Ben Shapiro, Te-leads & Ti Discussion

I feel like Te and Ti (as representatives of Je and Ji, respectively) have an entirely distinct manner in which their J operates.

Te, will by nature be more up front and responding directly.  This will come out in the type of head juts and snippy head-nods and shoulder shrugs that are very much a part of its vultology (and as a Te-lead, I totally do that in spades.  In fact, it was a huge convincing factor that made me realize that TeNi made a lot of sense as my type, especially from a vultological framework).

Ti, on the other hand, will spend considerably more time reflectively assessing the validity of its and others' arguments.  It will naturally have a slower cadence in general and does not have the same level of quick, snippy articulations (that would serve as much more of a Te trademark).  It will tend to take its time more in order to formulate a well designed argument (but will tend to not rush things...in sharp contrast to Te aiming to respond/react in real time to what was stated).

While I'm not sure if the above two paragraphs are 100% spot on at all times, what I can say is that I clearly see both Ben Shapiro and (after watching the above video) Richard Dawkins as Te types based on the nature of those Je-driven responses.  In neither video do I see that poised, reflective Ti energy.  I actually see both individuals very much on the offensive, aiming to prove their point in a very 'in-your-face' kind of way.  When I think about Ti individuals from a vultological perspective, there is much less of that direct, head-jutting 'in-your-face-ness' that is exhibited by both Shapiro and Dawkins.

Now, from a temperament-oriented perspective, it is quite possible that they both might be showing an INT temperament.  I see this 'faux-Ti' style of logical argument happening in both of them, where they are trying to look poised in terms of the cogency of their argument (while still being quite direct in laying that argument out).  I think that from a MBTI/temperament angle, they could easily be using what many people might consider Ti in terms of the sheer robustness and solidity of the argument.  However, there also lies that direct nature of expression in the manner in which these two people present their arguments, which I see clearly lying on the side of Te/Je.  The latter (Te) is what is vultologically observed in real time.  The 'behavioral Ti' on the other hand is likely coming from that Te tag-teaming with say, Ni or Si (and maybe some Fi as well).  It is distinct from cognitive/vultological Ti, and I feel that this is so pivotal in how we interpret these individuals' types, from both cognitive and temperamental/behavioral lenses. 

chuck
I agree with mikesilb here, but I don't think it's necessarily a matter of thinking fast or slow. I think the difference in speed is in articulation, and that of Te-leads is almost always faster than that of Ti-leads.

But I think there are two issues with your questions. First, they assume that Ben Shapiro stands out from other debaters. Personally, I don't see it, though I agree he's very quick while talking. (To clarify: I personally don't like Shapiro much, so I have a bias. But, more objectively (outside what either of us think of him), 'outstanding debating skills' would have to be judged according to some clear criteria, which I don't think is done in this case.) Second, even if we assume he stands out, I don't think it needs to be type-related, at least not in the sense of standing out from his own group. For example, to use another stereotype, if a Fe-lead comes off as particularly smooth, that doesn't mean that they're necessarily unusually smooth for a Fe-lead; it just means that they're unusually smooth generally (in part thanks to Fe). And I think Shapiro's case is that he's unusually fast generally, probably due in part to being Te-lead.

OK, so what you're doing here is you are trying to pinpoint the essence of Shapiro's thinking style by establishing an agreed upon pattern. 


"I think many individuals have been motivated powerfully to do good by their religion. Many individuals have been powerfully motivated to do evil by their religion. I don't want to get into the position of tallying up the good deeds and the evil deeds that are done by religion." - In the words of Ti, the idea of religion is not constrained to any static, moral value. 

You make the case that the pattern is in how they both use "premise based" arguments. A premise is a mutual foundation that both debaters share. Every argument ever made in a debate is built on some kind of premise in one form or another. 


3:50 is not at all abstract. You make the case that, "There are all sorts of people reporting miracles all the time," is abstract, but the key characteristic of an abstract idea is that it can't be proven or disproven by concrete data of any kind. 

www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2014/May-2014/Around-the-World-in-80-Miracles
www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/7-modern-miracles-that-science-cant-explain.aspx?p=2
www.thoughtco.com/modern-day-miracles-124448

On the contrary, the statement, "The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true," is much more introverted in nature because it cannot be proven or disproven by concrete data of any kind. Sure, you can produce 3 articles of people with the opinion that the statement is wrong, but the concept can never be truly proven or disproven.


On the transgender debate: (https://www.dailywire.com/news/13354/ben-shapiro-debunks-transgenderism-and-pro-hank-berrien)

Young woman: I’m 22, so I’m probably a little bit naïve, right?



Shapiro: No. Why aren’t you 60? Why aren’t you 60? Why can’t you identify as 60? What is the problem with you identifying as 60?



Young woman: It’s not the same as gender, you can’t just –



Shapiro: You’re right. Age is significantly less important than gender. You can’t magically change your gender, You can’t magically change your sex. You can’t magically change your age.

Instead of using provable facts, he uses an internal system of logic - that internal principle, "You can't magically change your x" - has no basis in concrete fact. It is purely subjective.


I watched the entire Richard Dawkins debate above, and while I did see some similarities, I am far from being convinced that they use the same thinking function.

I will find someone who I do think shares his thinking function in a similar environment in the morning.


And thanks for the debate!!!

Maybe we don't have enough good examples of intellectual Ti leads. IMO, physics Professor Steven Pollock (CU Boulder) is an excellent example. He's extremely knowledgeable in physics, and yet his speech is so stop-start, like he's constantly re-checking his thoughts in order to articulate it perfectly. Listen to his cadence and timing.





(I think he's TiNe btw)

I agree with everything Mike says. Ti is super careful, every tiny point is given weighty consideration because it might implicate the entire logical Ti-built structure in question, necessitating recalibration. In vultology, this comes out clearly in Ti leads being super meticulous not just in speech but with their gestures. There's something very measured and careful in them, even in their voices and speech, whereas you have something that can seem rather care-free or even careless in a Te debater that you see in Shapiro and even hear in the way his voice comes out. It can seem very dismissive because of how focused it is on the point sans all F and any subjectivity (Introversion). 

I have spent years debating and I can very easily follow and recognize Shapiro's trajectories in his debates. These are exactly the arguments I would make if I was defending the positions he is.

I think in the MBTI world some really wrong notions have arisen around extraverted functions, lots of people think of it as intro means deep, extra means shallow and even silly. That Te would somehow lack logic and mindlessly throw around facts without considering their relevance and application to the argument in question. So people end up assuming a good debater=a Ti user. 

Te is actually a naturally better debater in a direct exchange like this than Ti IMO, not because it's smatter but because this particular format better suits how it works. I know when I'm debating someone directly, I tend to do very well as long as I know the subject. Te is lightning quick in response. Because it has something like a logical "ruler", it measures EVERY statement and argument that the other person makes for consistency on many levels and immediately knows where the holes are and hits that right away. This super objectivity makes it look attacking or dismissive but it is just objectively looking at the arguments to see whether they make logical sense.

If you make one statement now and then five exchanges later another that contradicts it, Te will pick that up right away. It will say you said this, now this, this is how these two are logically contradictory, so which one do you actually mean? These are things I do very naturally and I don't even have a fully conscious Te like Shapiro.

Also, just wanted to mention this Kahawa , but I believe Pollock is FiNe.. a typical example of the physicist shade :3 JiNe can be notoriously difficult to tell apart sometimes, they tend to have the same sort of passive energy and poised, collected demeanor. But if you watch Pollock's signals, he has quite a bit of upward tension going on, as well as asymmetrical expressions. And although he intentionally emphasizes during his lectures, his speech isn't swelling like Fe. He does stop and start, stuttering as he pushes into articulation, but to me this looks like the general Ji exerted push signal.

Oh, interesting. I listened to his course on particle physics, and he seemed to glitch the whole way through in a classically Ti way. He doesn't smile a whole lot, but when he does it seems pretty zygomatic and 'connecty', and his smiles linger, and any asymmetry goes horizontal, not vertical. He does have some constant upward tension though. Could that be related to his lispyness?




But if his Ji is in question, we can ignore him for this discussion....