I think a good way to distinguish between Introverted judging functions and extraverted judging functions is to say one is understanding and the other is knowledge. Understanding is the 'why'; knowledge is the fact. Ti and Fi are good at understanding, knowing the why. Ti knows why there is a fact along with the fact. Ex. The sun rises every morning (fact) because... (why). Fi knows there is an emotion and why that emotion is there. Ex. I'm angry (emotion) because... (why). Te and Fe are drawn toward knowledge. Te knows many facts. The why is less important. Ex. The sun rises every day, the moon rises every night, its hot during the day... Etc. Thus Te is often blind to the best explanation of the facts. Similarly, Fe knows many emotional states. Ex. I'm mad, he's happy, we're all having a good time. But Fe is blind to the explanation of these emotions. I notice a real Fi-blind spot on this Ti-heavy channel. Many commenters dont seem to recognize their emotional biases and how these influence what they say and why they say it. For instance, one reason I (Te/Fi) am saying this is I have a slight feeling of inferiority to Ti users, so I want to feel better by having others recognize that im valuable too. There's also the reason that I want to have a better understanding of the functions. But the emotional aspect is still there.
Interesting comment X. Good description about what the judging functions desire and tend to do. I was wondering what sort of bias would an Ti/Fe user have? Could you give an example? Would you say their underyling emotional bias is to be liked with their lower Fe? Your example made sense because it involved your Fi (feeling inferior). Would you say the Fe variation is to be liked? EDIT: oh wait, did not read it well: you said the FI-blind spot
@@PowerRedBullTypology My point is that we all have moments of feeling inferior/ having emotions, but Fe users do not notice it as much as Fi users. An example is being hungry. When I'm hungry I get grumpy and small things start to annoy me. Instead of blaming those small things for making me angry, I get to the root of my anger, which is simply not eating. If I called you stupid. You may want to deny this claim and prove otherwise, or show that I'm really the stupid one. But why would you want to do this. Fi is good at getting at this why. Fi is about emotional, underlying motivations.
Interesting, but I don't think that's functions so much as intellect. You could easily apply Ti depth to a dominant Te user. I also think interest is a good indicator, as well.
This is the comment I posted on one of his video regarding Ti vs Te (inductive vs deductive). This comment is 7 months old so take it with a grain of salt, but some of it still holds: "I am again seeing you categorize Te as deductive and Ti as inductive... this is the only thing on your entire channel that I disagree with. I think you have it backwards, can you perhaps share your reasons why you have done so? Meanwhile, I will share my reasons (personal reasons ;) )Ti works more in a closed system analogue to formal-logic and mathematics, while Te is more about empiricism and external data which is inductive... Te is broader in its application; for instance, seeing 50 white sheep and concludes that all or most sheep are white. Which is about getting consensus (tribe reasons). While with Ti it is more focused; more about inner knowing, using a closed system of deductive logic, which is good at pointing out flaws, and making new inferences followed from a premise e.g. Einstein's theory of general relativity. They are both nonetheless logic and powerful tools that are capable of being used by everyone who learns them, but if you are going to use those terms as analogies to help us understand the functions; I think they should be backwards... Then again there are not many people that understand these two words deeply i.e. inductive & deductive. Newton is not for nothing the father of empirical science which is heavily Te based. . . Before you use the counter-argument ''that science is not based on consensus but on facts'' let me point out to you that that is wrong, science is very much based on consensus which we formally refer to as an 'overwhelming intersubjective-agreement'. The consensus is constructed out of Te (external data) or as you call it tribe reasons While with math and logic it is pretty much set in stone because they work in a closed system (Ti/deductive). If you still disagree just research 'Godels Incompleteness'. ------ Even Dario Nardi the INTJ who measures types with EEG sees Ti as deductive: ''In preliminary neuroscience findings by Dario Nardi, Ph.D., strong Ti is correlated with being able to do multiple types of analysis at once. TiNe’s primarily use Deduction and Categorization: "Deduction - Linearly deriving solutions using verbal/symbolic reasoning. For example, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Using this region is like moving along the branches of a tree. Categorizing - Categorizing and defining concepts in a holistic way using a “best-fit” process. For example, it helps us determine whether a dolphin better fits in the mammal or fish category as it sorts many categories simultaneously." Notice the attributes of deductive logic 'linear' and 'symbolic' which has similar traits to Ti (linear more focusesd) & (symbolic more subjective) which I am not trying to be a dick here or disrespect your research, just curious why you have decided to put Ti with inductive rather than deductive... ------ The list below seems very Te to me, but I could be wrong. EMPIRICISM (IN FAVOR OF EMPIRICISM, AGAINST RATIONALISM): 1. Empiricism is Simpler: Compared to Empiricism, Rationalism has one more entity that exists: Innate knowledge. According to the Empiricist, the innate knowledge is unobservable and inefficacious; that is, it does not do anything. The knowledge may sit there, never being used. Using Ockham’s Razor (= when deciding between competing theories that explain the same phenomena, the simpler theory is better),1 Empiricism is the better theory. 2. Colors: How would you know what the color blue looks like if you were born blind? The only way to come to have the idea of blue is to experience it with your senses. (This objection only works possibly against Plato; see the introduction above again to see why this objection would not faze Descartes, Leibniz, or Chomsky.) 3. Imagination and Experience: How can we get the idea of perfect triangularity? We can extrapolate from our experience with crooked, sensible triangles and use our imagination to straighten out what is crooked and see what perfect triangularity is. 4. Rationalists have been Wrong about Their “Innate Knowledge”: Some medieval rationalists claimed that the notion of a vacuum was rationally absurd and hence it was impossible for one to exist. However, we have shown that it is possible.2 Reason is not the only way to discover the truth about a matter. 5. The Advance of Science: Much of science is founded on empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it. If we base our conclusions about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see our mistakes. A rationalist seems to have to say that we’ve discovered innate knowledge and then be embarrassed if he or she is ever wrong (see examples such as the vacuum, above). 6. All Rationalists do Not Agree about Innate Knowledge: Rationalists claim that there is innate knowledge that gives us fundamental truths about reality, but even among rationalists (e.g., Plato, who believes in reincarnation and Forms and Descartes, who does not believe in either but does believe in a soul), there is disagreement about the nature of reality, the self, etc. How can this be, if there is innate knowledge of these things? While this list below seems very Ti to me. RATIONALISM (IN FAVOR OF RATIONALISM, AGAINST EMPIRICISM): 1. Math and Logic are Innate: Doesn’t it seem that mathematical and logical truths are true not because of our five senses, but because of reason’s ability to connect ideas? 2. Morality is Innate: How do we get a sense of what right and wrong are with our five senses? Since we cannot experience things like justice, human rights, moral duties, moral good and evil with our five senses, what can the empiricist’s ethical theory like? Hume (an empiricist) says morality is based solely on emotions; Locke says experience can provide us with data to show what is morally right and wrong, but does it seem that way to you? 3. Verifying Empiricism: Locke (an empiricist) says that our experiences tell us about the nature of reality, but how can we ever check our experience with what reality really is, in order to know that? Rationalists do not think we can, so we have to rely on reason. 4. Poverty of Stimulus Problem: Three year olds use language in ways that they are not explicitly taught. For example, they form original sentences from words that they haven’t heard put together in precisely that way before. Also, they start to understand grammatical rules before they even know what a noun or a verb is. If we can only say what we’ve heard said by others, how can three year olds speak as well as they do? This is known as the poverty of stimulus problem. You may think that Rationalism is strange, but it does a better job of explaining this problem than Empiricism. One way of choosing which of two theories is better (in addition to or instead of Ockham’s Razor - see Empiricism point #1 above) is asking, “Which theory explains the phenomena better?”1 5. Empiricism Undermines Creativity? According to Empiricism, you can combine things, separate them, and nothing else. With Rationalism, we come to experience with ready-made tools for creativity. E.g., Plato would say that we’re in touch with abstract, immutable realities, which provide lots of material with which to create. 6. Controllable Humans? According to Empiricism, human beings can be controlled and manipulated exceptionally easily. If we are nothing other than what we experience, then we should be able to be made to do whatever we’re taught. Rationalism has it that there is an invariable core (call it “human nature”) that refuses to be manipulated, which is what makes us unique. plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/"
Mainly external and internal. - Newton observed the external world and got revolutionary insights about our external world, empiricism (Te). He thought it was imperative to do experiments that we can observe. - Einstein observed his own mind, he was sceptical of the external world, he thought things don't seem as they are, he trusted his own mind more than experiments (Ti). He thought that thought experiments are sufficient to prove his ideas. He also never cared much to prove his ideas, it was more that people surrounding him wanted to prove his ideas for him, he, of course, did like it and helped along. This is just a quick example, I don't feel like writing an essay since thoughts pertaining to this subject matter are 7 months old. Also, these are only caricatures, INTPs and INTJs derive equally meaning from internal and external aspects, but they do so differently. And other example is looking at the personality types from our history. Innate morality is an idea similar to the INTPs from our history like Kant. Of course, this is an analysis from the level of analogy, that is empiricism is an analogy for Te and rationalism is an analogy for Ti. I think most intellectually inclined people will display traits from both camps, I rarely encounter someone that is either one or the other in a dogmatic way.
Mind Maze - INTP ah, I see. Interesting thoughts! Is that really true about Einstein? That’s not what the show called “Einstein” that was recently aired on tv would have us believe
Etymology for reference: *Object,* late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from Medieval Latin objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), ...noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus "lying before, opposite" (as a noun in classical Latin, "charges, accusations"), past participle of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "in front of, towards, against" (see ob-) + iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel"). *Subject,* early 14c., "person under control or dominion of another," specifically a government or ruler, from Old French sogit, suget, subget "a subject person or thing" (12c., Modern French sujet), from noun use of Latin subiectus "lying under, below, near bordering on," figuratively "subjected, subdued," ...past participle of subicere, subiicere "to place under, throw under, bind under; to make subject, subordinate," from sub "under" (from PIE root *upo "under") + combining form of iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel"). In 14c., sugges, sogetis, subgit, sugette; form re-Latinized in English 16c. Etymonline.com
just a thought on memory and functions: what if functions are just a display of how our memories are being organised and prioritised. there are three types of long term memory. procedural (implicit), semantic and episodic (explicit). The procedural/implicit memories you brought up, I would cut out as they don’t involve the hippocampus, i wouldn’t think of them as a function display of si/ni but as short term memories repeated so often that the brain has created a shortcut to them in an area away from the hippocampus (memory, emotions and motivations) to help us survive. But the other forms of memories correlate with the functions. People with strong semantic memories probably using their frontal lobe more are Ni, Ne, Ti, Te doms. Ni, Ne- Meanings and ideas. Ti, Te- Facts and observations. People with strong episodic memories probably using their hippocampus more are Fi, Fe, Si, Se doms. Fi, Fe- Emotions and impacts. Si, Se- Objects and place.
With your definitions of Ti being deductive and Ni, I relate with that and agree. On another vid about Dave and Ni, I stated taking away which I view as deductive. Dave mentioned organizing in Ni and I stated that too in a comment. But I use the word organizing loosely in a fluid fashion and someone else stated synthesizing which I think is a better word for my "organizing". I view Te as builders and Ti as deconstructionists. Dave built a system and Eric is deconstructing parts of it which I think helps build a better system. As far college, I dont advise people going into debt for it. If you go, go part time and pay as you go. Vocational degrees may be worth it for some but 4yr degrees that are not in high demand and a lot of debt is a bad idea. Cant claim student loans on bankruptcies in US. High interest credit cards can be problematic too but a person could file bankruptcy on those. Better to save up and pay as you go. My daughter did and she is debt free from school costs.
Talking with Famous People so an Se dom would maybe enjoy the way a physical sensation makes them feel in the present moment but NOT as a consistent staple in their lifestyle that they would maintain for the rest of their life?
@@EndlessKurtis Pretty much. They value comfort & sensual pleasures, but do less well with keeping track of their shit and being consistent across time.
I love one of your last sentences: "The distinction between utility and aesthetics is individuated, and not within the thing itself..." That's a philosophical subject that I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about in the past.
Did you actually watch his video?? Seems like you are basing your entire argument about the comment not the video.... me=confused. This comment is not about what he is talking about in the video. In the video he basically says FE is do other people like it is there a scandal with the company that I should know about etc., TE people look at does this function in a way that I want to function.
Eric, your definitions are much closer to Kantian and because he's trying to be objective, he's going to veer towards behaviorism whether he wants to or not. I do subscribe just because his project is so interesting and he does have a different slant on things.
Have you ever thought about making really fancy/presentational videos where u break down each individual concept in your theory of cognitive functions? One thing that would be good to hone in on is what exactly turn-based reality is. I feel like many people will just hear you say that and go “I have no idea what the f this guy is talking about. Ooh look cat videos.” You could do a neat little video series for each concept as if u were teaching a class on it. I for one would certainly pay full attention
Andrés Coar he should probably make them presentable and concisely/effectively scripted too. Needs an infj to help him write the script through questioning, perhaps. He tends to go down tangents that are important but lead too far to go down and remember how to get back to the main line of thinking. If it were scripted he could account for all such tangents and present the case in a way that is clear and indisputable. Yes, I am aware that this is not how Ne works, but he could use Ne to write the scripts
He would have my full attention as well. Excellent suggestion, Garrett. I think a bit more consideration of structure and aesthetics would go a long way in garnering the attention of a wider audience.
Amy Kamrath thanks Amy! And this wouldn’t be solely for the sake of recognition. It would open them up to close scrutiny from a wide variety of perspectives, helping develop both/either the theory and/or people’s understanding of reality and cognition. Eric’s ideas could bring about revolution in thought. Not everyone is aware of the distinctions between thoughts and reality that he lays out, neither are they of the subjectivity behind all perception and manner of being that I think he’s going for. People tend to think that facts are facts and science is rationality
I agree, Garrett. Although he sometimes speaks about wanting more recognition in a way that comes across as egoic, I think he knows that the satisfaction would actually come from others utilizing his offerings (ideas, music, hospitality, etc.) to enrich their lives and deepen their understanding of themselves, each other, and the world.
ti and te are both practical but practical in different ways. Richard Feynman has ti and he helped design the atomic bomb. Numerous technological and scientific advances came from ti people. So te can take the design and create a prototype from the ti design. Mechanics are typically istp. So he shouldn’t debate on the practicality of ti.
Talking with Famous People but the concept of a “goal” still requires an observing function. So you were critiquing the use of using the deciding and observing functions to make a definition, but you did it right there didn’t you?
Charles Benson pretty sure Te has nothing to do with other people’s opinion. Te is basically figuring out or how to get from point A to point B on your own. Example, the computer is broken, ima fix it on my own without asking for help from others, other than maybe an owners manual. It’s exercising control over your environment. This is how Te interfaces with the world.
@@EndlessKurtis hum I'm still learning man but i do notice efps ask for feedback while I an ISFP do not care for much feed back but I hear ya Te does sound very fix it like
Charles Benson I’ve seen you primarily around over at DSPs channel. What I think a confrontation between Eric and Powers will accomplish is that it will reveal to this community that many of these systems are not compatible with each other and people have various different definitions of functions. And the big question is: who’s system should be lauded as the true representation of Jungian typology and the functions?
Charles Benson it gets ambiguous though, as some people type the same in both systems. I’d probably still type you ISFP in Eric’s system as well as in Dave’s. But I can’t say the same for everyone.
I think a good way to distinguish between Introverted judging functions and extraverted judging functions is to say one is understanding and the other is knowledge. Understanding is the 'why'; knowledge is the fact.
Ti and Fi are good at understanding, knowing the why. Ti knows why there is a fact along with the fact. Ex. The sun rises every morning (fact) because... (why). Fi knows there is an emotion and why that emotion is there. Ex. I'm angry (emotion) because... (why).
Te and Fe are drawn toward knowledge. Te knows many facts. The why is less important. Ex. The sun rises every day, the moon rises every night, its hot during the day... Etc. Thus Te is often blind to the best explanation of the facts. Similarly, Fe knows many emotional states. Ex. I'm mad, he's happy, we're all having a good time. But Fe is blind to the explanation of these emotions.
I notice a real Fi-blind spot on this Ti-heavy channel. Many commenters dont seem to recognize their emotional biases and how these influence what they say and why they say it. For instance, one reason I (Te/Fi) am saying this is I have a slight feeling of inferiority to Ti users, so I want to feel better by having others recognize that im valuable too. There's also the reason that I want to have a better understanding of the functions. But the emotional aspect is still there.
Interesting comment X. Good description about what the judging functions desire and tend to do.
I was wondering what sort of bias would an Ti/Fe user have? Could you give an example? Would you say their underyling emotional bias is to be liked with their lower Fe? Your example made sense because it involved your Fi (feeling inferior). Would you say the Fe variation is to be liked?
EDIT: oh wait, did not read it well: you said the FI-blind spot
@@PowerRedBullTypology My point is that we all have moments of feeling inferior/ having emotions, but Fe users do not notice it as much as Fi users. An example is being hungry. When I'm hungry I get grumpy and small things start to annoy me. Instead of blaming those small things for making me angry, I get to the root of my anger, which is simply not eating.
If I called you stupid. You may want to deny this claim and prove otherwise, or show that I'm really the stupid one. But why would you want to do this. Fi is good at getting at this why. Fi is about emotional, underlying motivations.
Interesting, but I don't think that's functions so much as intellect. You could easily apply Ti depth to a dominant Te user. I also think interest is a good indicator, as well.
This is the comment I posted on one of his video regarding Ti vs Te (inductive vs deductive). This comment is 7 months old so take it with a grain of salt, but some of it still holds:
"I am again seeing you categorize Te as deductive and Ti as inductive... this is the only thing on your entire channel that I disagree with. I think you have it backwards, can you perhaps share your reasons why you have done so? Meanwhile, I will share my reasons (personal reasons ;) )Ti works more in a closed system analogue to formal-logic and mathematics, while Te is more about empiricism and external data which is inductive...
Te is broader in its application; for instance, seeing 50 white sheep and concludes that all or most sheep are white. Which is about getting consensus (tribe reasons). While with Ti it is more focused; more about inner knowing, using a closed system of deductive logic, which is good at pointing out flaws, and making new inferences followed from a premise e.g. Einstein's theory of general relativity. They are both nonetheless logic and powerful tools that are capable of being used by everyone who learns them, but if you are going to use those terms as analogies to help us understand the functions; I think they should be backwards... Then again there are not many people that understand these two words deeply i.e. inductive & deductive. Newton is not for nothing the father of empirical science which is heavily Te based. . .
Before you use the counter-argument ''that science is not based on consensus but on facts'' let me point out to you that that is wrong, science is very much based on consensus which we formally refer to as an 'overwhelming intersubjective-agreement'. The consensus is constructed out of Te (external data) or as you call it tribe reasons While with math and logic it is pretty much set in stone because they work in a closed system (Ti/deductive). If you still disagree just research 'Godels Incompleteness'.
------
Even Dario Nardi the INTJ who measures types with EEG sees Ti as deductive:
''In preliminary neuroscience findings by Dario Nardi, Ph.D., strong Ti is correlated with being able to do multiple types of analysis at once. TiNe’s primarily use Deduction and Categorization:
"Deduction - Linearly deriving solutions using verbal/symbolic reasoning. For example, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Using this region is like moving along the branches of a tree.
Categorizing - Categorizing and defining concepts in a holistic way using a “best-fit” process. For example, it helps us determine whether a dolphin better fits in the mammal or fish category as it sorts many categories simultaneously."
Notice the attributes of deductive logic 'linear' and 'symbolic' which has similar traits to Ti (linear more focusesd) & (symbolic more subjective) which I am not trying to be a dick here or disrespect your research, just curious why you have decided to put Ti with inductive rather than deductive...
------
The list below seems very Te to me, but I could be wrong.
EMPIRICISM (IN FAVOR OF EMPIRICISM, AGAINST RATIONALISM):
1. Empiricism is Simpler: Compared to Empiricism, Rationalism has one more entity that exists: Innate knowledge. According to the Empiricist, the innate knowledge is unobservable and inefficacious; that is, it does not do anything. The knowledge may sit there, never being used. Using Ockham’s Razor (= when deciding between competing theories that explain the same phenomena, the simpler theory is better),1 Empiricism is the better theory.
2. Colors: How would you know what the color blue looks like if you were born blind? The only way to come to have the idea of blue is to experience it with your senses. (This objection only works possibly against Plato; see the introduction above again to see why this objection would not faze Descartes, Leibniz, or Chomsky.)
3. Imagination and Experience: How can we get the idea of perfect triangularity? We can extrapolate from our experience with crooked, sensible triangles and use our imagination to straighten out what is crooked and see what perfect triangularity is.
4. Rationalists have been Wrong about Their “Innate Knowledge”: Some medieval rationalists claimed that the notion of a vacuum was rationally absurd and hence it was impossible for one to exist. However, we have shown that it is possible.2 Reason is not the only way to discover the truth about a matter.
5. The Advance of Science: Much of science is founded on empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it. If we base our conclusions about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see our mistakes. A rationalist seems to have to say that we’ve discovered innate knowledge and then be embarrassed if he or she is ever wrong (see examples such as the vacuum, above).
6. All Rationalists do Not Agree about Innate Knowledge: Rationalists claim that there is innate knowledge that gives us fundamental truths about reality, but even among rationalists (e.g., Plato, who believes in reincarnation and Forms and Descartes, who does not believe in either but does believe in a soul), there is disagreement about the nature of reality, the self, etc. How can this be, if there is innate knowledge of these things?
While this list below seems very Ti to me.
RATIONALISM (IN FAVOR OF RATIONALISM, AGAINST EMPIRICISM):
1. Math and Logic are Innate: Doesn’t it seem that mathematical and logical truths are true not because of our five senses, but because of reason’s ability to connect ideas?
2. Morality is Innate: How do we get a sense of what right and wrong are with our five senses? Since we cannot experience things like justice, human rights, moral duties, moral good and evil with our five senses, what can the empiricist’s ethical theory like? Hume (an empiricist) says morality is based solely on emotions; Locke says experience can provide us with data to show what is morally right and wrong, but does it seem that way to you?
3. Verifying Empiricism: Locke (an empiricist) says that our experiences tell us about the nature of reality, but how can we ever check our experience with what reality really is, in order to know that? Rationalists do not think we can, so we have to rely on reason.
4. Poverty of Stimulus Problem: Three year olds use language in ways that they are not explicitly taught. For example, they form original sentences from words that they haven’t heard put together in precisely that way before. Also, they start to understand grammatical rules before they even know what a noun or a verb is. If we can only say what we’ve heard said by others, how can three year olds speak as well as they do? This is known as the poverty of stimulus problem. You may think that Rationalism is strange, but it does a better job of explaining this problem than Empiricism. One way of choosing which of two theories is better (in addition to or instead of Ockham’s Razor - see Empiricism point #1 above) is asking, “Which theory explains the phenomena better?”1
5. Empiricism Undermines Creativity? According to Empiricism, you can combine things, separate them, and nothing else. With Rationalism, we come to experience with ready-made tools for creativity. E.g., Plato would say that we’re in touch with abstract, immutable realities, which provide lots of material with which to create.
6. Controllable Humans? According to Empiricism, human beings can be controlled and manipulated exceptionally easily. If we are nothing other than what we experience, then we should be able to be made to do whatever we’re taught. Rationalism has it that there is an invariable core (call it “human nature”) that refuses to be manipulated, which is what makes us unique.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/"
I didn't need to see your name to know that an INTP wrote this comment ;-)
Really? That is a good data point since I've been struggling with the J and P part lately. Thanks!
Just out of curiosity, what metric and/or qualitative analysis are you using to distinguish whether the lists seem Ti or Te? Good comment
Mainly external and internal.
- Newton observed the external world and got revolutionary insights about our external world, empiricism (Te). He thought it was imperative to do experiments that we can observe.
- Einstein observed his own mind, he was sceptical of the external world, he thought things don't seem as they are, he trusted his own mind more than experiments (Ti). He thought that thought experiments are sufficient to prove his ideas.
He also never cared much to prove his ideas, it was more that people surrounding him wanted to prove his ideas for him, he, of course, did like it and helped along.
This is just a quick example, I don't feel like writing an essay since thoughts pertaining to this subject matter are 7 months old.
Also, these are only caricatures, INTPs and INTJs derive equally meaning from internal and external aspects, but they do so differently. And other example is looking at the personality types from our history. Innate morality is an idea similar to the INTPs from our history like Kant.
Of course, this is an analysis from the level of analogy, that is empiricism is an analogy for Te and rationalism is an analogy for Ti. I think most intellectually inclined people will display traits from both camps, I rarely encounter someone that is either one or the other in a dogmatic way.
Mind Maze - INTP ah, I see. Interesting thoughts! Is that really true about Einstein? That’s not what the show called “Einstein” that was recently aired on tv would have us believe
Etymology for reference:
*Object,*
late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses," from Medieval Latin objectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight),
...noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus "lying before, opposite" (as a noun in classical Latin, "charges, accusations"), past participle of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "in front of, towards, against" (see ob-) + iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel").
*Subject,*
early 14c., "person under control or dominion of another," specifically a government or ruler, from Old French sogit, suget, subget "a subject person or thing" (12c., Modern French sujet), from noun use of Latin subiectus "lying under, below, near bordering on," figuratively "subjected, subdued,"
...past participle of subicere, subiicere "to place under, throw under, bind under; to make subject, subordinate," from sub "under" (from PIE root *upo "under") + combining form of iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel"). In 14c., sugges, sogetis, subgit, sugette; form re-Latinized in English 16c.
Etymonline.com
Interesting!
just a thought on memory and functions:
what if functions are just a display of how our memories are being organised and prioritised.
there are three types of long term memory.
procedural (implicit), semantic and episodic (explicit).
The procedural/implicit memories you brought up, I would cut out as they don’t involve the hippocampus, i wouldn’t think of them as a function display of si/ni but as short term memories repeated so often that the brain has created a shortcut to them in an area away from the hippocampus (memory, emotions and motivations) to help us survive.
But the other forms of memories correlate with the functions.
People with strong semantic memories probably using their frontal lobe more are Ni, Ne, Ti, Te doms.
Ni, Ne- Meanings and ideas.
Ti, Te- Facts and observations.
People with strong episodic memories probably using their hippocampus more are Fi, Fe, Si, Se doms.
Fi, Fe- Emotions and impacts.
Si, Se- Objects and place.
With your definitions of Ti being deductive and Ni, I relate with that and agree. On another vid about Dave and Ni, I stated taking away which I view as deductive. Dave mentioned organizing in Ni and I stated that too in a comment. But I use the word organizing loosely in a fluid fashion and someone else stated synthesizing which I think is a better word for my "organizing". I view Te as builders and Ti as deconstructionists. Dave built a system and Eric is deconstructing parts of it which I think helps build a better system.
As far college, I dont advise people going into debt for it. If you go, go part time and pay as you go. Vocational degrees may be worth it for some but 4yr degrees that are not in high demand and a lot of debt is a bad idea. Cant claim student loans on bankruptcies in US. High interest credit cards can be problematic too but a person could file bankruptcy on those. Better to save up and pay as you go. My daughter did and she is debt free from school costs.
14:12 would it be fair to say then that an ESTP would utilize and value Si more than Ni? Since you as an ENTP use and value Ni more than Si?
Yes that's fair to say. However they value its realtime aspect substantially more than it's across time aspect.
Talking with Famous People so an Se dom would maybe enjoy the way a physical sensation makes them feel in the present moment but NOT as a consistent staple in their lifestyle that they would maintain for the rest of their life?
@@EndlessKurtis Pretty much. They value comfort & sensual pleasures, but do less well with keeping track of their shit and being consistent across time.
Talking with Famous People what did you think of Taylor typing me ESTP, does that seem plausible? Not trying to annoy you just curious.
I love one of your last sentences: "The distinction between utility and aesthetics is individuated, and not within the thing itself..."
That's a philosophical subject that I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about in the past.
That's a notable sentence to highlight. It suggests you have indeed spent a lot of time thinking about it.
Did you actually watch his video?? Seems like you are basing your entire argument about the comment not the video.... me=confused. This comment is not about what he is talking about in the video. In the video he basically says FE is do other people like it is there a scandal with the company that I should know about etc., TE people look at does this function in a way that I want to function.
Michelle Wilson he’s a busy man stop pestering him
Kurtis1996 busy jumping to conclusions 😂😂
Right but that ignores what I said. What do we do with this distinction when the goal is to get people to buy it?
Talking with Famous People I’m sorry but can you clarify “this distinction”?
@@PsychologyandChillwMichi
"busy jumping to conclusions"
😱 ruclips.net/video/Fdza03XOmTw/видео.html
Eric, your definitions are much closer to Kantian and because he's trying to be objective, he's going to veer towards behaviorism whether he wants to or not.
I do subscribe just because his project is so interesting and he does have a different slant on things.
Holly shit you made a video addressing this!
Have you ever thought about making really fancy/presentational videos where u break down each individual concept in your theory of cognitive functions? One thing that would be good to hone in on is what exactly turn-based reality is. I feel like many people will just hear you say that and go “I have no idea what the f this guy is talking about. Ooh look cat videos.”
You could do a neat little video series for each concept as if u were teaching a class on it. I for one would certainly pay full attention
Garrett Hurt He has videos explaining this. Maybe creating a Playlist would help.
Andrés Coar he should probably make them presentable and concisely/effectively scripted too. Needs an infj to help him write the script through questioning, perhaps. He tends to go down tangents that are important but lead too far to go down and remember how to get back to the main line of thinking. If it were scripted he could account for all such tangents and present the case in a way that is clear and indisputable. Yes, I am aware that this is not how Ne works, but he could use Ne to write the scripts
He would have my full attention as well. Excellent suggestion, Garrett. I think a bit more consideration of structure and aesthetics would go a long way in garnering the attention of a wider audience.
Amy Kamrath thanks Amy! And this wouldn’t be solely for the sake of recognition. It would open them up to close scrutiny from a wide variety of perspectives, helping develop both/either the theory and/or people’s understanding of reality and cognition. Eric’s ideas could bring about revolution in thought. Not everyone is aware of the distinctions between thoughts and reality that he lays out, neither are they of the subjectivity behind all perception and manner of being that I think he’s going for. People tend to think that facts are facts and science is rationality
I agree, Garrett. Although he sometimes speaks about wanting more recognition in a way that comes across as egoic, I think he knows that the satisfaction would actually come from others utilizing his offerings (ideas, music, hospitality, etc.) to enrich their lives and deepen their understanding of themselves, each other, and the world.
This is your best video Eric, your explanations were very clear.
ti and te are both practical but practical in different ways. Richard Feynman has ti and he helped design the atomic bomb. Numerous technological and scientific advances came from ti people. So te can take the design and create a prototype from the ti design. Mechanics are typically istp. So he shouldn’t debate on the practicality of ti.
How is it that we prefer the 7th function? Wouldn't we prefer our 2nd function more than that one?
No, I was saying that we prefer the natural aspect of all functions except the 7th, where we prefer the unnatural aspect.
So you prefer Fi over Fe? maybe you could make a video explaining this sometime. @@Talkingwithfamouspeople
Wait wait wait. You said “their goal to make a lot of money” is Ti but didn’t you by saying that still pull in an observer function?
No it's not Ti. The point is that goals are internal, not external.
Talking with Famous People but the concept of a “goal” still requires an observing function. So you were critiquing the use of using the deciding and observing functions to make a definition, but you did it right there didn’t you?
No, I was critiquing the distinction being made, not the making of a distinction. It's nearly impossible to have this conversation in the comments.
Talking with Famous People agreed.
24:55 ad hoc?
propter hoc?
it's true -- i barely know how to use my phone.
He links Te to the tribe I get why asking for others opinoun is that some kind of Fe or Te
Charles Benson pretty sure Te has nothing to do with other people’s opinion. Te is basically figuring out or how to get from point A to point B on your own.
Example, the computer is broken, ima fix it on my own without asking for help from others, other than maybe an owners manual.
It’s exercising control over your environment.
This is how Te interfaces with the world.
@@EndlessKurtis hum I'm still learning man but i do notice efps ask for feedback while I an ISFP do not care for much feed back but I hear ya Te does sound very fix it like
Charles Benson I’ve seen you primarily around over at DSPs channel.
What I think a confrontation between Eric and Powers will accomplish is that it will reveal to this community that many of these systems are not compatible with each other and people have various different definitions of functions. And the big question is: who’s system should be lauded as the true representation of Jungian typology and the functions?
@@EndlessKurtis that's a good point im.still learning as well myself. It's w big rabbit hole
Charles Benson it gets ambiguous though, as some people type the same in both systems. I’d probably still type you ISFP in Eric’s system as well as in Dave’s.
But I can’t say the same for everyone.