Some thoughts on balanced T/F

[Latro]

My opinion about thinking is that it is amazingly capable of deductive reasoning but that in most complex cases it cannot decide every last little thing on its own. Like logical systems, it is dependent upon the existence of axioms to be able to decide the truth or falsehood of most statements. Here is where I think F emerges. F, especially Fi, puts down axioms and just says straight up "these are true, deal with it". And then T does. If T accepts them after long enough analysis we might stop calling them values and start calling them principles, but really it's the same basic thing.

The idea of what a T is or an F is then has to do with how frequently one establishes new axioms, in this little "system"; an F would establish new axioms more frequently than a T. A balanced T or F might change them frequently enough that they don't get lost when things change but also change them infrequently enough that they can absorb their meaning and apply them properly.

Any thoughts?

 

[Latro]

"Balanced" meaning "functioning well together", which I deliberately leave poorly defined. On reflection though, you're right that axioms will tend to come from other functions, but to me these at least partially sprout from the more basic F axioms. I think of ethics as an example, where our most basic ethical opinions (such as "theft is bad") tend to derive from strong emotional responses while more subtle ones (such as "piracy is bad") tend to derive from a combination of factors, which in the end at least have roots in the more basic ideas. In this example for instance, we might show how theft and piracy are related and thus deduce that our reaction to piracy should be similar even though the visceral response really is not there.

There is one thing I very strongly disagree with, however, and I think this is central to our disagreement as a whole. You use the phrase "logical axiom." This is a contradiction in terms in my view. Logic derives statements from axioms in such a way that, assuming the original axioms are consistent (that is, they do not contradict one another*), the new system with additional statements is also consistent. Logic does not produce axioms. Systems that people think are "logical" such as utilitarianism do not have "logical axioms"; they just have a set of axioms that people tend to accept more easily than "less logical" systems.

*This question of consistency is a really confusing one when things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are introduced; suffice it to say that I recognize this issue and am choosing to, for practical reasons, ignore it at the moment.

 

[BigApplePi]

Well first of all, what exactly are you saying is a "balanced T and F"? A person who uses both their thinking and feeling functions equally? If so, which ones exactly? I suppose you could technically apply your principle to both Te/Ti and Fe/Fi, but there is something crucial that I think you are still missing.

The Axioms that Fi and Ti or Te and Fe will be considering are completely different. The fact is, both logical and value based systems say straight up "These are true, deal with it". Ti simply would not work if it did not consider it's own axioms to be true. Calling them Axioms is an interesting way of putting it, but you should definitely not lump a Ti axiom of logic with an Fi axiom of Value. They are both weighing piece of information in a similar way, but on a completely different scale.
But with the way that they currently work, are also in two completely different venues. For instance Ti will set up a model of Subjective logical Axioms, and Fe will appeal to an Objective model of moral axioms. Te and Fe are not internal models at all, but the dynamics of a Human (Fe) or Object (Te) based external system. So technically Fi and Ti are the only cognitive functions that create models of subjective discernment, But you can't have both anyway.


Establishing more T based axioms will most likely result from being a T, but that is not neccesarily what makes you a T. What makes you a T is if using these axioms (not necessarily establishing them) is taking precedence over using any F based Axioms.

Also a truly balanced T/F can't actually exist, that would contradict the whole model. For a personality to work at all in the way they do, the functions have to work in hierarchy. Naturally one of these functions is going to be stimulating and the other will be draining, a true balance cannot exist if one function is being rewarded and the other is not.

I'm really interested in your post because I'm interested in the foundations of things. However your msg sends me in so many directions I have to focus on something.

You said, "What makes you a T is if using these axioms (not necessarily establishing them) is taking precedence over using any F based Axioms."

So what are T based axioms versus F based? One is logical and the other value based? Internal vs external? I'd like to see four such axioms as illustrations on some comparable level to get going. I still find it hard to distinguish between the feeling and thinking aspect. If I think an axiom, I may be very enthusiastic in applying it but will think about its success and give it the heave ho if I think it isn't valuable in practice. So what has taken precedence, thinking or feeling? Can't tell. Your answer is "using." Well how far into using? A day? A year? My guess if when one stops questioning or refining or thinking about the axiom, one is using. The one is a feeling type. But if one is dwelling on the axiom itself for its value, then one is thinking? Yet this thinking involves a lot of emotion. Yes. Thinking is highly emotional.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Balanced" meaning "functioning well together", which I deliberately leave poorly defined. On reflection though, you're right that axioms will tend to come from other functions, but to me these at least partially sprout from the more basic F axioms. I think of ethics as an example, where our most basic ethical opinions (such as "theft is bad") tend to derive from strong emotional responses while more subtle ones (such as "piracy is bad") tend to derive from a combination of factors, which in the end at least have roots in the more basic ideas. In this example for instance, we might show how theft and piracy are related and thus deduce that our reaction to piracy should be similar even though the visceral response really is not there.

There is one thing I very strongly disagree with, however, and I think this is central to our disagreement as a whole. You use the phrase "logical axiom." This is a contradiction in terms in my view. Logic derives statements from axioms in such a way that, assuming the original axioms are consistent (that is, they do not contradict one another*), the new system with additional statements is also consistent. Logic does not produce axioms. Systems that people think are "logical" such as utilitarianism do not have "logical axioms"; they just have a set of axioms that people tend to accept more easily than "less logical" systems.

*This question of consistency is a really confusing one when things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are introduced; suffice it to say that I recognize this issue and am choosing to, for practical reasons, ignore it at the moment.

Latro. Hadn't seen your msg when I posted. Comment. Godel would apply to formal abstract systems, not to social ones I would guess.

 

[Adymus]

We are kind of starting to mix logic theory with MBTI which is just not a very good idea. I really can't think of a way to answer that question, bigapplepi, without creating even more confusion, it looks like I have done enough damage as it is. T based and F based axioms was a terrible way of putting it... So... yeah... We are mixing two completely different concepts and it just won't make sense if I continued.

 

[ashitaria]

Interesting. So any thoughts on borderline S/N?

 

[BigApplePi]

We are kind of starting to mix logic theory with MBTI which is just not a very good idea. I really can't think of a way to answer that question, bigapplepi, without creating even more confusion, it looks like I have done enough damage as it is. T based and F based axioms was a terrible way of putting it... So... yeah... We are mixing two completely different concepts and it just won't make sense if I continued.

I concur with that sentiment, lol. As a few have said, "If this were easy, it would've already been done." Let me strike out on my own and see what can be uncovered if anything.

I try to distinguish between thinking and feeling only as a starter. Or rather I just start with "axioms" that separate and find out later if they help with the distinguishment. Thinking relates to observation and logic therefrom. Feeling evalutes. So we can pick any item, say a lampost or a concept like "love." We can describe, observe and provide ramifications from those. Those who do that are thinkers. The feelers evaluate. They are pleased with lamposts and rave about that light giving support structure. Thinkers will give examples of love, describe different kinds, categorizing. Feelers will evaluate telling how love is either wonderful or painful and tell stories that move us and them.

With that as background, now what? Where do we go from here? One can think about axioms for thinkers and axioms for feelers. They would be separate I would think. Could or would one person do both? I believe the issues of description versus evaluation are distinct. One person COULD do both but since they are separate topics, not likely. A person's temperament will most likely decide unless they have some project they are working on for the external world. Then they might do both, but the very act of doing either is preceded by axioms of temperament described by MBTI.

Latro said, "ethical opinions ..... tend to derive from strong emotional responses." True, but others such as lawyers and academics study this stuff as coolly as then can.

Axioms.
Axioms can be treated logically. But their creation comes from people's motivations or desires. Creation is different from usage.

Reflections on Adymus's msg.
If you said that Fi, Ti, Te, Fe all produce different kinds of axioms I would agree. But the axioms we produce need not reflect the personality behind them though it is more likely. A man with an athletic physique is more likely to indulge in athletics but not necessarily so. A beautiful woman is more likely to display herself but not necessarily so.
Adymus you said, what makes you a "T" is in the using not in the establishment. (Paraphrasing). That makes sense because using is how one spends one's time and how one spends one's time is what one is, not how one executes any particular activity. The using is the person's time is the personality.

 

[Zero]

Everyone uses all the functions, it's the ones we favor that determine our types. Additionally, it isn't a balance between F and T that results in making axioms. All types will do this, but it relies heavily on main functions.

Axioms are going to be developed by both primary functions. An SF will probably not "make" as many Axioms as much as they'll submit to already established ones. NFs will create many axioms as they don't have to be based in sensing and all for more whimsical endeavors. An NF may not necessarily make logical axioms as it might satisfy their "self" (F) and they don't need to objectify their axioms.

An ST is going to make the least axioms and accept the already established ones. STs are the ultra practical and crafty people. They like having hands on activities and tinkering, so they want to know how something traditionally works in order to tinker with it, that doesn't necessarily mean inventiveness though. They want practical use and they want things to work. Alternatively, SFs want to satisfy both the practical side and the personal side. They may be crafty in more sentimental ways or put their desire for practical practice and personal achievement into something like medicine. In other words, an SF may scrapbook, but an ST will probably want to fix something. Their axioms are more community established.

In the case of NTs, we have N- which is the theorizing side. I use to say creative, but from a very literal standpoint that's confusing. The process of actually creating something is more of a sensing feature, as they like to interact with things and are known to be crafty.

NTs intake with Intuition, which is the theorizing. So the world around us is interpreted in theories and abstractions. Bu then we have T as our decision making function. This means that we make decisions objectively. Therefore, the creating of systems is very much an NT thing to do.

NTs create axioms by saying, well here is something abstract and interesting, but how can I work this into something rational or practical or useful. If we can make things work in a system we'll use it, if not we may throw it out, though it is more typical of P types to hang onto things, just in case. J types are more likely to find one thing to build on.

I don't think you're example is F/T. I think it's just usual NT stuff. The P expression may confuse us the most, as it makes our decision making vague and difficult.

An NF is going to create axioms based on personal feeling towards it. With a P that makes decision making more difficult, but Fs are more likely not to bother systematizing everything and may rely more heavily on "feeling"- which in this case is actually intuition. This makes NFs the most reliant on intuition.

I think this is often confusing for INTPs, as the combination of NP can be haphazard and create "F" look-a-likes.

NP is the randomness generator. It doesn't get anymore "let's change it up" than NP.

So, what I'm saying (this is getting long), is that F isn't creating axioms. Our input method is (S/N), so N is making abstractions all the time, the combination of P make for the new random things.

A balanced F/T would suggest making axioms on a case by case basic. If the axioms are more often based on the overall picture, the ultimate goal, the objective idea, then that's the T decision making. If the axiom is based on personal understanding of individual situations and adjusting to humane solutions for individuals, that is the F decision making.

Depending on how dramatic the N/S F is, an F may be endlessly forgiving or they might decide getting together with an ex is a lost cause after the third breakup. The same is true for T types. If the N is very dramatic (probably highly P), one exception to the rule may change our understanding of the situations. An ST is more likely to say, "The majority is still this way and needs to change".

If someone was close on the S/N T scale they might be insane. They may have the practical, follow the rules sense or the idea to change the rules and with P it would make them like a ticking time bomb. SPs do occasionally have a "need to escape" and run off to Vegas or do something risky to fulfill their need for spontaneous action.

INTJs don't make as many assertion "public". INTJs tend to analyze a system and how well it works, they may tinker with it, but what what they express is the end result of their work. They express Thinking, their decision making side and this is their secondary function. INTPs express out Intuition and thus we aren't usually decided on what we're actually thinking. It takes us a long time to come to a conclusion. We express intuition, as our secondary function.

Opposite to this is our extroverted counterparts. An ENTP expresses thinking, as their primary function. This makes ENTPs the ultimate debaters as their intuition is working behind the scenes and translating the exterior world for them and their decision making function is expressed. ENTPs will express thinking regardless if they're wrong, as they simply like to debate and they learn from being argued with. Because of how their minds work they're very quick and can probably clean up a mistake in their logic before some people can spot it. Being NPs their axioms can rapidly change, but I think their extroversion gives them more confidence in their conclusions, as they express them.

ENTJs express their Intuition, which makes them socially compatible with INTPs. ENTJs make good leaders because they express their intake function and this makes them open to suggestion and ideas. With their secondary thinking function they take ideas and work them into a plan. ENTJs have axioms like a fill-in the blanks. Due to their extroversion I think they can adjust to different people and situations, but I think the basis for their axioms don't change, even though they appear to accept other people's ideas.

It is in the structure that I understand the formation of axioms.

My axioms, when I'm at my "best", are based on all the likely influences. My T looks for structures or potential for structures (the decision making process is putting things into structures). My N looks for oddities and variations, to consider a larger influence (I desire new input). NP allows for sudden changes.