Ben Shapiro, Te-leads & Ti Discussion Mar 4, 2018 20:11:30 GMT -5 by chuck
Post by chuck on Mar 4, 2018 20:11:30 GMT -5
OK, so to address your two main points:
1. I wouldn't say it focuses on a competence based metric. How do we define greater depth of logic? In other words, how do we tell how deep or wide the cup of water is? I think that's what you're asking. You say the necessary answer is that you determine it by counting up points. But if IQ is equal, the points would be equal.
given all other variables are equal (IQ/etc) Ti trumps Te in any narrow domain because Ti has more volume (Logic) behind it.
Right! But also, given all other variables are equal, Te trumps Ti in any wide domain because Te has more volume behind it.
So we still have equilibrium.
The points come out equal for both Ti and Te because if IQ is constant, they both have an equal opportunity to win points. If the argument stays wide and shallow, the Te user wins; if the argument stays narrow and deep, the Ti user wins.
Maybe I'm not seeing how this could possibly be separated from an assumption of competence
Did that solve the problem?
Can you tell the difference between a .png image and a .jpeg image? Of course not.
Can you tell the difference between a Ti dom and a Te dom? Of course you can.
The purpose of code is to achieve an objective. The code itself does not have an objective. A .png will always look more or less identical to a .jpeg despite using different code because the code all works towards create the exact same image.
But the purpose of Ti/Te is not only to achieve an objective, but also to identify the objective. This is why computer code can never produce true AI.
So we can tell a Ti user apart from a Te user because they are achieving different objectives - not because they are using different code.
You can't say that Ti produces this vultology signal and Te produces that vultology signal due to using different coding languages or methods because if the objective is the same, Ti code would work towards achieving the same objective as Te code and would therefore appear identical, like the .png compared to the .jpeg. So you have to look instead to the objectives they are working to achieve, which is a concept inherently foreign to the idea of coding, wiring, programming, languages, etc. The only solution is to say that the objectives are different.
And that is much more in line with what I am arguing. The objective of Te is to apply logic in a wide, shallow, extroverted fashion, and the objective of Ti is to apply logic in a narrow, deep fashion.
So in short, I just don't see how a variance in coding language can result in such dissimilar results.