mikesilb , That makes sense! Thank you. I guess a lot of it boils down to individual differences that aren't related to type - we all have our own pace. But I will reread what you wrote soon, because I think I may have some more questions to better understand the relationship between Fi and Te (if that's cool with you).
That would be awesome Linus! Feel free to ask me at any time!
I'd type Ben Shapiro NiFe according to the below analysis. I'm not saying that I find it very clear, but I think you could agree that he is not such an easy case and NiFe possibility is not completely irrelevant?
4:23-4:29 body swaying 4:23-4:28 J angular movements 4:28 Fe zygomatic smile?? 4:33-4:38 P body swaying 4:44-5:01 J angular movements, diluted β subordinate judgment? 5:19, 5:24 Je head nod 5:30-5:36 P body swaying 5:38 J angular movements 5:39-5:47 P body swaying 5:45 Fi smile using muscles around the nose or contempt?? 5:52-5:58 P body swaying 5:58 Je pointed emphasis β Fe on-beat-emphasis? 6:07-6:14 6:36-6:41 P body swaying 6:41 Fe zygomatic smile? 6:43 Pi diagonal-eye-drifts? 6:46 Je head shake 6:50-6:58 P body swaying 7:04 Fe zygomatic smile?? 7:17 subordinate judgment? 7:11-7:15 7:18-7:23 7:25-7:36 7:39 -7:45 7:47-7:51 8:08-8:30 P body swaying 7:44 Fe zygomatic smile?? 8:08 Je head nod and brow raise 8:32 using similar muscles as Fe upset tension?
26:49 hand fluid/rigid movement? Subordinate judgment? 26:52 very Je angular motions of the interviewer, contrasting with lack of rigidity of Ben Shapiro 27:34 smile using nose muscles, very different from the smiles in the other video. Could this be contempt?
Wow, good work there, you're really doing some homework.
chuck , I think becks was making a case for Shapiro to be P/Pi lead, and landing on N>S (without going much into N/S details), is that right?
I still think Shapiro is TeNi, but I haven't looked at it nearly as closely as Becks.
All those head shakes/juts, that non-stop matter-of-fact articulation (talk about direct, lol) I see no Fe warmth in him whatsoever. I actually think Dave Rubin, the guy interviewing Ben in that vid is displaying Fe articulation (FeSi, I think) but not Ben. To me, Shapiro is the quintessential Te lead.
mikesilb had a few vids up a month ago on Edar, I remember seeing the same quick, snippy head shakes/nods. Mike has lots of Fi (seelie) and is not "sharp"/too direct, so he doesn't come across exactly as Ben but I still remember how similar I thought he looked to Ben vultology-wise as Shapiro was the only TeNi I had in mind at the time. Mike you say you're slow but I think you're still quite fast. Maybe in comparison to Ben Shapiro you're slow but in comparison to me, or Auburn, or Alerith or Linus etc I think you're quite fast in your articulation. I CAN get as fast as Shapiro but it is not reliable, I can't consciously opt to do that.
mikesilb had a few vids up a month ago on Edar, I remember seeing the same quick, snippy head shakes/nods. Mike has lots of Fi (seelie) and is not "sharp"/too direct, so he doesn't come across exactly as Ben but I still remember how similar I thought he looked to Ben vultology-wise as Shapiro was the only TeNi I had in mind at the time. Mike you say you're slow but I think you're still quite fast. Maybe in comparison to Ben Shapiro you're slow but in comparison to me, or Auburn, or Alerith or Linus etc I think you're quite fast in your articulation. I CAN get as fast as Shapiro but it is not reliable, I can't consciously opt to do that.
Aqua, I think that your assessment couldn't possibly be more spot on! I agree very much with it, and I appreciate you providing a non-1st person assessment of my vid as it is likely a lot more unbiased than any 1st person commentary that I may have. Thank you!!
He does this in every debate. He simplifies the opposing argument into a simple, one line idea, and then utterly destroys it with his own one line idea. He simplifies all the light coming from the big flashlight (in this case, Cenk) into a manageable radius and easily destroys it with his laser light, which is much stronger and more developed.
When you see this pattern every time he opens up his mouth, I don't know how there is a rational way to deny he is using an introverted form of thinking.
I think all these "bottom-lines" that you note in Shapiro's thought, simplifying the claims of others into simple rebuttable principles, is very much a Te thing too. It's part of their logistical/practical approach.
In fact, it's just part of T (Thinking) in general, IMO, so I'm sure Ti has its version which looks very different in Ti than it does in Te. "Thinking" will always cut out all extraneous material and leave only the simple direct logical/causal line of thought/concept/principle. (You seem to conflate this logical simplification with introversion/subjectivity).
I think from reading your debate analyses that you concluded at some point in your Typology explorations that this is a Ti ability rather than just a T ability. So when you find a debater with messy thoughts either because of having low T-development or they're being less than frank (consciously or otherwise) due to ideological and other emotional investments, or they're just lazy thinkers, you automatically assume they are arguing using Te.
But Te is super-efficient, not messy. Even in thinking. So, yes, it will go straight to the bottom-line, to the thing that counts, to what they need to focus on to win the argument, make their point, get work done, etc etc.
Messy thoughts are much more likely to be an N (intuition) thing than they are to be any kind of T (Thinking) thing IMO. In fact, they're more likely to be a P thing in general (both N and S) than they are to be a T (Thinking) thing, because after all, that's what Judgment is, isn't it? A sorter? It makes sense (to me) that sorting through logic will give the mind this bottom-line "find-the-principle" general approach when you have T>F + J>P.
I ended up listening to the whole Rubin/Shapiro interview while looking for signals, (I forgot to look for the signals and was drawn in like the Ne lead I am). In any case, it's not a signal but I thought it was v. interesting Shapiro's reference of the myth of Eda (the King) from 1.07.01 to 1.08 as his explanation for the intensity of modern politics. Funnily, he assumes that he's referencing how people typically are/think but I don't think in those terms at all even though I use Te. I would never explain those phenomena in those terms because, to be honest, they're kinda foreign to me (ie looking for a little kingdom for myself to rule over just isn't how I think/see things). But to Shapiro, it seems to be basic enough for him to think this motive is how we all are.
When you accuse someone of changing their argument midway and shifting goal-posts, you are accusing them of dishonesty. Which is gross (and aggressive).
Um, no? This is just plain wrong. Putting observational accuracy aside, if you and I are arguing about whether or not grapes taste like mangoes, and you start out arguing that they are alike because of their texture, but then halfway through you begin to argue that they are similar because of their flavor, if I comment on how you have shifted the argument from a texture based argument to a flavor based argument, I'm somehow being "gross" and aggressive?
And let's keep in mind that I didn't even use the word "shift", but instead the word "refine".
You can say there are no Ni signals, therefore IMO there's not enough there for an NiFe conclusion.
That's literally exactly what I did. Can we cut the drama and get to the facts please?
[You] still tell no one anything about what you actually think Te is visavis Ti and how logic works in Te
So what then have I been doing throughout the course of this entire thread? Talking about the difference between grapes and apples?
simplifying the claims of others into simple rebuttable principles, is very much a Te thing too. It's part of their logistical/practical approach.
You say you are a verified Te user, correct? If this thought process is so characteristic of Te, why haven't we seen you do it yourself throughout this entire debate? Let's have some examples of a verified Ti user doing it in this debate:
"So now you're refining your argument to say that the distinction is based on carefulness. So Ti users are careful and meticulous, and Te users are sloppy and lazy?"
"First of all, deep does not equal good, and shallow does not equal bad."
"So what you're saying is that a key aspect of Te is the ability to compare an opponent's statements. If that's the case, why isn't a key aspect of Ti the ability to contrast an opponent's statements?"
"You seem to be identifying a higher rate of cognitive speed with a higher rate of extroversion. If that's the case, why aren't all the introverted people on the short bus?"
"OK, so what you're basically saying is that Te users are fast and Ti users are slow."
"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."
So you can say that it's very much a Te thing to do, but I just showed you 6 perfect examples of a verified Ti user doing it in this short thread alone. (And by verified, I mean I got an official typing by Auburn.) So it can't possibly be exclusive to Te users.
Now for the contrast, let's look for the same process in your debate style, Authenticity, you being a verified Te user.
(0 results)
So I just showed you that not only does this trait lack exclusivity with Te users, but also that it is much stronger in a Ti user than in a Te user.
Now you can say that there are variations from person to person and that your Te just might not be as strong as my Ti, but we both have to agree that my debate style is eerily similar to Shapiro's. And your debate style just plain isn't.
At this point, you can still say that I am simply acting and am playing a part, but then you would be relying on ideas that have no basis in any evidence of any kind.
If you want to consider the facts and the facts only, you must realize that there is a very strong correlation between the debate style of a verified Ti user, myself, and the debate style of Ben Shapiro, and that there is no such correlation existing between Mr. Shapiro and Aqua , a verified Te user.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
I would never explain those phenomena in those terms because, to be honest, they're kinda foreign to me (ie looking for a little kingdom for myself to rule over just isn't how I think/see things). But to Shapiro, it seems to be basic enough for him to think this motive is how we all are.
No one thinks of themselves as looking for a little kingdom to rule over (unless your name is Hans), but this mindset is extremely clear in the dynamics of politics in the past century. People are drawn to power. Without the limitless access to power that media gives us, it is distant, unattainable, and irrelevant to anything in our daily lives. But because we have so access to said power through digital media, we are much more inclined to focus on it and lust for it. We unconsciously begin to seek to have it for ourselves like little peasants trying to become kings.
You can't lust after what you can't see.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
Ok I realize that I should have given some background and explain where I'm coming from.
In the thread βTi profileβ ( cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/1858/ti-profile ), I found that chuck's video βThis is Introverted Thinkingβ was a good illustration of how Ti is functionning. In this video, chuck interpretes Ben Shapiro's reactions to the interviewer's questions as a difficulty to debate when using clear concrete facts. I related to this a lot, and it gave me an understanding of how Ti is working.
But Ben Shapiro has been typed TeNi, which would mean that my understanding is incorrect. So I'm trying to fix this now, I need to clarify where my impression of relating to this video is coming from. And first step for me is to clarify if Ben Shapiro could be a Ti-user or not.
Quoting the article βTi: Metabolism, Vultology, Behaviorism, Mythologyβ cognitivetype.com/2017/11/11/ti-metabolism-vultology-behaviorism-mythology/ , I guess that's what i am trying to do: βShould there ever be a mismatch between the reality outside of them and the kaleidoscopeβs prediction, the Ti user hurries to try to reformulate and refine their instrument (to fix the Rubikβs cube), but an instrument they must use.β
You don't have one Ni signal in your entire list. Not one. And you expect to convince people he might be an Ni dom?
I do not question that Ben Shapiro is a Ni-user, so I left this point out. I'm focusing more on trying to differentiate the signals Te/Fi vs Ti/Fe. I'd like to know the Truth about him, and I want to make it clear for myself. I don't want to convince people, but I hope someone could convince me about his type
chuck Cool the jets. becks just proposed an idea. If you look through the signals she listed, it's clearly incomplete (there's mention of both Fi and Fe signals, unspecified P and Pi); clearly she's just engaging in dialogue, sharing signals to see if others see similar stuff - not trying to convince people.
Wow, good work there, you're really doing some homework. chuck , I think becks was making a case for Shapiro to be P/Pi lead, and landing on N>S (without going much into N/S details), is that right? I still think Shapiro is TeNi, but I haven't looked at it nearly as closely as Becks.
Thanks both Also Kahawa you said you're still considering chuck could be Te-user. I find some similarities between Ben Shapiro and chuck actually, especially the constant upper lip tension. That's also a reason why I think Ben Shapiro could still be a Ti-user, but just having this tension due to a feeling of contempt.
becks If you look at the smile at 6:41, what you'll see first are cheeks swelling around the nose without the smile getting wider until about a second later (still with the same vertical pull). This is also seen in the other Fe smile samples, so I think he's still Te/Fi.
becks , Kahawa , I see soooooooooooooo much Te!! All those head shakes/juts, that non-stop matter-of-fact articulation (talk about direct, lol) I see no Fe warmth in him whatsoever. I actually think Dave Rubin, the guy interviewing Ben in that vid is displaying Fe articulation (FeSi, I think) but not Ben. To me, Shapiro is the quintessential Te lead.
Linus Yeah, looking at it again, I also see these swelling cheeks... And Aqua it's true that he is doing these head shakes nearly constantly. I agree it looks more Te/Fi. But I find his smile difficult to interpret in general, also looking at Google images under βBen Shapiro smileβ, it's not clear. I cannot find clear split cheeks, or taut square, or asymmetries in him while smiling.
Um, no? This is just plain wrong. Putting observational accuracy aside, if you and I are arguing about whether or not grapes taste like mangoes, and you start out arguing that they are alike because of their texture, but then halfway through you begin to argue that they are similar because of their flavor, if I comment on how you have shifted the argument from a texture based argument to a flavor based argument, I'm somehow being "gross" and aggressive?
And let's keep in mind that I didn't even use the word "shift", but instead the word "refine".
Except it never happened, no argument was changed, so yes it is gross and aggressive and then worse (hypocritical) when you later list the response to it as an example of "aggressive".
Now you're trying to turn the discussion personal, trying to make it about me so I go on the defensive but nope! I'm not biting. Your examples are all subjectively chosen. You have done nothing remotely like Shapiro is doing, notice Shapiro is direct and clear in his language. He does not need to perpetually rely on imagery like flashlights and beams and idiosyncratic metaphors to explain what he means.
βIf every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness.β
He does not need to perpetually rely on imagery like flashlights and beams and idiosyncratic metaphors to explain what he means.
Yes, that is because I am an Ni dom and he is likely a Ti dom (or possibly Ti aux).
Do I really need to put quotes from Shapiro and I side by side to show how they are remarkably similar?
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
When you accuse someone of changing their argument midway and shifting goal-posts, you are accusing them of dishonesty. Which is gross (and aggressive).
it is gross and aggressive and then worse (hypocritical) when you later list the response to it as an example of "aggressive".
So which is it? Am I gross and aggressive for listing a quote from you as an example of aggression, or am I gross and aggressive for accusing you of shifting your argument?
I'm confused.
You can keep focusing on how I hurt your feelings, or you can focus on the facts.
"We all ride upon the waves of life, towards the expanse of death, through the nature of beauty. So ride, ride hard, ride towards death with a victory unconquerable. Lash out away from life as does the wind in a sail. Ride on, ride on, into the ceasing of the darkness! Ride into the shelter, seek justice in the beauty, seek power in the life."
Also Kahawa you said you're still considering chuck could be Te-user. I find some similarities between Ben Shapiro and chuck actually, especially the constant upper lip tension. That's also a reason why I think Ben Shapiro could still be a Ti-user, but just having this tension due to a feeling of contempt.
I think upper lip tension is supposed to be a Fi/Te signal if I'm not mistaken, not Ti.
Chuck, so as I said earlier, I understand your interpretation now, and appreciate the explanation. The fundamental problem I have with your interpretation, however, is that:
It relies on a competence based metric.
It measures by volume.
To elaborate:
There seems to be an assumption in your metaphors that "to deal" or contend with Te, Ti has to confine it into a cup shape/etc. This frames everything in terms of a sort of challenge or battle... where certain quantities of a thing (T) are needed in certain concentrations.
You use some measure (light/water) that is volumetric, again suggesting quantity. "More of" a certain thing is supposed to produced certain results. It's almost as if you have a generalized concept "logic" which you can focalize or disperse. Actually, that is exactly what you say, heh.
To me, Ti isn't the same sort of thing (logic) that Te uses but "more of it in one place". It's about method, more than quantity, volume or intensity. So how I see it, it's not about "more" or "less" of a thing... but different approaches to information metabolism. Ti is a different sort of epistemology, if you will. It's like writing code in PHP or Javascript. Both might be able to pull up a similar looking wepage, but via different code.
// Problems with the volumetric approach
Now I actually think your definition is generally fair, but it has problems. How do you measure "more of" a logic of a thing? Like, in a practical scenario, how do we define greater depth of logic/argument? Even if not intended, the result of this definition is that "the one with the most sense/points, has more LOGIC in there." Even with the water metaphor, I still see the same result occurring where essentially, given all other variables are equal (IQ/etc) Ti trumps Te in any narrow domain because Ti has more volume (Logic) behind it. Maybe I'm not seeing how this could possibly be separated from an assumption of competence... please let me know if I'm misrepresenting something here.
But if the above is generally right, I'd prefer even more rudimentary definitions I've seen online that define Te vs Ti as inductive vs deductive logic (for example). Something of that nature emphasizes methodology, rather than "degree" of a thing.. which, as previously stated, amounts to the Ti concept being skewed towards being the more sensible one.
Also Kahawa you said you're still considering chuck could be Te-user. I find some similarities between Ben Shapiro and chuck actually, especially the constant upper lip tension. That's also a reason why I think Ben Shapiro could still be a Ti-user, but just having this tension due to a feeling of contempt.
I think upper lip tension is supposed to be a Fi/Te signal if I'm not mistaken, not Ti.
Indeed upper lip tension is an indicator of Fi/Te, but it can also happen in a Fe/Ti user when it is related to a feeling of contempt or disgust. Cannot find anymore where Auburn said it, but here is a thread on this topic: cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/1470/ekman-ct-emotions?page=1 (we need to read Ekman!)
Linus Thanks again for your comment about the bulging cheeks! I've been looking at it again and checked again the video that Auburn did about chuck explaining Fe/Fi difference in muscle tension, and now I'm quite sure Ben Shapiro is a Te-user
So AuburnAlerith please never mind, and sorry for my confusion! I don't think it's needed to explain his vultology, everybody except me was quite clear that he is a Te-user.
Now I will need to find out why I related so much to this feeling of difficulty to deal with concrete facts