Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Fi/Te, Fe/Ti: mated pairs?

[Peppermint]

Using such fuzzy language will not provide a better understanding of the functions since few people will probably grasp what you are truly talking about.

This should not be an issue when it is stated which definition is being used.

The fact that you stick, "ing" on the end of it. As I said, the definition of reason that means "a basis or cause" is not the reason referred to in the word "reasoning". The word "reasoning" refers to the second definition, as in "consistent with logic".

Wouldn't you say that reasoning is also the process of arriving to a reason?

Ye olde MBTI problem. Vague language. In my opinion, rational is no less fuzzy than reasoning, in fact it even directly implies that it is logical in nature for many people, which would contradict Feeling in many instances. The funny thing is that the definitions of "reason" and "rational" even overlap.

 

[Satya]

Wouldn't you say that reasoning is also the process of arriving to a reason?

No.

Reasoning should tell you that not all things have a reason. Unless of course, you are a teleological thinker, in which case you irrationally argue that all things have a reason. However, that is a philosophical digression.

The point is that reasoning is not defined as "to find a reason".

At a certain point Peppermint, you are arbitrarily redefining words to fit your personal views. When you do this you fall into the Rand trap. This is the term I use for people who misuse words in such a way that others misunderstand their intentions and take the word literally. Ayn Rand used the word "altruism" in the sense of a person who would harm themselves to serve others, whereas the regular and correct definition of the word is simply selfless acts. However, many people take her definition literally to mean all alltruistic acts and corrupt her views of self enlightened interest to mean that all altruism is inherently evil.

 

[Peppermint]

reasoning

–noun
1.the act or process of a person who reasons.

2.the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

3.the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.

What exactly am I arbitrarily redefining?

I am using an entirely valid definition. The fact that there is also another definition under the same name doesn't invalidate the other one, if it is used in a contextually appropriate manner.

 

[Satya]

What exactly am I arbitrarily redefining?

I am using an entirely valid definition. The fact that there is also another definition under the same name doesn't invalidate the other one, if it is used in a contextually appropriate manner.

"resulting from this process"? I'm not entirely sure which process it means.

But if you wish to argue that Thinking and Feeling utilize reasoning, in the terms of the process of finding a reason, then that works for me.

 

[Morgain]

Ti/Fe -- Creates rules by which to subjugate reality.
Fi/Te -- Creates rules which are determined by reality.
Se/Ni -- Deals with the experience and construction of our reality.
Si/Ne -- Deals with the comparison of reality to other things.

wauw that is really something. That is what I ment, Fi is always complemented with Te in a type (whether it is INFP, ISTJ, ...). So actually there are rather 4 cognitive pairs instead of 8 cognitive functions: FeTi, FiTe, NiSe, NeSi. That can't be a coincidence so there must be a reason why they complement eachother.

Your essay seems to be right on. I don't completely captured what you ment but it seems very possible! I'll have to think/meditate on that one

Could you maybe give me a real life example of how each couple work?

I also wonder if you can extrapolate this theory to types.
Lets take the FeTi users: XSTP, XNTP, XSFJ, XNFJ. They all have some sort of pioneer in them. Trying to make the world a better place using there logic to invent/make new better things or by taking care of people, teaching, counseling, ...

while if you take FiTe users: XSFP, XNFP, XSTJ, XNTJ. They all use some sort of thechique to capture life in a set of rules. If you take art for example, XXFP's seems to be the masters of all type in art. Art is nothing more than trying to capture reality or your vision of reality in a concrete form (painting, music, graphic design). But to be able to put it in that concrete form you first have to lear the rules of that form so they need Te to do so.

maybe I'm complete wrong in this

 

[athenian200]

wauw that is really something. That is what I ment, Fi is always complemented with Te in a type (whether it is INFP, ISTJ, ...). So actually there are rather 4 cognitive pairs instead of 8 cognitive functions: FeTi, FiTe, NiSe, NeSi. That can't be a coincidence so there must be a reason why they complement eachother.

Your essay seems to be right on. I don't completely captured what you ment but it seems very possible! I'll have to think/meditate on that one

Thanks. I know it's complicated, but I was translating something that had originally been depicted in a far more abstract manner into a more common (if technical) language.

Could you maybe give me a real life example of how each couple work?

I would have, but what you wrote below seems to capture it better than what I was going to come up with.

I also wonder if you can extrapolate this theory to types.
Lets take the FeTi users: XSTP, XNTP, XSFJ, XNFJ. They all have some sort of pioneer in them. Trying to make the world a better place using there logic to invent/make new better things or by taking care of people, teaching, counseling, ...

while if you take FiTe users: XSFP, XNFP, XSTJ, XNTJ. They all use some sort of thechique to capture life in a set of rules. If you take art for example, XXFP's seems to be the masters of all type in art. Art is nothing more than trying to capture reality or your vision of reality in a concrete form (painting, music, graphic design). But to be able to put it in that concrete form you first have to lear the rules of that form so they need Te to do so.

Yeah, that sounds like a good example. It makes sense to me.