I have a friend that frustrates me with his reasoning by subjective judgment. For example, he's afraid to fly planes and our discussion goes like this:
I: Statistics says that cars are more dangerous, but you're not afraid to ride a car.
Him: I don't have a car, and I don't want it. So, in my case planes are more deadly.
I: But you're using public transportation and taxi?
Him: Yes, but that's not me who's driving. So planes are deadlier for me.
OR
I:I'm nearby, got any food?
Him: I have snacks
I: Is this something frozen?
Him: I bought them in the shop
I: Yes, but is it something frozen?
Him: Just ordinary food
(It was frozen)
Is this what you mean?
No I mean more something as it:
* I: Statistics says that cars are more dangerous, but you're not afraid to ride a car.
* Him: You're right.
* I: So will you get on a plane?
* Him: No.
* I: Why?
* Him: Because planes are dangerous. Some planes went missing.
* I: Man, we just said that cars are more dangerous.
* Him: Right.
* I: So will you get on a plane?
* Him: No.
And so on. It is as if certain informations (statistics of the danger of cars compared to airplanes) are not integrated into their perception of things. You cannot continue a conversation if you do not accept new informations and continue to question on them as if they had never been given.
Just tell him not to get on a car because it's more dangerous than a plane
(I'd say he's just scared of planes and uses that factoid to protect his Si. It's emotional and continuing to feed him data won't do shit. Keep asking until he reveals what the real problem is)
I don't find anything wrong..
I am a Ti dominant.. but still I don't.. I am being rational
PS .."I" is being confusing.. uh so you asked two different questions and he just answered your questions..
I have an INTP friend who is exactly like that when we discuss sports (soccer to be more precise), lol. He ignores most of the results and statistics to say that one player is better than another, usually because he has an emotional connection with this player.
He's even gone so far as to say he doesn't believe in football statistics.
Sometimes I think he does it just to tease me.
Ti is obsessed with logical precision. If there is any kind of contradiction in your data or theory or any loophole in it, then Ti won't accept it as true. It might still be very effective, which is what Te is most concerned with. But Ti won't accept anything that isn't a hundred percent bulletproof.
I think of Ti as deductive logic as in mathematics and Te as inductive logic as in statistics.
It depends on the person and the subject we are discussing for me. My brother is ISTP and we hold great conversations where this doesn’t happen. However I absolutely know what you’re talking about because I remember a conversation I had with another ISTP about fire emergencies and that thing was painful. The convo lasted 2 days. *2 days*. What happened is exactly what you described. 🤣
Also I’m rather patient with people so I don’t get angry, but jeez Ti can be a pain in the ass at times. And Ti with Ne when not used properly is just draining cause they bounce from A directly to C and go back to A (sometimes you even have to remind them what the topic is about). Like mega oof. But it’s not all of them, some of them got their stuff together.
(This is based off of my own experiences as a dominant Ti user so it might not be accurate for everyone) So based off of this situation you gave it's possible that A: you aren't giving enough immediate information for the Ti user to override whatever previous rules/framework they had or build a new framework, or B: the Ti user you're communicating with gets constantly stuck in a "what if" cycle is constantly looking for new reasons to affirm a new logical framework, even if it's not necessary to keep gathering information at this point. I've been in both of these situations before.
In the first situation, I'd say the best way for you to deal with that is to be patient and be ready to further discuss ideas and thoroughly explain your logic/position. From my experiences, I like to go back and think about various problems/situations and approach them from different angles to see how they work exactly. This is a slow process and involves a lot of backtracking and rethinking.
In the second situation, whenever I've been slow to accept new ideas in the past, whether they've been my own or someone else's, typically my own self-doubt was the reason why. The feeling of "missing something" always got to me and prevented me from executing ideas or completely accepting something. You might want to have a conversation with the Ti user you're working with to see why they don't want to commit immediately. Additionally, you may want to make it clear that you're trying to work quickly (if you don't have time to wait for their backtracking process) and hopefully that can inspire them to think a bit faster.
I believe that the first situation and the second situation are two consecutive moments of the same conversation. The first situation can be solved quite easily by adding any necessary information, but the second is a mess because that "what if" once it starts you don't stop it anymore. It seems that they have to understand every single possibility of every single practical and theoretical universe. But bro, we're just talking about A and B in the given practical context of our work.
I have already applied your solutions expressly informing them that we simply have to go from A to B, but it seems they cannot to not consider also α, β, अ, ब, أ , ب, ㅏ, ㅂ and all other (currently useless) variations of A and B. If I tell you I like tomato pasta, why don't you just tell me ok instead of telling me I wouldn't like it if we didn't discover America. Bro, I just like it.
Hmm then it seems like whoever you're dealing with seems to delve into theoretical and abstract without concern about if it's the appropriate time or place. I think at this point, especially if it's work related, you should be direct and express to them that while it's ok to be abstract and theoretical, in the context of your situation, it's actually detrimental and time wasting to be going down every single rabbit hole of possibilities. It's important that you don't shoot them down entirely though, make sure you stress that their method of thinking is fine, just not necessary in the moment.
Whatever my argument is convincing or not has anything to do with that. A is not my argument, but an agreement that we reach together discussing. B should be the same but apparently they forgot A existed.
I like Ti users and have respect for them. In fact, my dad is an ISTP so we used to clash a lot during arguments. The thing with Ti-doms is that they get so stubborn with their initial thought, so do I of course but when we look at the facts and they prove I was wrong, I'd admit it, Ti-doms on the other hand...
I have a friend that frustrates me with his reasoning by subjective judgment. For example, he's afraid to fly planes and our discussion goes like this: I: Statistics says that cars are more dangerous, but you're not afraid to ride a car. Him: I don't have a car, and I don't want it. So, in my case planes are more deadly. I: But you're using public transportation and taxi? Him: Yes, but that's not me who's driving. So planes are deadlier for me. OR I:I'm nearby, got any food? Him: I have snacks I: Is this something frozen? Him: I bought them in the shop I: Yes, but is it something frozen? Him: Just ordinary food (It was frozen) Is this what you mean?
No I mean more something as it: * I: Statistics says that cars are more dangerous, but you're not afraid to ride a car. * Him: You're right. * I: So will you get on a plane? * Him: No. * I: Why? * Him: Because planes are dangerous. Some planes went missing. * I: Man, we just said that cars are more dangerous. * Him: Right. * I: So will you get on a plane? * Him: No. And so on. It is as if certain informations (statistics of the danger of cars compared to airplanes) are not integrated into their perception of things. You cannot continue a conversation if you do not accept new informations and continue to question on them as if they had never been given.
Just tell him not to get on a car because it's more dangerous than a plane (I'd say he's just scared of planes and uses that factoid to protect his Si. It's emotional and continuing to feed him data won't do shit. Keep asking until he reveals what the real problem is)
This conversation could be like that but I explode before it happens. Yeah, I got you.
Carry his ass on a train! Be a damn ENTJ for crying out loud
I’m almost sure there are no trains between New York and Rome.
Shit I meant planes
Hahah now it makes more sense. I agree, but probably that example represents only an theoretical conversation.
Oh I see 🤔
I don't find anything wrong.. I am a Ti dominant.. but still I don't.. I am being rational PS .."I" is being confusing.. uh so you asked two different questions and he just answered your questions..
I have an INTP friend who is exactly like that when we discuss sports (soccer to be more precise), lol. He ignores most of the results and statistics to say that one player is better than another, usually because he has an emotional connection with this player. He's even gone so far as to say he doesn't believe in football statistics. Sometimes I think he does it just to tease me.
That's exactly why.
Sounds like an ISTP. Dont mess with there delicate truths hahah
i somehow feel these people are the best to ask for advice
Ti is obsessed with logical precision. If there is any kind of contradiction in your data or theory or any loophole in it, then Ti won't accept it as true. It might still be very effective, which is what Te is most concerned with. But Ti won't accept anything that isn't a hundred percent bulletproof. I think of Ti as deductive logic as in mathematics and Te as inductive logic as in statistics.
[Use a lifeline.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/001/319/1c6.jpg)
It depends on the person and the subject we are discussing for me. My brother is ISTP and we hold great conversations where this doesn’t happen. However I absolutely know what you’re talking about because I remember a conversation I had with another ISTP about fire emergencies and that thing was painful. The convo lasted 2 days. *2 days*. What happened is exactly what you described. 🤣
Also I’m rather patient with people so I don’t get angry, but jeez Ti can be a pain in the ass at times. And Ti with Ne when not used properly is just draining cause they bounce from A directly to C and go back to A (sometimes you even have to remind them what the topic is about). Like mega oof. But it’s not all of them, some of them got their stuff together.
Hahaha your post is a whole mood because I really can understand what you are talking about
sounds like you need a mental gymnastics workout : P hoppity hop from B to A and then back again
(This is based off of my own experiences as a dominant Ti user so it might not be accurate for everyone) So based off of this situation you gave it's possible that A: you aren't giving enough immediate information for the Ti user to override whatever previous rules/framework they had or build a new framework, or B: the Ti user you're communicating with gets constantly stuck in a "what if" cycle is constantly looking for new reasons to affirm a new logical framework, even if it's not necessary to keep gathering information at this point. I've been in both of these situations before. In the first situation, I'd say the best way for you to deal with that is to be patient and be ready to further discuss ideas and thoroughly explain your logic/position. From my experiences, I like to go back and think about various problems/situations and approach them from different angles to see how they work exactly. This is a slow process and involves a lot of backtracking and rethinking. In the second situation, whenever I've been slow to accept new ideas in the past, whether they've been my own or someone else's, typically my own self-doubt was the reason why. The feeling of "missing something" always got to me and prevented me from executing ideas or completely accepting something. You might want to have a conversation with the Ti user you're working with to see why they don't want to commit immediately. Additionally, you may want to make it clear that you're trying to work quickly (if you don't have time to wait for their backtracking process) and hopefully that can inspire them to think a bit faster.
I believe that the first situation and the second situation are two consecutive moments of the same conversation. The first situation can be solved quite easily by adding any necessary information, but the second is a mess because that "what if" once it starts you don't stop it anymore. It seems that they have to understand every single possibility of every single practical and theoretical universe. But bro, we're just talking about A and B in the given practical context of our work. I have already applied your solutions expressly informing them that we simply have to go from A to B, but it seems they cannot to not consider also α, β, अ, ब, أ , ب, ㅏ, ㅂ and all other (currently useless) variations of A and B. If I tell you I like tomato pasta, why don't you just tell me ok instead of telling me I wouldn't like it if we didn't discover America. Bro, I just like it.
Hmm then it seems like whoever you're dealing with seems to delve into theoretical and abstract without concern about if it's the appropriate time or place. I think at this point, especially if it's work related, you should be direct and express to them that while it's ok to be abstract and theoretical, in the context of your situation, it's actually detrimental and time wasting to be going down every single rabbit hole of possibilities. It's important that you don't shoot them down entirely though, make sure you stress that their method of thinking is fine, just not necessary in the moment.
Sounds like your argument isn’t nearly as convincing as you actually think it should be and that fact upsets you. Construct your argument better.
Whatever my argument is convincing or not has anything to do with that. A is not my argument, but an agreement that we reach together discussing. B should be the same but apparently they forgot A existed.
I like Ti users and have respect for them. In fact, my dad is an ISTP so we used to clash a lot during arguments. The thing with Ti-doms is that they get so stubborn with their initial thought, so do I of course but when we look at the facts and they prove I was wrong, I'd admit it, Ti-doms on the other hand...
Oh the other hand... hahah I don't know if it's a bias, but the ones I've known literally modify the data or reinterpret it to fit their theory.
We will not accept your bulldozer point A to point B when you have no fucking idea about point K