[stock]

Jung called out four ways to judge the world around us:

Te and Ti-both using logical principals in some way.
Fi and Fe-relying upon values imparted either externally or internally.

Assuming all four judging functions are analytical tools suited to certain types of problems humans encounter, are "values" derived from Fe/Fi, equally as valid as logical Te/Ti principles in a debate if the topic of the debate is one that is heavily contaminated with Fe/Fi values?

(I have no real opinion..I am much interested in how others view this question
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[void]

Any debate requires participants to share an epistemic method that is universal, in the sense that the results obtained are indisputable and wholly independent of the observer. Logic - used in the more general sense, not merely the mathematical - is the only method that satisfies that requirement. Feelings are not universal.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Assuming all four judging functions are analytical tools suited to certain types of problems humans encounter, are "values" derived from Fe/Fi, equally as valid as logical Te/Ti principles in a debate if the topic of the debate is one that is heavily contaminated with Fe/Fi values?

It seems consensus is growing that much as we'd like to believe we can be logical, emotions are deeply entwined with reasoning (I'm thinking of Damasio's book Descartes' Error, for instance). That is, at least when it comes to arguments that lead to decisionmaking or otherwise tangible outcomes, values and feelings direct, as evidenced by the fact that people with damage to emotion-processing areas of the brain are not functional. In that view, separating feeling from logic is a fundamental error.

Of course, it's sometimes useful to front T while backgrounding F, or vice versa. How sad you feel when looking at ∑ will probably not expedite your computation of a sum. In many cases, though, foregrounding at least some of the emotional content of a debate facilitates its resolution.

[Tocsin]

Two people arguing using logic can take each others arguments apart. They can agree on which premises are true, and which are not. They can analyze and figure out whcih parts of their arguments are valid, or invalid. If they are both honest, and reasonable, the can reach a mutual understanding of the issue - or at least resolve where the differences that they can't (or won't) agree upon are.

If two people arguing from their feelings, chances are they are just going to end up in a shouting match. Feelings are not correct or incorrect, they just are. They may be based on misinformation, but the argument to consider whether or not the information the feelings are a reaction to would neccessarily be a logical one.

[stock]

	Originally Posted by void To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Any debate requires participants to share an epistemic method that is universal, in the sense that the results obtained are indisputable and wholly independent of the observer. Logic - used in the more general sense, not merely the mathematical - is the only method that satisfies that requirement. Feelings are not universal.

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Two people arguing using logic can take each others arguments apart. They can agree on which premises are true, and which are not. They can analyze and figure out whcih parts of their arguments are valid, or invalid. If they are both honest, and reasonable, the can reach a mutual understanding of the issue - or at least resolve where the differences that they can't (or won't) agree upon are. If two people arguing from their feelings, chances are they are just going to end up in a shouting match. Feelings are not correct or incorrect, they just are. They may be based on misinformation, but the argument to consider whether or not the information the feelings are a reaction to would neccessarily be a logical one.

So-just to make sure we are using the same terms-I note both of you refer to "feelings" not "values". I want to make sure I understand you both correctly and that you both actually meant "values" in the jungian sense, not feelings/emotions in a psychological sense.

If we are discussing "values", it seems that Fe values, in a given population, approach something close to universality. Thus in a debate between two Fe dom/auxs I could see them having a discussion based in values which they could do everything in bold in Tocsin's post-all based upon shared Fe accepted social values-a shared Fe reality of sorts?

In Fi users, ENFPs as an example I know well...you will see a form of Fi debate and discussion. We externalize the Fi value, listen to the others' externalization and their Fi value. It is a mirror-discuss-mirror-calibrate model in which the final path of action is Te based-thus objective measurable....but based upon a debating of Fi values-potentially a compromise, as in this case the values are unique to each individual.

[void]

This might have a lot to do with my atypical childhood, but I view "values" as axiomatic elements of one's psyche that are sometimes informed by personal intuition of "goodness" (sweet FSM, I hate that term), but are mostly imprints of the surrounding society. To the extent that socially force-fed values are not jettisoned by the participants, there certainly are universal values among a sufficiently culturally homogeneous group. Often however, there exist certain values that are so despised by the larger group that any hint of exposure during discussion is met with (contrived) indignation, for no other reason than it offends the sensibilities of the group (rather, they've been trained to act offended). For this reason, even guaranteed anonymity doesn't facilitate unrestricted discussion.

It also doesn't occur to most participants to reevaluate their values in response to presented evidence, or consider the fact that their values don't effect the change they require - quite the opposite in many cases. Values are not inherently sacrosanct but are often treated as such in discussions that shy away from challenging their utility. And I'm not entirely sure that the final path of action is Te-based.

[Janus]

While I would not say that debates must necessarily be logical in order to exist, I would say that a debate without logic would feel like a waste of my time.

[stock]

Originally Posted by void To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Often however, there exist certain values that are so despised by the larger group that any hint of exposure during discussion is met with (contrived) indignation, for no other reason than it offends the sensibilities of the group (rather, they've been trained to act offended). For this reason, even guaranteed anonymity doesn't facilitate unrestricted discussion. It also doesn't occur to most participants to reevaluate their values in response to presented evidence, or consider the fact that their values don't effect the change they require - quite the opposite in many cases. Values are not inherently sacrosanct but are often treated as such in discussions that shy away from challenging their utility. And I'm not entirely sure that the final path of action is Te-based.

My apologies regarding the assertion of Te-based. Ti fail on my part, you are correct.

With respect to offending the sensibilities of the group in a value based discussion, I suspect the indignation is very real, not contrived. Strong values are felt as a visceral response, at least in the Fi version. Fe as well, from what I have been told. It takes more time to modify them, than logical principles as they are somewhat visceral and hard coded. The formation of values is of much relevance, and an excellent point, but is a topic onto itself, given uncertainty and complexity.

If a strong logical assertion is inserted into a discussion based upon values, indignation will be felt as you mention above.

However if a strong value assertion was inserted into a purely logical discussion, I would expect a sense of strong indignation/frustration to also be felt on the part of those using logical principles?

This seems frustration due to communication on some level...
---------- Post added 09-21-2010 at 01:37 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Janus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While I would not say that debates must necessarily be logical in order to exist, I would say that a debate without logic would feel like a waste of my time.

Janus, if I may refer to your comment (Please correct me if I interpret out of context), debate without logic would waste your time....as logic is your primary mode of judging the world?

I sense a communication gap that is very frustrating to cross between a values based approach and a logical approach in a discussion.

[void]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However if a strong value assertion was inserted into a purely logical discussion, I would expect a sense of strong indignation/frustration to also be felt on the part of those using logical principles?

In such cases, I'm sure at least a few participants feel annoyed and frustrated, as it is yet another flawed premise to pick apart. I used to feel this way in discussions. Getting people to reexamine their values takes time, so it can get pretty tiresome to do this with each new participant. I think it significantly reduces the signal/noise ratio. To refute elaborate arguments on the basis of a conflict with personal values is devoid of content. It doesn't tell us that the argument is flawed for reasons X, Y and Z. It just tells us that it is incompatible with somebody's values. A good argument should never be ignored on that basis, as it amounts to a petulant, pouting "well I don't like it".

[titi monkey]

I think in practical matters, i.e., dealing with people, value judgements are essential. When logic ends in paradox or dilemma, or it's conclusion is perfectly sound but wholly inappropriate, judgements must be made. This is reflected in concepts like "justice tempered with mercy", or "extenuating circumstances". How this factors in to a debate I don't know.

[KillJohnConnor]

noticing repeated patterns, stock?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Is there a particular topic or topics you had in mind?

I guess the first one i thought of was cannibalism of the dead - obviously a value judgment against the practice both internally and externally, but not for good logical reason (assuming the person died of natural causes and was otherwise healthy). People meat contains the vast majority of nutrients living humans would need and there are plenty of starving people in the world, but it's accepted only in extenuating circumstances. There's no amount of logic you could preach to people to change their minds about it on a wider scale, and I wouldn't blame them for not doing so. I don't think I could do it.

[stock]

	Originally Posted by KillJohnConnor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	noticing repeated patterns, stock? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Is there a particular topic or topics you had in mind?

LOL ^^ this is actually an INTJ pattern that I thought might eventually emerge. You guys like to solve questions in a set context as the answers may vary depending upon the specific problem (although I might have that explanation a bit jumbled
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

But yeah, patterns are always everywhere.

I this case I am sort of seeing an interesting theme in how INTJs debate on the board, how values become combined with logic, but the values are actually pretty Fi specific, thus each INTJ will bring in a very specific value they hold dear, and be amazingly fierce in defense of that value.

INTJs also seem to encode logic as an Fi value. ie The BEST way to approach any given problem is to be as logical as possible, as the result will be best. I recognize this as I do this myself. I will quell my own innate values, in order to try and be very logical as, via being trained as a scientist, logic is typically the correct solution. In the corporate world, the most rational answer typically is the best for my customers and my company-Te used in the service of Fi.

But I made that assumption long ago, thus this is a way to revisit in jungian terms and explore what exactly the dynamics are and what I may be giving up by doing so.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[JeffersonFawkes]

Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jung called out four ways to judge the world around us: Te and Ti-both using logical principals in some way. Fi and Fe-relying upon values imparted either externally or internally. Assuming all four judging functions are analytical tools suited to certain types of problems humans encounter, are "values" derived from Fe/Fi, equally as valid as logical Te/Ti principles in a debate if the topic of the debate is one that is heavily contaminated with Fe/Fi values? (I have no real opinion..I am much interested in how others view this question To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

Logic means that statements are testable, those who purposely try to undermine logic are often but not always manipulators. A logical debate makes it easy to identify who has done their research, and who has really thought out their issue. People can be convinced with other means, but testable on topic logic should be included with these appeals to emotion and appeals to ethics/authority. Logos, pathos, ethos.

[True Rune]

In essence, logic makes debates much simpler.

[lifesight]

most debates i saw with different types, i saw blood being shed =P
anyway in order to have a healthy debate there should be good communication, and good communication should be based on common ground, often feelings are subjective, and logic kind of bring both opinions together, thus in my opinion the debate would be lost without it.

[Judoka]

Not all debates have to be logical because not everything there is to debate for is.

[freeeekyyy]

Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jung called out four ways to judge the world around us: Te and Ti-both using logical principals in some way. Fi and Fe-relying upon values imparted either externally or internally. Assuming all four judging functions are analytical tools suited to certain types of problems humans encounter, are "values" derived from Fe/Fi, equally as valid as logical Te/Ti principles in a debate if the topic of the debate is one that is heavily contaminated with Fe/Fi values? (I have no real opinion..I am much interested in how others view this question To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

It would seem so. Te can't be used to debate what is right or wrong. It's not just that it gets wrongly used, it does not apply. It is only concerned with what can be proven. By definition, you cannot prove that which is subjective.

[Dru]

if you impart emotion into a debate, it more resembles an argument than anything. so, it makes sense that debates are logically and objectively structured - or try to be.

[ischuldt]

If the debate isn't logical, then I can't imagine there being a true right or wrong position. Therefore nobody could actually win the debate. Therefore the debate would seem relatively pointless.

[Condo]

It has to be logical surely?

If not, isn't it just an emotional tirade from either side without anything to indicate a difference in opinion other than abuse?

[Lord Shadowbane]

Yes. You need common ground and to build off that. Even if it uses opinions and emotions, it needs to be logical on some grounds for it to get anywhere.

[Danisty]

	Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However if a strong value assertion was inserted into a purely logical discussion, I would expect a sense of strong indignation/frustration to also be felt on the part of those using logical principles?

I don't think it even has to be a strong value assertion. It can be something as simple as having made an observation. I find on this forum that observations aren't really worth much and are thrown out without much thought based only on the fact that an observation is personal. I find it nearly impossible to participate in any controversial threads on this site.

Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

INTJs also seem to encode logic as an Fi value. ie The BEST way to approach any given problem is to be as logical as possible, as the result will be best. I recognize this as I do this myself. I will quell my own innate values, in order to try and be very logical as, via being trained as a scientist, logic is typically the correct solution. In the corporate world, the most rational answer typically is the best for my customers and my company-Te used in the service of Fi.

I don't think it's the best way to solve all problems. I think logic is extremely important and should factor into all decisions but it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't always be) the only approach.

	Originally Posted by Judoka To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not all debates have to be logical because not everything there is to debate for is.

I agree.

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the debate isn't logical, then I can't imagine there being a true right or wrong position. Therefore nobody could actually win the debate. Therefore the debate would seem relatively pointless.

This may be where I'm running into some issues. I would rather enjoy the process of a debate and learn things from others than win. I don't even feel there has to be a true right or wrong position. A lot of debate topics just don't have a right and wrong answer. On forums, the position that wins is mostly the position that has the most people arguing for it. It's not that it is necessarily the right answer. It's often a case of the members with the other position getting the picture that there's no real point in continuing and going off and finding other things to do.

Logic has it's place, but it's just not always practical. I get that it's a minority opinion to have here, but oh well. I don't really feel that it's anti-INTJ to use my intuition about things and go with what works even if that means that everything in the whole world isn't logical. In fact, I find it puzzling how obsessed you guys are with data as that feels very sensing to me to just trust what is written.

[ZincLysine]

I actually hate debating. I listen to people's opinions, but often it seems people will not respect your views back. Once both of you have made your case, you're really free to choose your viewpoint, take what you like and leave the rest. But people just argue.

So I intentionally say stupid things to annoy them. Hence there is no logic when I debate. I just frustrate them for my own amusement. If I have to listen to crap, I should at least enjoy myself.

So I would say yes. Because there's an underlying logic to my lack of logic.

[John F Kennedy]

As Doctor Phil would say, "do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?" Sometimes logic just doesn't cut it for practical solutions. Especially if you love someone of a different point of view.

[elizabeth lover]

nothing has to be logical, but i would avoid at all costs a debate with an F. you just don't know what could set that F off.