Post by chuck on Mar 6, 2018 10:00:36 GMT -5
Ben is happy to show where someone's premises lead (especially when they lead to absurdity), but he doesn't want to continually define premises.
Te users feel unsettled when people won't settle on clear premises. If you want to rattle Ben Shapiro in a debate, just do what Piers did and ask him about tyranny or what defines a 'good' person.
Shapiro (fictional): You don't know what tyranny is? Tyranny is when a government oppresses its people. You don't know what defines a "responsible" person? Neither do I. That's why we should use more psychological screening to determine that on a case by case basis.
How would a Ti user respond to that, do you think?
A Ti response to your statement would be "What is a biological boy?"
The response would be, "That doesn't matter. What matters is what the person thinks they are." Shapiro's response would be, "So if I think I'm 12 years old, I'm all of a sudden 12 years old?"
So as you see, this line of thinking that you call Ti is utterly useless.
a Ti user wants to get to the bottom of every premise and definition, kind of going in reverse (à la reductionism), while a Te user wants to land on a workable conclusion
BOTH thinking functions work to land on a workable conclusion. If that's not the case, then Ti would be utterly and completely useless to anything.
Ben Shapiro doesn't want to spend very long discussing premises; he quickly makes statements like "Only good people should have access to guns".
Your argument sounds very Te to me
And yet I am a verified Fe-Ti user.
Hmmm.