Intelligence is specialization

[clockwork]

If you equally value all kinds of intelligence (emotional, kinesthetic, etc), each kind of intelligence belonging to a function/type, then all types can be intelligent in their own way.

Thus it is sticking to a type and becoming a specialist (the best) in that type which is considered intelligent

The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options. (otherwise someone else will, and become the best, while you dabble around).

Intelligence = Specialization

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic. The Te specialist will run over him. etc

Thus: those who do not psychologically specialize and wobble in type (not in their assessment of their own type, but in their real internal type calibration whether they know it or not) are less intelligent.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No.

 

[clockwork]

No.

=strong Fi function

Your profile says INFJ, you should consider INFP.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah right lol.

If you actually understood MBTI properly and wasn't just a newbie who's out to draw hasty conclusion you'd see the obvious fact that some types require a broad understanding of things while others don't. Those who do best focusing on one thing at a time tend to be dominant Ji types.

 

[clockwork]

Yeah right lol.

If you actually understood MBTI properly and wasn't just a newbie who's out to draw hasty conclusion you'd see the obvious fact that some types require a broad understanding of things while others don't. Those who do best focusing on one thing at a time tend to be dominant Ji types.

More Fi!
But now your Fi is on me, so you will never accept it, from me, that you have mistyped yourself as INFJ and you are in fact a genuine INFP! Now you will think you are INFJ for life (Just because you don't want me to be right. And it is of course more important to block me than to know the truth). Because yes, you have to oppose me with all you can of course and take yourself down in the process. Ah the paradox of being an INFP, while for sure not accepting it!

And whether or not I am an MBTI expert or not, although I can easily spot you as an INFP, this is irrelevant to this post, as the subject of this post is not about the details of typing.

Now serious stuff: I was not talking about focusing on 1 thing. I was talking about specializing. One could also specialize in abstract-blur/multi-tasking as some types do, and those are intelligent in abstract-blur/multi-tasking. I was just saying that if you dabble from focus-on-1-thing-functions/type to blur/multi-task-functions/type you wont be good in any of them.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I spent a ton of time asking others about whether I may be an INFP instead of an INFJ, I considered it very carefully myself and I still do from time to time. You've had but a few interactions with me online and now you can tell that I'm definitely one whether or not you're an MBTI expert? Stop trolling : /

Again you're adopting my view by changing what you initially said. You can now specialize in not specializing but instead adopting a broad range of behaviors acting like a social multitool (several types can do this so yeah its true but it goes against what you initially said). What then was the point of your OP?

 

[TBerg]

Apparently, the OP does not know about lateral thinking and that a broad set of knowledge is required for this creative endeavor. Read the latest Scientific American Mind on genius, genius.

 

[Base groove]

If you equally value all kinds of intelligence (emotional, kinesthetic, etc), each kind of intelligence belonging to a function/type, then all types can be intelligent in their own way.

While I accept there are many facets to intelligence, I dispute your reasoning that each kind of intelligence is exclusive to a certain type or function. It's not true.

Thus it is sticking to a type and becoming a specialist (the best) in that type which is considered intelligent

That is considered neurotic by some other people.

The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options. (otherwise someone else will, and become the best, while you dabble around).

"the only way" ... just, why? Where did you get that idea? Do you really believe it?

Intelligence = Specialization

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic. The Te specialist will run over him. etc

Wondering what is so different about being crushed vs being run over? Even your metaphors are inconsistent and yield no higher insight.

Thus: those who do not psychologically specialize and wobble in type (not in their assessment of their own type, but in their real internal type calibration whether they know it or not) are less intelligent.

By posting this and then following up by disputing CC's type... you are effectively calling him less intelligent. Yet your theory has no evidence, no objective grounding, no caveats .. and your reasoning skips over potential obstacles as though they don't exist rather than confronting them.

I'm wondering where the INTP fits into your theory of intelligence.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I mean it's not all bad, but the fact that Clockwork presents his theories and views in absolute terms renders them more inaccurate than they'd have to be : /

Edit: Clockwork, I wouldn't mind hearing more in detail about why you think I am an INFP. I just get very sceptical when someone who judging from his postcount is very new to the forum, and seemingly somewhat new to MBTI (although you've demonstrated a lot of knowledge as Base Groove says), claims to know something like that.

It's easy to think to think you got someones type down just because they happen to display some hallmark behavior belonging to a certain type. I think that's a form of hubris.

 

[QuickTwist]

I mean it's not all bad, but the fact that Clockwork presents his theories and views in absolute terms renders them more inaccurate than they'd have to be : /

Edit: Clockwork, I wouldn't mind hearing more in detail about why you think I am an INFP. I just get very sceptical when someone who judging from his postcount is very new to the forum, and seemingly somewhat new to MBTI (although you've demonstrated a lot of knowledge as Base Groove says), claims to know something like that.

It's easy to think to think you got someones type down just because they happen to display some hallmark behavior belonging to a certain type. I think that's a form of hubris.

He is not presenting his theories in absolute terms; he is not emphatically saying his theories are true, you put that on him and forced him to closure on a number of subjects but not all having to do with his theory. You do tend to force people to closure more than is necessary. This is because of your Fe.

 

[Cherry Cola]

He is not presenting his theories in absolute terms; he is not emphatically saying his theories are true, you put that on him and forced him to closure on a number of subjects but not all having to do with his theory. You do tend to force people to closure more than is necessary. This is because of your Fe.

No he is presenting his theories as were they categorical imperatives and not general descriptions which weakens them.

If you also look at the thread about Ti and advice-giving you'll see the same thing. Frequent usage of the word "always" and other formulations with similar meaning.

I am hardly forcing closure by disencouraging it, rather I am advocating keeping things open.

This has nothing to do with my Fe. Seriously I get that so often now it's becoming tiresome. Hell I'm even starting to feel a bit insulted by being pegged as some sort of inferior "mere feeler". MBTI is hardly an area where feelers are weak anyway, and especially not INFJs.

 

[QuickTwist]

No he is presenting his theories as were they categorical imperatives and not general descriptions which weakens them.

If you also look at the thread about Ti and advice-giving you'll see the same thing. Frequent usage of the word "always" and other formulations with similar meaning.

I am hardly forcing closure by disencouraging it, rather I am advocating keeping things open.

That is just your perspective talking. I read the OP He did not use emphatic totality in his language. He is coming up with a hypothesis. In a hypothesis you do not limit possibilities as to what the outcome may be because what you are supposed to do is try to prove your hypothesis wrong or work things out in trial and error to see if what you hypothesized is true and the validity of it.

This has nothing to do with my Fe. Seriously I get that so often now it's becoming tiresome.

Perhaps there is some truth to it then?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Or perhaps you're being tautological, whatever I say you'll still be convinced because you've gotta peg me off as a mere feeler since me and Bronto know each other and we've both criticized you on several occasions. If I would've written that I was an INTP or an INTJ I would've gotten about 70% less feeler pegs. They are cheap attempts at invalidating what I've said and me as a person.

What does empathic totality even mean? He's presenting a finished hypothesis and what I was doing was pointing out it's faults. In the early stage of forming an hypothesis there's a process involving gathering qualitative as well as quantitive samples of the phenomenon being investigated, that hasn't been done properly in this case. What has been done is that clockwork has used his understanding of types and MBTI to make some general statements which do not (thx lol jesus christ so many typos in this post) hold up under scrutiny.

Now if you could please get factual and actually argue against what I said rather than come up with mere declarations of what you think.

 

[Base groove]

^do not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[QuickTwist]

Or perhaps you're being tautological, whatever I say you'll still be convinced because you've gotta peg me off as a mere feeler since me and Bronto know each other and we've both criticized you on several occasions. If I would've written that I was an INTP or an INTJ I would've gotten about 70% less feeler pegs. They are cheap attempts at invalidating what I've said and me as a person.

What does empathic totality even mean? He's presenting a finished hypothesis and what I was doing was pointing out it's faults. In the early stage of forming an hypothesis there's a process involving gathering qualitative as well as quantitive samples of the phenomenon being investigated, that hasn't been done properly in this case. What has been done is that clockwork has used his understanding of types and MBTI to make some general statements which do not (thx lol jesus christ so many typos in this post) hold up under scrutiny.

Now if you could please get factual and actually argue against what I said rather than come up with mere declarations of what you think.

I believe because I am under constant scrutiny to myself and of myself that I am better suited to be objective toward outward occurrences. I don't argue for argument sake and seldom point out the mistakes of other unless A.) it will benefit them or B.) they really had it comin'.

I would say I would have spotted the value driven arguments regardless of how you typed yourself. You are making an awful lot of assumption and claims about what really is and its understandable however inaccurate it is.

In short, all I am doing is using my Si (as poorly developed as it is) to inform what is going on, I am making no claims and am coming up with no theories as to what it means, how it is happening, or why it is occurring. This is the difference between your arguments and mine.

 

[redbaron]

I don't really agree with the premise of the thread. What you're talking about isn't specialization, it's limitation. In your own words:

The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options.

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic.

I'd say that it's more likely this, "Ti specialist" who has ignored all other options won't be, "crushing" anyone with logic, instead they'll be arguing over minor discrepancies ad nauseum, failing to utilize external perception (Se/Ne) to grasp the importance of the overall picture.

In other words, just another immature INTP.

I am better suited to be objective toward outward occurrences.

A common misconception.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Tautological indeed. You've just denied anyone the possibility of proving you wrong in any way and put yourself on a pedestal so tall that a fall from it would be lethal.

It's obvious hubris. You're not even putting forth a case, probably because that would render you vurnerable, you cling to your own picture of yourself like a baby to its mother. Its narcissism, not pathological narcissism, but nonetheless geez.

 

[Brontosaurie]

revising your hypothesis according to cc's criticism would yield something like:

doing what you're apt to do is more efficient than trying to even out your skillset

amirite?

then you could flesh it out by tying in complementarity, collaborative efforts, our species' propensity for social organisation, how this likely affects diversity of gene pool, etc.

the word 'specialization' is misleading and you ramble too much and make too definitive statements giving a needlessly rigorous impression, but your core idea is sound.

oh and there's a circular aspect to your presentation but that seems superficial.

 

[QuickTwist]

A common misconception.

LOL. How common is the misconception I wonder? Training your brain to critically think about what the reality of the matter is, is not all that common.

Tautological indeed. You've just denied anyone the possibility of proving you wrong in any way and put yourself on a pedestal so tall that a fall from it would be lethal.

I said no such thing! Don't put words in my mouth! And that is not even the way things work. I might ask what this argument of this tautological thought process is.

It's obvious hubris. You're not even putting forth a case, probably because that would render you vurnerable, you cling to your own picture of yourself like a baby to its mother. Its narcissism, not pathological narcissism, but nonetheless geez.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You misunderstand me completely. It is not a fact that I am arrogant, self centered and/or Narcissistic. Take a look around the forum. I give credit where credit is due, which is unselfish, objectivity. You created those arguments because it is you that feels vulnerable, not I. You are drawing from a pattern that you have seen in people making similar arguments but if you knew me in real life you would see that I am as far away from Narcissistic behavior as you are from objectivity. That is the difference, I am being objective and you are being sentimental.

You are starting to crumble.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

ho hum...

Spoiler

If you equally value all kinds of intelligence (emotional, kinesthetic, etc), each kind of intelligence belonging to a function/type, then all types can be intelligent in their own way.

Thus it is sticking to a type and becoming a specialist (the best) in that type which is considered intelligent

The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options. (otherwise someone else will, and become the best, while you dabble around).

Intelligence = Specialization

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic. The Te specialist will run over him. etc

Thus: those who do not psychologically specialize and wobble in type (not in their assessment of their own type, but in their real internal type calibration whether they know it or not) are less intelligent.

I think the theoretical underpinnings here are valid (this is niche theory), it just needs some label swapperoos to make it a cohesive system. "Intelligence" in the OP is one of those labels. Let's call it... something else for the sake of the semantics fedora party that would ensue otherwise. Intelligence is Spearman's g.

Let's consider niche locus a product of cognitive functions x Spearman's g. (x, y, z... pull axes out of nowhere for all I care. Fuck Euclid). Could be simple position in the functional stack for a coarse grained model, could be % use for something potentially more fine grained. Call each niche locus an agent and you're golden.

Multivectorial scatterplot, maan...

I don't really agree with the premise of the thread. What you're talking about isn't specialization, it's limitation.

0.o

How is specialization vs limitation anything other than a false dichotomy? Good lawd. All those nuclear engineers with double lives as podiatrists and IMG models. Dey's errywhar!

But really, quantifying lateral thinking capacity (or something similar) as an additional variable in the model above could be used to demarcate the boundaries of a given agent's adaptive capacity, but individual boxblobs are going to be limited in size compared to the total volume of vector space. Except for mine, of course.

then you could flesh it out by tying in complementarity, collaborative efforts, our species' propensity for social organisation, how this likely affects diversity of gene pool, etc.

the word 'specialization' is misleading and you ramble too much and make too definitive statements giving a needlessly rigorous impression, but your core idea is sound.

Spoiler

 

[redbaron]

LOL. How common is the misconception I wonder? Training your brain to critically think about what the reality of the matter is, is not all that common.

What's common is that you think you're any more capable than anyone else at viewing things objectively. People more often than not are given to the idea that they have greater capability to understand things than do other people. Their reasons tend to vary - having a PhD, 'high' IQ, being an INTP (or other type) or believing that they've, "trained" themselves to a greater degree than have others.

Whatever it is, there remains an underlying (and unfortunate) perception that they have the ability to see things with more objectivity or clarity than do others.

It's disappointing to witness when someone makes a claim like this, wherein their method of discrediting ideas inevitably results in them being correct because, *insert anecdotal evidence of intellectual superiority here*, which is ironically one of the least objective things anyone could use to support an argument.

In short, to answer your question - yes, it's actually very common for people to do what you describe and not nearly as indicative of your ability to accurately perceive things as you seem to think.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think he's talking about ego fixations. Because without an ego, one doesn't really have a type; and without an ego, what the mind produces becomes one-dimensional. Because the more an ego is channeled through experience, the more it takes into account and can understand - and the more multi-dimensional it becomes in its relation with reality.

 

[QuickTwist]

What's common is that you think you're any more capable than anyone else at viewing things objectively. People more often than not are given to the idea that they have greater capability to understand things than do other people. Their reasons tend to vary - having a PhD, 'high' IQ, being an INTP (or other type) or believing that they've, "trained" themselves to a greater degree than have others.

I never said I was more capable than anyone else at viewing things objectively. I said I was better at it that CC... at least in terms of responses. You are questioning my background, something you know little about. Whether it is circumstances or genes that cause whether I am more objective than CC or not it is my observation that I am more of a critical thinker that CC.

Whatever it is, there remains an underlying (and unfortunate) perception that they have the ability to see things with more objectivity or clarity than do others.

I never claimed to have a vast superiority in objective thinking compared to the majority of the population; just CC.

It's disappointing to witness when someone makes a claim like this, wherein their method of discrediting ideas inevitably results in them being correct because, *insert anecdotal evidence of intellectual superiority here*, which is ironically one of the least objective things anyone could use to support an argument.

In short, to answer your question - yes, it's actually very common for people to do what you describe and not nearly meaningful as you think.

I am under the impression that we are on an MBTI forum so it is largely accepted that people here in general are more aware of value vs. objective arguments.

 

[redbaron]

I never said I was more capable than anyone else at viewing things objectively. I said I was better at it that CC..

You've confused the terms, "anyone" and, "everyone".

CC is part of anyone. "Anyone" within this context is intended to mean that, given to particular circumstances (let's say a disagreement), such a person will assert their own objectivity over anyone. It happens to be CC this time.

You are questioning my background.

No. This is a general observation that I've noticed occurs frequently when people just can't seem to get on the same page. It seems that invariably one side ends up alluding to the fact of their superiority in intellect/education/objectivity/age/experience as a means of trying to solidify their argument.

I never claimed to have a vast superiority in objective thinking compared to the majority of the population; just CC.

Where did you get the terms, "vast superiority" and, "majority of population" from? I don't see where I used those. They're too inflexible and limiting to use in such a broad concept.

The term I used was, "others". CC falls under the category of, "others".

Anyway, I'm bored dumbing things down for you.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Pole dancers must be intelligent because that shit is hard.

 

[QuickTwist]

You've confused the terms, "anyone" and, "everyone".

CC is part of anyone. "Anyone" within this context is intended to mean that, given to particular circumstances (let's say a disagreement), such a person will assert their own objectivity over anyone. It happens to be CC this time.

I do not make these claims on a whim. It has to do with context. Anyone-everyone whats the difference? It could just as easily be interpreted as my interpretation of anyone meaning everyone. It seems like you are just trying to play mind games now.

No. This is a general observation that I've noticed occurs frequently when people just can't seem to get on the same page. It seems that invariably one side ends up alluding to the fact of their superiority in intellect/education/objectivity/age/experience as a means of trying to solidify their argument.

However it may appear to you, my statement was in fact a valid argument. You are taking a specific instance and applying that to a generalization. If we are going to go that route, your argument has the potential of being fallacious reasoning written all over it. Taking specific instances and comparing that to a generalization is rarely a good way to make an argument.

Where did you get the terms, "vast superiority" and, "majority of population" from? I don't see where I used those. They're too inflexible and limiting to use in such a broad concept.

The term I used was, "others". CC falls under the category of, "others".

Anyway, I'm bored dumbing things down for you.

Gee thanks, I don't know why you started in the first place. And no, the term you used was 'generally' and or "anyone", not focusing on the specifics of what transpired.

 

[redbaron]

How is specialization vs limitation anything other than a false dichotomy?

Clockwork is talking about actively ignoring the development of other functions. If we're to take this seriously in that functions are a real and tangible thing (object), then this is by definition, the act of limiting.

verb (used with object)
1. to restrict by or as if by establishing limits (usually followed by to): Please limit answers to 25 words.
2. to confine or keep within limits
3. to fix or assign definitely or specifically.

Specialization
1. the act of specializing, or pursuing a particular line of study or work
2. the adaptation of an organism or organ to a special function or environment
3. the act of being restricted to some specific, or the act of becoming specialized

You coild argue the third definition of specialized is what is being described, however I don't think that specialization in the context of cognitive development involves actively ignoring the development of other traits - because they all complement each other, and none of them operate in a vacuum. Ti works in tandem with Fe, whether people realise it or not.

I disagree that a Ti-dom who actively ignores the devlopment of their external and internal peeceptive functions will, "crush" anyone logically.

 

[Brontosaurie]

niche is the word yes

 

[Cherry Cola]

Qt you need a reality check, your proficiency with the MBTI doesn't measure up to that of a lot of people on these boards including mine. You need to analyze the way you write your post all descriptive adjectival statements, little to no reasoning.

 

[Base groove]

Ti works in tandem with Fe, whether people realise it or not.

Wrong.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Clockwork is talking about actively ignoring the development of other functions. If we're to take this seriously in that functions are a real and tangible thing (object), then this is by definition, the act of limiting.

You coild argue the third definition of specialized is what is being described, however I don't think that specialization in the context of cognitive development involves actively ignoring the development of other traits - because they all complement each other, and none of them operate in a vacuum. Ti works in tandem with Fe, whether people realise it or not.

I disagree that a Ti-dom who actively ignores the devlopment of their external and internal peeceptive functions will, "crush" anyone logically.

I think clockwork's just using Ti and Te as examples. "The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options." Options =/= functions.

"Thus: those who do not psychologically specialize and wobble in type (not in their assessment of their own type, but in their real internal type calibration whether they know it or not) are less intelligent."

^This is a fair assessment given the developmental order and sequence of the functional stack. You can't ignore something that isn't there. Specialization is the product of natural development.

Are we not men!?!?

Spoiler

Devo

 

[Hadoblado]

OP ignores that there are very large diminishing returns in specialisation, and alternatives that are both complimentary to one's specialty and useful in their own right.

There are only so many ways that you can improve within any given field, and fields vary in the number of these potentials. You could spend your entire life learning how to chess, or you could spend your whole life learning how to tic-tac-to. If your area of specialty lacks scope then the fruits of your efforts in that field will be similar to that of someone that invests far less time.
In a similar vein, if you fail to make it further in your field than any before you, your advancement in that field is likely not worth the trade-off of every other aspect of life you sacrificed.

Also, every example of a specialty (that I can think of at this lewd hour of the morning) is not categorically specific. There are degrees of specialty. The same process that gives you satisfaction at having more narrow interests than the next man should yield dissatisfaction when you behold the gent to your left that managed to be even more closed-minded.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'm liking this more and more. Which means I'm manic again. (About fucking time...)

OP ignores that there are very large diminishing returns in specialisation, and alternatives that are both complimentary to one's specialty and useful in their own right.

A favorable environment is a prerequisite for any degree of specialization, which is actually an adaptive response. So the cool thing with this particular model is the amoeboid adaptive happy place that comes to fruition when secondary, tert, inf, and shadow functions become integrated. Specialization leads to integration and foundation-building which in turn produces additional pseudopodia of specialization. Or you can scale it up to the level of intellectual capital, i.e. one must first get into university, then integrate their knowledge base, and then graduate before choosing to get a job, go to grad school, etc.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Wrong.

How so? I am of Redbarons opinions here and I elaborated on the matter in the AA thread a day or so ago. I would interested in hearing why you think it doesn't.

 

[Base groove]

How so? I am of Redbarons opinions here and I elaborated on the matter in the AA thread a day or so ago. I would interested in hearing why you think it doesn't.

I read what you wrote and I disagreed with it privately.

They don't operate in tandem; they are direct opposites, and as such they are in direct opposition. The use of one necessarily suppresses/neutralizes the other. The polarity between them is so strong that they are less compatible than any other two combinations.

For you to argue that Se and Ni are cooperative in any way is basically the same point he's making, yes, and I dispute it just as strongly.

Se is energized by seeking new sensory experiences and characterized by a consciousness that is indiscriminately attracted to stimuli, allowing all stimuli to enter consciousness without concern for its meaning or nature.

Ni is energized by synthesizing patterns and adding to its core and is characterized by a consciousness that seeks to ignore or repress all sensory stimuli, as they stand in direct opposition to what Ni is trying to passively achieve; in effect, it is overwhelming.

 

[pernoctator]

I do not make these claims on a whim. It has to do with context. Anyone-everyone whats the difference? It could just as easily be interpreted as my interpretation of anyone meaning everyone. It seems like you are just trying to play mind games now.

He wasn't playing mind games.

Spoiler

"anyone" and "everyone" are not interchangeable, in either formal or informal speech.

You may be confusing this with how it is possible to rephrase a negative "anyone" to "everyone" by moving the negative. For instance:

"I don't like anyone" (meaning "I like not one")
=> "I (do) dislike everyone" (meaning "I dislike all")

But note that it's not a drop-in replacement. We do not say "I don't like everyone"; that would have a different meaning ("I like not all").

Likewise, translating RB's comment to an "everyone" statement would go something like this:

"you think you're any more capable than anyone else"
=> implying "you aren't any more capable than anyone else"
=> "you are as capable as everyone else"

However it may appear to you, my statement was in fact a valid argument.

How? There was no substance to what you said. You were basically saying you were more likely to be correct because you are a more objective thinker, without actually presenting anything objectively correct. Essentially a self-referential appeal to authority.

As for the statement itself, RB is correct that it's a misconception to think that you are well suited to judge others because you are highly critical of yourself. In fact, you represent a good case study for this topic: people with highly "specialized" intelligence / knowledge tend to fall into the illusion of being generally more intelligent and become overconfident outside their area of expertise.

 

[Base groove]

Ni is an information processor that acts passively and mostly unconsciously. It is not accurate to describe it as needing to "seek more information" to complete its process - this description is usually reserved for Ti as it is conscious processing.

I believe it is more likely, in this case, that red baron personally believes Ti and Fe are compatible due to the occurrence of Te,

While you (CC) are confused by Ti.

 

[QuickTwist]

He wasn't playing mind games.

Spoiler

"anyone" and "everyone" are not interchangeable, in either formal or informal speech.

You may be confusing this with how it is possible to rephrase a negative "anyone" to "everyone" by moving the negative. For instance:

"I don't like anyone" (meaning "I like not one")
=> "I (do) dislike everyone" (meaning "I dislike all")

But note that it's not a drop-in replacement. We do not say "I don't like everyone"; that would have a different meaning ("I like not all").

Likewise, translating RB's comment to an "everyone" statement would go something like this:

"you think you're any more capable than anyone else"
=> implying "you aren't any more capable than anyone else"
=> "you are as capable as everyone else"

How? There was no substance to what you said. You were basically saying you were more likely to be correct because you are a more objective thinker, without actually presenting anything objectively correct. Essentially a self-referential appeal to authority.

As for the statement itself, RB is correct that it's a misconception to think that you are well suited to judge others because you are highly critical of yourself. In fact, you represent a good case study for this topic: people with highly "specialized" intelligence / knowledge tend to fall into the illusion of being generally more intelligent and become overconfident outside their area of expertise.

Language is not my thing, everyone on this forum knows that. But thanks for the English lesson professor.

If you take into context the forum and the arguments that are typically made by CC in comparison to myself I don't think it is that hard to figure out who generally argues from an Fe perspective and who argues from a Ti perspective. While CC typically tries to outmaneuver people with emotional manipulation, i try to keep that at a minimum if I can help it and try to let logic do its work.

Highly critical thinker. Take it as a whole.

 

[TBerg]

Are some of us becoming philosophically bereft of experience of the psyche itself? Ti might be a suppression of Fe, but the fact that it fills a certain void gives certain power to the void. Lacking a certain facet of Fe, the psyche might manifest as Ti to condemn the missing facet of Fe as illogical, anyway. The inferiority might tell us to figure out social dynamics, using our Ti and Ne, merely in order to get through the day or to gain success in our careers or romantic relationships. Thus the void is filled as our Rational apparatus considers the impact of our inferiority upon our Ti impression of reality as well as our Ne ability to expand our psychic and social realities. We must all remember the bedrock truth that we cannot use our Ti if we don't survive, and that putting crutches on our inferiority might allow us to get places our Ti never knew existed. Thus our inferiority spurs the growth of our superiority and our superiority supports our inferiority.

 

[pernoctator]

If you take into context the forum and the arguments that are typically made by CC in comparison to myself I don't think it is that hard to figure out who generally argues from an Fe perspective and who argues from a Ti perspective. While CC typically tries to outmaneuver people with emotional manipulation, i try to keep that at a minimum if I can help it and try to let logic do its work.

1. Having not read many other exchanges between you and CC, I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is accurate in general, but even so, I would have to say that it doesn't hold true in this thread.


2. I don't see how any of this is relevant. Granted, you were comparing yourself to CC, but your statement seems independent:

"I believe because I am under constant scrutiny to myself and of myself that I am better suited to be objective toward outward occurrences."

That's a general observation, isn't it? Whether it's a misconception shouldn't depend on the context of the forum. It's predicated on the fact that you are under constant scrutiny to yourself, not on your interaction with a specific individual. The fact that you are focusing on CC (who I didn't mention at all in my post) leads me to believe that this is personal, which weakens your case even more.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I am under constant scrutiny to myself as well. Heck who isn't?

 

[clockwork]

I don't really agree with the premise of the thread. What you're talking about isn't specialization, it's limitation..

Yes it is about limitation!
Because humans limit themselves to a type (out of the spectrum of all types) they become good at that (e.g. a specialist).
It is limitation of your psychological spectrum which enables intelligence itself.

Intelligence needs stable direction/feedback, read about AI theories and implementations and you will know. (AI=artificial intelligence) The limitation of the way your "type calibration" fires feedback into your neural network makes your neural network able to adapt to it. (If your psychological spectrum fires in all directions then your neural network can't learn effectively, as it would reset all learning every time you go the other way.)

 

[QuickTwist]

I just roll with it rock with it.

 

[redbaron]

They don't operate in tandem; they are direct opposites, and as such they are in direct opposition. The use of one necessarily suppresses/neutralizes the other. The polarity between them is so strong that they are less compatible than any other two combinations.

Sort of, not quite.

The ultimate goal for Ti users is to find a way of fulfilling their Fe impulses through the use of Ti. This is why the pursuit of knowledge and learning has such a profound attraction to Ti-doms. You will find that INTP's ultimate attraction is often to use their brains (Ti) to bring about improvements/knowledge for everyone's benefit (Fe).

This is what is meant by using functions in tandem. Not that they are both used at the same time, but that they feed off and are interconnected. Fe directs the focus of Ti users to where their efforts are most valuable.

Tandem does not mean simultaneous.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah that's pretty much what I think as well, logic isn't a thing by its own merit, the agent of logic needs a purpose to strive for in order to apply to anything at all. Ti and Fe sharing the same goal, how they strive to achieve it depends on which is master and which is servant. But regardless of functional positioning both are always present.

Perhaps one might say that both of them always overlap to a certain degree, a larger one when they are in aux and tertiary position as with IxFJ's and ExTP's. I don't think the two function as opposites in healthy individuals, that's just their relationship as abstract concepts, which I'm beginning to think is unfortunate.

 

[QuickTwist]

Thinking and feeling are not opposites. The most basic comparison that I can make is that they both take place in the brain, but that is a stupid argument. There is alway some information that is taken into account and reasoned through before there is an emotional response.

 

[Base groove]

Well we all have our interpretations I guess mine is just the most direct. I certainly don't agree with any of yours ^

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well we all have our interpretations I guess mine is just the most direct. I certainly don't agree with any of yours ^

Yeah well that's just your tertiary Fi speaking, logic up man.

 

[QuickTwist]

Some interpretations are less accurate than others.

 

[Base groove]

Yeah well that's just your tertiary Fi speaking, logic up man.

Logic up?

What else is there to do?

Jung makes no mention whatsoever about the interdependence of Ti and Fe. He writes that these functions are in opposition and they necessarily suppress each other due to their nature as polar opposites.

You 3 don't seem to think this is true. You have your own interpretation which I don't think is correct. It's not an Fi thing... it's more like .. I've read Types and I think you're wrong. It seems like you're trying to dig deeper and find higher meaning, which is fine, but there is no source material that supports your claim so perhaps it is the three of you who should "logic up" and explain why you think this is true instead of expecting it to arise from nowhere as self-evident.