Ben Shapiro, Te-leads & Ti Discussion

Hmmm indeed....

No, his trademark is in showing how others' conclusions don't follow from their shared premises. Sarah says she's a man, and Ben says "x+y is a man, you don't have x+y, therefore you're not a man." Sarah insists she's a man because she identifies as a man. Ben basically says, "What you identify with can't change what you are, and what you are is someone with xx chromosomes."

I don't think you're realising what I mean by challenging premises. Challenging premises isn't about using those premises to form conclusions, good or bad; it's about not accepting those premises in the first place, at all. I'll demonstrate below.


Like this: "What is 'oppression'? Is it taxes that you don't like? How many of the people need to feel oppressed for it to be tyranny? 25%? 51%? Just 1? If you don't know what a responsible person is, why are you saying that only responsible people should own guns? What psychologists will do the screening? Freudian? Jungian?" and here's the Ti kicker, "How can we rely on a system where a potentially tyrannical government is the one who is authorizing psychological screening to determine who gets a gun in order to protect themselves from that potentially tyrannical government?" I like that one.

Shapiro isn't concerned with these things, he just wants to land on a shared premise and move on. And if he lands on something, Ti will just reduce it again.


Sorry, I can't see how a Ti thinker would be so closed and matter of fact on issues like that, but we can agree to disagree there. The fact that you so quickly wanted to define this and move on kinda shows that you're using extroverted thinking.



Again, Chuck, you're mistaking challenging the premises with using the premises as they are. Can you see the difference?



No, they don't, because we haven't defined what it means to be a good person, or 'have access'.


Yes, I agree. Your style is extremely similar to Shapiro's, IMO. But I don't think you're using Ti either. Maybe instead of discussing T, you could give us examples of how Fe you are? Do you have videos of yourself genuinely smiling or laughing (not giving Fe/Fi demonstrations)?

Kahawa - It turns out Chuck and i have fundamentally different definitions of Ti & Te.
So while I'm positive he's NiFe, how my readings coincide with his is more due to happenstance.

It's important to make that distinction, else we're trying to reconcile two views from opposite premises. Vultology does not depend on ability or debate styles - which can be learned and honed with time. So the similarity or dissimilarity in Ben and Chuck's debate style (while being suggestive of some things) is not definitive criteria for anything... in CT.

In CT, a Ti user can argue in a 'broad' span by turning their attention to multiple objects and a Te user can argue effectively on a narrow span just as well. Type, in CT, is something far more encompassing in scope than how you execute your rationality in a debate; having its roots in genetics -> then metabolism/methodology -> then energetics -> and the life narrative that emerges from that intrinsic nature.

Yes, I revisited his vultology again when this was brought up, just to make sure, and sure enough he still reads as TeNi quite clearly.

---

I don't mean to get too much deeper into this, but just to finish my thought above:
In CT, you are still a Ti user no matter how much you suck at debating or delineating your arguments. In CT, you are still a Te user no matter how poorly you suck at logistics.
Type is who you are and who you were born as, not who you become or what talents you do or don't develop.

Type =/= Ability

Granted, ability and type are statistically interlinked, but they're not a 1:1 relationship. That is to say, statistically, TeNi might indeed make more money per year than a TiNe, but the amount of money made per year is not the criteria for TeNi, nor would poverty disquality a person from being a TeNi. Likewise, skewed rationality does not disqualify a person from being Ti.

Debate

Most people suck at debate. Most people suck at logic, for that matter. Most people have holes in their arguments. If we assume even some level of equality of representation in the demographics between Te and Ti, then it's quite clear that many Ti users fail to be keen and articulate... because only a very narrow percent of people are effective logical orators.

A person like Ben Shapiro is 1/100 or more.
If that's what it took to be qualified as a Ti user then very few people would be Ti users.

Ti Argument Holes

If we wish to discuss the typical behavior of Ti as per CT (insofar as typical behavior is emergent from the function, and not definitively descriptive of it), we actually see quite an opposite result, with Ti having a lot of holes and places of improvement in its articulation. The holes that a Ti user has are often due to inarticulated premises; un-crystallized internal objections. For example, there's this little inner "twitch" that a Ji user will feel when an argument is askew. But the capacity to give that sense impression articulation takes collaboration with Je. Thus, Ji types are notoriously private and often 'unavailable' - in the sense that their rationality is not in open display. It is a private (=introverted) rationality (=judgment). If they have some capacity to articulate their premises, it's usually only a fraction of the entire argument that exists in their Ji.

The behavior Ben exhibits is not to be granted to Ji, or to Ti or to Te... or any such thing.
There are plenty of sloppy Te users, Ti users... etc. He's a calculated orator who has thought about and studied the material he's discussing. And if one relates to him and his stances, one relates to Logos in general, as well as righteous Judgment and clarity.

Thanks Kahawa. You're exacty right in your reading/interpretation of my post.

Nope. Saying one thing is not the other does not necessitate an opposite. 

I think we both agree that Ti is essentially the opposite of Te.

When you differentiate Te from Ti by talking about how successful Te users are, you are saying that Ti users are less successful - that's implied by using said factor as differentiation.

That being said, I totally agree with your interpretation of Aqua 's post. But what you don't seem to understand is the MASSIVE implication of where that idea leads in the long run. When you say that what sets Te apart from Ti users is that they are successful, you DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT TI USERS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL.

You can add all these words to what the post said to candy coat it, but at the end of the day, what really matters is the core essence of what she said. And the core essence of what she said has a MASSIVE problem.

Ti users are equally successful as Te users.