Post by Aqua on Mar 2, 2018 8:28:14 GMT -5
I have Fi>Te and not Te dom so I can't project too much onto Te doms, but I think while the broad style is the same, there will be a marked difference between when I'm arguing a position where I have a moral stake (defending some F beliefs) and when I have zero investments in the outcome either way and my only motivation is to insist that something is just true/not true. The strategy remains the same when Te is used to defend the truth of a position or to demonstrate the falsehood of a position.
To me, Te objectivity in debates means not relying on premises that are unproven and remain unaccepted by the other parties one is talking to, even if they are very sensible in themselves. If they are inconsistent in themselves, that only proves their falsehood but lacking such internal inconsistency does not in itself establish their truth. If they are disputed, the only way to build an argument on them from the Te perspective is to prove them, objectively, first. You can believe a model, sure, but you can't argue for its truth/objective reality just from its sensibility. I think when a Te person believes a theoretical model, he is going to be mostly defending it from attacks, using Te strategies to show its validity as a sensible position to hold but not to claim its truth. I think Te people can neatly distinguish between personally held positions and objective "truths" when things remain Te>Fi.
I personally think Darkwing is a lazy thinker and is much more of an ideologue in many of his debates. Ideological investment always interferes with objectivity methinks, whatever a person's type. An FiNe with no personal stakes would likely defeat T-doms of both E/I stripes who have ideological attachments to whatever positions they were arguing for. In fact, Te in that case can look outright dishonest in my view, as it uses its practicality to construct on the spot "convenient" shields and attacks (like Shapiro's Black Panther arguments). I also think Te paired with S will look very different from Te paired with N.
To me, Te objectivity in debates means not relying on premises that are unproven and remain unaccepted by the other parties one is talking to, even if they are very sensible in themselves. If they are inconsistent in themselves, that only proves their falsehood but lacking such internal inconsistency does not in itself establish their truth. If they are disputed, the only way to build an argument on them from the Te perspective is to prove them, objectively, first. You can believe a model, sure, but you can't argue for its truth/objective reality just from its sensibility. I think when a Te person believes a theoretical model, he is going to be mostly defending it from attacks, using Te strategies to show its validity as a sensible position to hold but not to claim its truth. I think Te people can neatly distinguish between personally held positions and objective "truths" when things remain Te>Fi.
I personally think Darkwing is a lazy thinker and is much more of an ideologue in many of his debates. Ideological investment always interferes with objectivity methinks, whatever a person's type. An FiNe with no personal stakes would likely defeat T-doms of both E/I stripes who have ideological attachments to whatever positions they were arguing for. In fact, Te in that case can look outright dishonest in my view, as it uses its practicality to construct on the spot "convenient" shields and attacks (like Shapiro's Black Panther arguments). I also think Te paired with S will look very different from Te paired with N.