. The test is unreliable, but that doesn't rule out the overall model. The analysis of the cognitive functions fits in nicely with my personal experiences and explains a great deal about behavior I've seen. I'm aware that there are probably overall better psychological models out there, but MBTI has its advantages. The Te versus TI in particular seems to me to be something worth considering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmm. The test is unreliable, but that doesn't rule out the overall model. The analysis of the cognitive functions fits in nicely with my personal experiences and explains a great deal about behavior I've seen.

That's probably what the authors of the test thought too - and it's one reason why we have developed scientific methodologies - to test whether personal perception and interpretation are reliable, i.e. supported by objective measures...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If only "logic" wasn't a multi-disciplinary, multi-framework topic, then maybe some of this could be vetted out and categorized in a more scientific fashion.

Additionally, logic aside, my identifying myself as an "INTJ" (or any other self-reported "result") does basically nothing for any of us.

The fact of the matter is that many people simply aren't educated on how to assess sources and what the limits are in any of their uses. We can also overplay our assessment as to why any one person utilized a particular source and then attempt various deductions of 'why' we think they did and what that supposedly tells us about 'how' they think. None of which would actually tell us 'how' that other person thinks.

 

[Miles]

The MBTI can be fun. It encourages us to think about why we make decisions. Even if people are more complicated than the 16 types suggest. In terms of science, there is some evidence forintroversion and extroversion. That being said, the five-factor model of personality is generally considered more useful for psychoanalysis. The traits it measures are:

- Openness to experience
- Conscientiousness
- Extroversion
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism

Each of these categories range from high to low. They make more sense to me than separating Thinking from Feeling etc. Thoughts and feelings aren't contradictory. Profound thinkers can also be profound feelers. In fact, deep feelings can inspire an adherence to formal logic. An individual may feel strongly enough about a subject to bring structure to their thoughts, for instance. If somebody's feelings get them into trouble, however, perhaps that person is instead high in neuroticism or low in conscientiousness. Similar things can be said about Judging vs. Perceiving. Also, if I recall correctly, Jung's theory of introversion includes elements of what the MBTI calls intuition. Those waters are already somewhat muddy. It isn't clear cut.

 

[aritsotle]

Yttrium I don't think your analysis of Te is accurate. It is a common misunderstanding, I believe. I mean, it goes for any comparison of a function and its introverted/extraverted counterpart.

For example, those who prioritize Fe (extraverted feeling) are reported as those who will choose superficial social engagement as apposed to deep and authentic connections. This is a description that is framed from an introverted feeling context, which prefers the opposite.

However, those who prioritize extraverted feeling would have their own "framing" of how they view introverted feeling. The whole point is that once you have aligned yourself to your preferred attitude about the matter, you will naturally (obviously, inherently) misunderstand the other (because you do not value it).

Extraverted feelers tend to do a lot for the harmony of a group. They also tend to know a lot more about how someone feels than that person they themselves might be aware. That is pretty impressive. They might look at introverted feelers and say - those people are callous, insensitive, selfish and vain.

But are they correct? Yeah, since those are the bad sides of those types. Yet they don't see each other that well and so they don't judge fairly. I would say they are correct but not right. It doesn't matter if you got the truth but not the righteousness. I might argue the righteousness is more important (if only to balance my inherent bias for preferring the truth).

So similarly with extraverted thinking and introverted thinking. To the Te person (prioritizing that way) the Ti person seems like they are making stuff up, overly subjective, not connected to reality, inventive, and so on. To the Ti person it would seem like Te person is controlled by others' thinking, has no opinions of their own, only accumulates information from others without producing anything of their own.

Correct? Yes. Fair? No - because it focuses only on part of the picture.

Te (and the extraverted functions) will take things on objectively and broadly. They will miss the part of the picture only found in the details and the depth (and who knows? they might miss the part of the picture that is their soul).

Ti (and introverted functions) will take things on subjectively and deeply. They will miss the part of the picture that is outside of their own focus. Focus is good, but only insofar as it is focused on the good, the right and the true. Focusing on the wrong thing isn't helpful.

I think your description of Te would be more relatable to Se or even Fi. In MBTI (not Jungian) the functions are two pairs of opposites. (As far as I know, Jung only proposed a single pair of opposites). So you could be describing Te how it shows up in the context of higher Se dominance. Or it could be Te in a partially-rejected (Jung would say, repressed) state, because Fi is given favor.

It's all much more complicated than a superficial analysis. The question is what to do with all this lost investment? I mean, knowing all this information by which I can speak about it. This is a lot of time gone in the past years, learning it.

 

[SelfSim]

But are they correct? Yeah, since those are the bad sides of those types. Yet they don't see each other that well and so they don't judge fairly. I would say they are correct but not right. It doesn't matter if you got the truth but not the righteousness. I might argue the righteousness is more important (if only to balance my inherent bias for preferring the truth).

Err ... what is that supposed to mean?
IOW please distinguish between: 'correct', 'truth' and 'righteousness', in order to convey your meaning.
Can you provide an example in order to convey those distinctions?

... It's all much more complicated than a superficial analysis. The question is what to do with all this lost investment? I mean, knowing all this information by which I can speak about it. This is a lot of time gone in the past years, learning it.

The answer there is: Because 'the information' there is undistinguished, non useful 'noise' to start with, so it is easily immediately disposable. (IMHO).

 

[aritsotle]

Err ... what is that supposed to mean?
IOW please distinguish between: 'correct', 'truth' and 'righteousness', in order to convey your meaning.
Can you provide an example in order to convey those distinctions?

The answer there is: Because 'the information' there is undistinguished, non useful 'noise' to start with, so it is easily immediately disposable. (IMHO).

Correct means you accurately described something. Truth means that the interpretation is valid and sound. Valid corresponds to accuracy and soundness corresponds to wholeness (healthiness) and thus to righteousness. The truth is correct and righteous, whole and healthy. This is how the truth is the life (or corresponds to life).

The answer there is....

The answer you provide is not useful. It doesn't seem you understand what you are describing.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent post. I have no idea (yet) whether I agree with your hypothesis or not. (Perhaps you could point to a video discussing it in more detail.)

What I am sure of is the reading it generated several "Aha! moments." Sometimes I can go week with none at all, then three of them come along at the same time. So your post really got me thinking about all sorts of aspects of psychology and forum interactions and formation of opinions, and their flexibility. Thank you for that.

 

[Ophiolite]

MBTI types may be an interesting way to think about how people behave, but the test is generally considered pseudoscience, not least because the scientific evidence that it shows that people fall into such categories is weak to non-existent. For example, results for the oppositional types typically follow a normal distribution rather than a twin-tailed distribution.

I did an MBTI test when I was around thirty and thought it was surprisingly accurate. Over the next thirty years my behaviour in a variety of ways and I happened to take another MBTI test. The resutls were significantly different, but once again I was surprised - even startled - at its accuracy. That's anecdotal, not statistical evidence so can't really be used to challenge the claim of pseudoscience.

And I also need to consider that character wise I am an absolutely typical Gemini, yet simultaneously know astrology to be bogus. Perhaps the simplest answer is that I am gullible and prone to suggestion.

 

[SelfSim]

Correct means you accurately described something.

From who's/what perspective? (There are lots of perspectives).

Truth means that the interpretation is valid and sound.

Same question: From who's/what perspective? (There are lots of perspectives).

Valid corresponds to accuracy and soundness corresponds to wholeness (healthiness) and thus to righteousness.

Can you illustrate without introducing 'corresponding' references to yet other word meanings, which have yet other contexts?
Ie: what do you mean .. and not some dictionary definition? Illustrate your meanings!

The truth is correct and righteous, whole and healthy. This is how the truth is the life (or corresponds to life).

What a load of meaningless bunkum!

The answer you provide is not useful. It doesn't seem you understand what you are describing.

You are posting in a physical sciences forum. Science's purpose is usefulness.
Your answers thus far to my questions, have not been clearly distinguished by you.
They are not useful until you do this.

 

[aritsotle]

From who's/what perspective? (There are lots of perspectives).

Same question: From who's/what perspective? (There are lots of perspectives).

Can you illustrate without introducing 'corresponding' references to yet other word meanings, which have yet other contexts?
Ie: what do you mean .. and not some dictionary definition? Illustrate your meanings!

What a load of meaningless bunkum!

You are posting in a physical sciences forum. Science's purpose is usefulness.
Your answers thus far to my questions, have not been clearly distinguished by you.
They are not useful until you do this.

Hello. Thank you for your engagement to my answer on a thread of pseudoscience in a science forum. I didn't plan to have a conversation about side topics when I posted on this one.

I have given you what you asked, but you didn't understand it. I'm not invested in a conversation with you (no offense). I don't really care what you're on about.

You can try rereading my writing if you want to understand (rather than pick apart, and for what benefit?). I already told you my meanings

You could say I have already cast pearls to the swine, which invariably turn to try and trample you.

It's a good life lesson.
Thanks for participating in life with me. Have a nice day today.

 

[SelfSim]

And I also need to consider that character wise I am an absolutely typical Gemini, yet simultaneously know astrology to be bogus. Perhaps the simplest answer is that I am gullible and prone to suggestion.

..or you are an educated (and experienced) human .. and therefore you can choose your own reaction 'style' in any given interactions/topics/conditions(?)

The takeaways from M-B tests have always been, (to me), at best, awareness raisers about different styles of communications/interactions/behaviours .. and not meant to be taken as being fixed stereotypical behaviours assignable to specific individuals' unchanging 'personalities'. Please note: I'm not responding specifically to your post there. Its more it jogged my memory about a general conclusion I formed regarding the MBTI 'personalities' (thanks).

 

[AV1611VET]

I've been looking more and more into Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personaity types lately.

Myers-Briggs is based off of the philosophy of Carl Jung.

 

[Yttrium]

I think your description of Te would be more relatable to Se or even Fi. In MBTI (not Jungian) the functions are two pairs of opposites. (As far as I know, Jung only proposed a single pair of opposites). So you could be describing Te how it shows up in the context of higher Se dominance. Or it could be Te in a partially-rejected (Jung would say, repressed) state, because Fi is given favor.

Not sure how that would work with Se. And if I'm considering high Te, Se would be tertiary or inferior, and not much of a factor. An inferior/repressed Te wouldn't be much of a factor at all, since the person would be judging things based almost entirely on emotion.

I'll certainly admit I could easily have a conceptual misunderstanding of Te, with my dominant Ti bias and all. But that's why I brought all this up, to see if anyone else can straighten me out on this. I'm just not sure from your description where I'm going wrong.

 

[aritsotle]

Myers-Briggs is based off of the philosophy of Carl Jung.

Yes it is, but the social phenomena of it becoming popular and spreading, especially over the internet, also includes how the definitions have changed. As someone said earlier in the thread, introversion and intuition have gotten blurred meanings. Further, the Myers-Briggs system differentiates thinking and feeling inherently within each type. That is something Jung would call a function of intuition.

Jung doesn't make a lot of sense, but he worked with a lot of people and reported some patterns that are based in common experiences. People find it relatable, to a point. It helps them sort out confusion or messy parts of their life.

Now there are many more systems out there, especially those that are centered on feeding one's vanity (for a price) and getting people addicted to focusing on themself. People make money off of it, people make it a hobby, people learn and forget it.

But perhaps the meaningful thing about it is that people can become aware that there is something they don't know, are not seeing, are missing. Jung watched a lot of people seem to do this, "repressing" (as he called it) one thing in favor of another. He gathered up the patterns and codified them in simple categories of common experience.

But, the fact that we even do this is noteworthy.

For example, someone might sow wheat in their life under the righteous rain of God; yet bad things grow. They grow because in the night of unawareness, an enemy might sow tares with the wheat. So it would be prudent to draw up the dark and deep waters of the well, in a man's heart, to work over that soil and pull up the roots of things that don't belong there.

That's a mix of metaphors but I think the main gist is understandable. To apply that to things like "repression" or "unconscious"/"unawareness" the illustration should suffice.

 

[aritsotle]

Not sure how that would work with Se. And if I'm considering high Te, Se would be tertiary or inferior, and not much of a factor. An inferior/repressed Te wouldn't be much of a factor at all, since the person would be judging things based almost entirely on emotion.

I'll certainly admit I could easily have a conceptual misunderstanding of Te, with my dominant Ti bias and all. But that's why I brought all this up, to see if anyone else can straighten me out on this. I'm just not sure from your description where I'm going wrong.

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

In fact it is; it is a bigger factor. It is the usual source of all the troubles and things that don't seem to make sense in life. Jung didn't only work with people who were ill, so he tried to "normalize" his definitions as a common social phenomena. The root of it is, however, mainly because people were having trouble functioning in life.

For example, extraversion now means something like gregariousness or sociability. However, the articulation of that term (Jung coined it, if I remember correctly) was an attempt to understand neuroticism and high dependency on external things (objects and people). The neuroticism would manifest as a result of lacking introspection.

But why wouldn't someone spend some time alone with themselves? It's not like it has some inherent problem in it. That is the idea of the introvert (the counter-term he coined) - to emphasize that spending time alone or enjoying some alone time isn't a problem. It can be a problem if someone is complete asocial and are slowly going crazy. However, historically (as Susan Cain argued) much of the world was more introverted, than extraverted. The prevalence of extraversion is a more recent phenomenon (if her report is true).

You can take it more loosely and consider the densities of population in the city or in a rural area. Some people prefer wider spaces and smaller crowds and more distance from their neighbors. Yet they are functional members of society, contributing to the economy, doing a job or a service, paying their taxes, raising their family...along with doing their hobbies and enjoying nature, music, good food - whatever it is they like. They might be described as more "introverted" but it clearly shows that someone can be introverted and healthy (if healthy at least means they are functional and happy).

So introversion isn't the problem, why do some extraverts become neurotic? A little introversion would clearly do them some good.

This is the best example of what is meant by repression - something is wrong on the inside, for the extravert. They just can't face it, or they can't process it, or they have just gotten so used to the pain or the discomfort that they became numb to it. But their extraverted world will slowly start to crumble and then they start to go see therapists like Carl Jung.

This was a bit roundabout for explaining the way he defined things but I think the story is a bit more informative than the theory.

In that context, what is being repressed is having a huge influence on the person. This goes for anything - whether someone who favors Introverted Thinking primarily is repressing Extraverted Feeling (and how it influences them, whether they like it or not, know it or not, work with it or not - it's happening); or whether someone who favors Extraverted Thinking is repressing their Introverted Feeling (and how they might be troubled emotionally, or haven't matured with their moral outlook on life, or haven't figured out what is important to them).

All the articulated "types" (whether the 8 which Carl Jung describes or the 16 which were described by Myers and Briggs) are repressing something. What is commonly called the "tertiary" is also being repressed. The explanation of "dominant-inferior" as a technical language serves best to explain what is the primary "repression" (and which according to Jung is what defines the "type"). The secondary functions were more of an attempt to build upon Jung's work and articulate a secondary description of the type.

So for example:

Ti represses Fe
Te represses Fi

Jung would say those are the two types.

But Myers and Briggs added auxiliary functions.

Ti represses Fe and reaches for Ne in support of that (which represses Si) - TiNeSiFe
Ti represses Fe and reaches for Se in support of that (which represses Ni - TiSeNiFe

Then, shorthand labels were created for mnemonic purposes, calling them INTP and ISTP.

This may seem a little arbitrary but there is more background reasoning for why they "balance" things this way. The driving (imperative) moral endeavor of this description that they produced seems to be: Balance, or Moderation. You could say their philosophical contribution takes Jung's idea of "let the neurotic extravert spend some healthy time alone to sort out their mess" to a more integrated scale. Each of the extremes become tempered and moderated to promote a "balance" in the person's life.

Whether or not I agree with this philosophy is a different subject, but I do think I gave them a fair representation.

The short version is - hiding under the pillow doesn't make the monster go away; nor does the ostrich hiding its head in the sand solve the danger. Repression doesn't change anything about the whole being of a person. It only partially blinds them and limits them, promoting a tendency towards dysfunction when taken to its extreme.

It could be argued that the healthy person eventually abandons typology. However, I'm still working through it myself. So I don't know what I think about that.

 

[Yttrium]

Excellent post. I have no idea (yet) whether I agree with your hypothesis or not. (Perhaps you could point to a video discussing it in more detail.)

What I am sure of is the reading it generated several "Aha! moments." Sometimes I can go week with none at all, then three of them come along at the same time. So your post really got me thinking about all sorts of aspects of psychology and forum interactions and formation of opinions, and their flexibility. Thank you for that.

Well, here's a couple videos describing things.

 

[Yttrium]

Myers-Briggs is based off of the philosophy of Carl Jung.

Yes, Carl Jung came up with the cognitive functions, and Myers-Briggs takes some liberties with that and organizes the combinations of cognitive functions into 16 personality types. I think MBTI takes an interesting look at the interactions between the cognitive functions, although this is apparently very conjectural and not strongly supported by psychology theory.